We live in a world of infinite “-isms.” Some are widely familiar – capitalism, communism, nationalism, Catholicism – while others are poorly understood. I always hesitate to categorize veganism among such systems of belief, because it is neither a religion nor an economic or political ideology. It is grounded in fact and does not seek to serve the interests of its proponents. It’s really less complicated than people seem to think.
Despite its simplicity, many people have flawed perceptions of veganism. Either they view vegans as eccentric, self-righteous and elitist, or they admire them for their “extreme willpower” and level of self control that they personally “could never attain.”
Holy shit, do we have some clarifying to do.
Veganism: What it isn’t
1. Veganism is not a religion. Period. There’s nothing metaphysical or theological about it. It is grounded in fact and rejects the hierarchical structure of most religions. We’re not basing anything on blind faith. However, don’t take this to mean that veganism is incompatible with religion; there are many Christian vegans, Muslim vegans, Jewish vegans and Buddhist vegans in the world. Veganism and religion are independent issues.
2. Animal rights advocacy is not about propaganda or misrepresentation of the facts. We are not going for sensationalism here – the goal is to eliminate ignorance, not perpetuate it. Remember, animal advocates have nothing to gain from your decision to go vegan, but animal agriculture has everything to lose. Who is more likely to obscure the truth?
3. Veganism is definitely not about willpower or self deprivation. The idea that it takes so much self control to avoid eating animal products is completely unfounded. Veganism is anything but ascetic – once you know what foods are out there, being vegan is the easiest thing in the world. Every possible food you can imagine can be made vegan and taste just as delicious (if not better!) than the original.
4. Here’s a biggie: Pro-animal rights people are not anti-human. There’s this widespread notion that people who support animal rights are against human rights. This is ridiculous. First of all, remember that humans are animals too. But more importantly, the wellbeing of humans and the wellbeing of nonhumans are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, quite the opposite is true. Fostering an attitude of nonviolence towards animals is necessary if we are ever to end violence against humans. Consider the wise words of philosopher Gary Francione: “As long as we tolerate violence of any sort, there will be violence of every sort.”
Veganism: What it is
1. Veganism is the ultimate push to end discrimination. The animal rights movement (not to be confused with the animal welfare movement embodied by groups like PETA and Humane Society of the United States) is a grassroots effort not unlike the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s. The goal is to put an end to prejudice and bigotry based on physical differences.
In the ’60s, protestors sought equality among races. Vegans embrace this notion and take it a step further – we encourage people to see the similarities rather than the differences not only between races but also between species. There are more similarities between humans and nonhumans than there are differences – all you have to do is start looking objectively.
2. Veganism calls for dissemination of the truth and an end to ignorance. Animal agricultural industries pay a lot of money to hide the gory goings-on inside the walls of slaughterhouses and factory farms. But how can consumers be expected to make conscientious choices if they aren’t educated? This is where the efforts of animal advocates come in – they inform people about animal agriculture and the exploitative practices involved in the production of meat, eggs and dairy. (Granted, some people may prefer to remain ignorant about these things – but when one person’s ignorance results in the torture and death of another being, denial is no longer an option.)
3. In addition to disseminating the facts, veganism encourages people to question the societal norms we’ve been brought up with. Why is it socially acceptable to kill and eat a chicken or a pig but not a dog? It’s the same kind of arbitrary distinction that whites used for centuries to rationalize the enslavement of blacks and other racial minorities. This all goes back to ending discrimination. We cannot justify our arbitrary categorization of sentient beings for the sake of convenience or pleasure.
Veganism is about deconstructing popular worldviews that involve discrimination and subjugation and extending compassion to all living creatures, regardless of their genetic similarity to humans. Sentience is similarity enough.
Now, having said all this, I’ll be the first to admit that there are some vegans out there who make poor ambassadors for the cause. These are the people who emit a “Woe is me, my lifestyle is so difficult” pretension and that all-too-familiar air of moral superiority. These also tend to be the preachy, self-righteous vegans who are clearly overcompensating for some deep-seated self-esteem issues. Pay them no mind. That is not what veganism is. I just hope these people realize they are doing more harm than good for the animals they claim to represent. In fact, I encourage you to tell them so.
Great piece! Thank you for presenting such a lucid clarification of what veganism is and isn’t, and for pointing out that animal rights advocacy should not be lumped in with the sensationalist stuff spewed by groups like PETA. More vegans need to be upfront about their advocacy, I think, to destroy misrepresentations of veganism with which the media is saturated these days. Unfortunately, many ordinary vegans don’t feel comfortable discussing veganism publicly because merely talking about veganism and animal rights is often branded “preachy” and suggesting that the exploitation of non-human animals is wrong leads to accusations of being “self-righteous”. It’s good to throw the facts out there in a straightforward and honest manner and to remove the taboo against discussing speciesism publicly.
Many, many thanks to you for setting things straight. So much that you have written has been on the tip of my tongue and on the edge of my thoughts for a long while. You’ve articulated everything about “veganism” so eloquently. Much appreciated!
re·li·gion
/rɪˈlɪdʒən/ Show Spelled[ri-lij-uhn] Show IPA
–noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3.
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4.
the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5.
the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6.
something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
We’ll let the people decide.
“It is grounded in fact” and “We’re not basing anything on blind faith” are what I’m still laughing about.
Sarah, just a few things/questions I have about this topic:
1. I think it’s important to point out that nobody acts in ways that are not what they perceive to be in their self interest, even vegans.
2. How would ending violence toward animals end violence toward humans? The reasons humans commit violence against animals are completely different than the reasons humans commit violence against each other (with the exception of cannibals).
3. Why should someone base their dietary decisions on something other than their dietary needs? What I mean by this is, why should a consumer consider a “compassionate” food supply first rather than the most healthy, convenient one?
4. Why do humans need to be the only ones to subscribe to this diet? Why do we not start feeding animals in zoos vegan diets and start formulating ways to force the animal kingdom to adopt these policies as well? (I know that would only be possible in certain cases: some animals are only carnivorous).
5. Isn’t it possible that societal norms are based not in arbitrary distinction, but in other causes? For example, perhaps one of the reasons we don’t eat dogs is because we have co-evolved together and share a kind of kinship between species which makes dogs more useful to humans as pets than as food. To relate this to the example of racial discrimination you used: racial discrimination existed (and still exists) because one group benefitted from it, i.e. it was not arbitrary in anyway.
6. Why is the line drawn at sentience? What is the rationale behind drawing the line there and not somewhere else? Is it just because it is a clearer line to discern?
a few points to david:
1) i would disagree, and say that people engage in self-destructive behavior more or less constantly, but also i would say that believing something is in your best interest does not mean that it is, nor that it is fair to others.
2) i think that was a philosophical argument, based on non violence in general. whatevs.
3) there are lots of things that would be more convenient for me that i don’t do because they are wrong. i obey traffic laws. i wait in line, and pay for my groceries. i pay taxes. that’s just being fair. veganism is about treating animals fairly.
4) zoos = not vegan. humans should not be uckin’ up the wildlife.
5) i agree with you to a point, but you contradicted yourself. assuming you believe racial discrimination to be wrong, based on your logic, non-human discrimination would also be wrong.
6) what are your suggestions for other lines? sentience seems a fair place to draw it.
and here’s the funny thing: i’m not vegan. i buy beef and eggs from small farms that raise and “harvest” their animals humanely. i used to be vegan, but having celiac disease and mild allergic reactions to soy and most legumes made it difficult to stick.
I personally don’t care what the definition of vegan vs vegetarian is. Everyone is free, so far anyway, to do as they please. You can eat what you want, or not eat what you want. Where I draw the line is the Animal Rights extremists, such as PETA and HSUS using the law to force everyone to live as they think we should.
I agree with a lot of what you are saying, but #3 is ridiculous. If self-control wasn’t a problem, then there would be more vegetarians/vegans and many more conscientious eaters. I suppose you would also argue that many Americans are overweight and obese because they think being fat is perfectly fine, as opposed to a problem that is very difficult to overcome.
Also, American eateries are not exactly vegan, or even vegetarian friendly. I’ve been to a few places, national chains even, that have no vegetarian options.
Veganism takes effort, but like most things, it becomes easy/easier when you’ve been at it for a while. Veganism is not the “easiest thing in the world”. That would be driving up to a McDonald’s and buying a cheeseburger.
I’ve never understood the “Woe is me, my lifestyle is so difficult” attitude. Ok around necrivores (a fabulous word for meat eaters) it can be true – the sheer level of ignorance makes you think kindly about your fragile skull meeting solid brick – but vegan food is just so incredible. I don’t even have the words for it. It’s pure, unadulterated, guilt-free, sensual pleasure. Ok, I have some words for it.
I know some vegans take the ‘sackcloth and ashes’ approach but I’ve never got that. Why would I eat something I disliked? Especially when I have the most fantastic recipes for chocolate fudge cake and tiramisu on my files!
Vegan food SHOULD be pure pleasure because it has no guilt to mess up your tastebuds. When I look into a cow’s eyes (people should do that more) I feel sad but it’s not sadness caused by me, it’s because I know what she has had to and may continue to suffer. I have no idea how people justify causing that pain.
Excellent article and I thank you for writing it. Sharing.
Before you advocate a vegan diet you had better read up on the consequences to young men and women that go beyond eating disorders. The darkside includes death, damage to internal organs and the bones when putting children on this diet. For boys the soy is a real problem and its the only vegetable that comes close to the complex proteins found in cows milk. Where this concept for animal rights comes from is Hitler who used it against his opposition. Singer the leader of the animal rights movement has espoused this line of thinking not because he cares about animals or humans, but just to see how far a strange idea can be carried out in society. His last article in the New York Times called on all of our young people to neuter themselves and then party down until the last human being dies out. The main identifier of a cult is that it requires you to remove meat from your diet on the pretext that it is cleansing. However the real purpose of the cult in having you stop ingesting meat is because meat rebuilds the body and the brain through a balance of complex proteins and essential nutrients in combination with VB12. When you are out of balance and low in VB12 your thinking becomes irrational and your behavior responses are overly emotional. Here are some recent examples of the consequences of eating a vegan diet forced on children and young adults: In a heartbreaking case of parental vegan neglect, a 12-year-old girl in Scotland has been admitted to a hospital after a life-long vegan diet left her with the spine of an 80-year-old. Raised on a strict vegan diet since birth, the young child is said to have developed a severe case of rickets (a degenerative bone condition) and numerous bone fractures as a result of her nutritional deficiencies. Sadly, this is not the first time a child has suffered a vegan-related health calamity.
In a similar case five years ago, a 15-month-old child was taken into foster care after a strict vegan diet left her with internal injuries, broken bones, missing teeth, and rickets. And since then, at least two vegan children have died from similar complications. In one Florida case, a 5-month-old girl was still at newborn weight when she died from malnutrition. Her siblings were severely malnourished, and at least two had developed rickets.
These grievous examples show how important it is to exercise caution when promoting vegan diets especially for children. 1 out of every 5 human beings cannot digest plant protein.
A vegan diet lacks vitamin B12, found only in animal foods; usable vitamins A and D, found in meat, fish, eggs and butter; and necessary minerals like calcium and zinc. When babies are deprived of all these nutrients, they will suffer from retarded growth, rickets and nerve damage.
As animal activists tout the supposed superiority of meatless eating, its important to note that a vegan diet can be downright dangerous unless its undertaken with extreme caution. Not all people can digest protein from plant material and especially children. Extra steps like vitamin supplements and careful planning are particularly crucial for kids, since their bodies are not fully developed. Yet vegan activists at PETA and the woefully misnamed Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) continue to push vegan diets on children.
Some 12 million infants and young children die each year in developing countries from complications of marasmus (protein-calorie deficiency) and kwashiorkor (severe protein deficiency). Diarrhea, dehydration, and infection are generally the immediate causes of death in malnourished children. Kwashiorkor manifests clinically with stunted growth, mental apathy, edema, a desquamating patchy rash, and pigment changes in the hair and skin. Children with marasmus typically retain mental alertness and do not have edema or rash. Autopsies of children dying of kwashiorkor and marasmus show pancreatic atrophy or fibrosis and fatty changes or fibrosis in the liver.
Malnutrition is one of the many risks when raising infants on a vegan diet. Medical reports show that newborns should mainly be raised on their mother’s breast milk. The digestion of soy milk during pregnancy has become a growing controversy.
A new study of babies born to vegetarian mothers showed that baby boys had a five-fold risk of hypospadias, a birth defect of the penis. According to research stated by Jane Phillimore in the ”Guardian Unlimited,” “The researchers suggest this was due to greater exposure to phytoestrogen rich-foods, especially soy. Inappropriate hormone levels such as that caused by a high intake of soy during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy can also cause damage to the fetus’s developing brain.”
Research has shown that soy-formula contains approximately the same amount of estrogen found in five birth control pills. Imagine the effect this has on children, not to mention baby boys. “These babies’ isoflavone levels were found to be from 13,000 to 22,000 times higher than in non-soy fed infants,” according to http://www.mercola.com. Not only would males be digesting surplus amounts of estrogen in their soy diet, but the estrogen has also been shown to actually stifle their testosterone levels.
If you google “Dr. Rosset” , you will find that he goes around many vegan/animal rights articles, essays, and blogs spewing his misinformation and animal rights hate.
A breath of fresh air in the storm of “veganism is a child-murdering, human-hating cult” rants that seem to be in perpetual vogue. Thank you.
The first point is especially excellent. Given religion’s (maybe especially Christianity’s) less-than-stellar track record on animal rights issues, this is one of my major frustrations as a Christian animal-rights vegan. I’d agree the issues are independent, but at the same time, I think the possibilities of a considerate combination of veganism and religion can be very powerful. Most religions purport to espouse justice and compassion- what is veganism if not a lived expression of these values?
Thanks again for a thoughtful article.
Great article, a welcome antidote to all the anti-veganism propaganda out there.
Wow, “Dr. Rosset,” –where to begin?
I’m a dietitian and public health nutritionist. I’ve written a textbook (now in its 3rd edition) on vegetarian diets that references more than 2900 papers from the medical literature and is used by dietitians and medical professionals. I’ve also twice co-authored the American Dietetic Association’s position on vegetarian diets and have published two papers in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association on feeding vegan infants and children. So I’m going to suggest that I might know more about vegan diets than you do.
Yes, there are examples of vegan children suffering nutrient deficiencies because their parents didn’t feed them properly. That some people don’t feed their children appropriate vegan diets doesn’t say anything about the safety of well-balanced vegan diets. And kwashiorkor and marasmus?? These are conditions that occur in countries where people don’t have enough food. They have nothing whatsoever to do with vegan diets—poorly planned ones or otherwise.
It’s true that some vegans are still resistant to the idea of supplementation, and that’s unfortunate, but it is changing rapidly. Responsible vegan advocates are increasingly well-educated on the issue of vitamin B12. And it might interest you to know that the Institute of Medicine recommends that all people over the age of 50—including omnivores—need to take vitamin B12 supplements since digestion of B12 from foods declines with aging. So, vegans are ahead of the curve here, since most are already taking B12 supplements. Omnivores, on the other hand, are unlikely to know about this recommendation and therefore at higher risk for B12 deficiency as they age.
Vitamin D is no more an issue for vegans than for omnivores. Omnivores get it from fortified milk (you, know that cow’s milk is not a natural source of vitamin D, right?) and vegans get it from fortified plant milks. Or from sun exposure. Or from a supplement. Just like omnivores.
And the requirement for vitamin A is actually a requirement for “retinol activity equivalents” (RAEs) which means that needs can be met with any compound that has vitamin A activity—which includes beta-carotene and a bunch of other compounds in foods. There is no dietary requirement for the type of vitamin A found in animal foods.
The issue of soy and health is confusing simply because there is such a huge body of data in scientific journals, as well as the large amount of misinformation on the internet written by people who don’t understand the different types of studies. But a recent review of 150 clinical studies found that there was no effect of soy on testosterone, estrogen, or sperm count. The anti-soy rhetoric is based almost overwhelmingly on research in rats (and these are animals who metabolize soy very differently from humans), or–like the hypospadias finding–on isolated studies that have been refuted by other studies.
Finally, you noted that animal advocates tout the supposed superiority of meatless eating. I’m wondering if you even read the article to which your responding. Veganism is an ethical lifestyle choice; it has nothing to do with health advantages of one diet over another. Animal advocates promote a vegan lifestyle and give people the tools to pursue it. And as long as those tools include solid, scientifically-backed nutrition information, vegans thrive at all stages of the lifecycle.
Just as a quick follow-up to my previous comment, it is worth noting that both the American Dietetic Association and the American Acadamy of Pedatrics–both very conservative organizations– agree that vegan diets are safe for infants and children. Those endorsements carry a lot more weight than psuedo-scientific websites.
Great commentary, Sarah. Thanks for writing and publishing it.
I was digging on this writing and wanted to share it with the world; sadly, your last paragraph dissappointed me, so much so, that I decided not to promote this otherwise awesome piece (unless I can edit the last paragraph).
When you write of:
vegans out there who make poor ambassadors for the cause
people who emit a “Woe is me, my lifestyle is so difficult”
pretension and that all-too-familiar air of moral superiority
preachy
self-righteous vegans
overcompensating
deep-seated self-esteem issues
Pay them no mind
That is not what veganism is. I just hope these people realize they are doing more harm than good for the animals they claim to represent. In fact, I encourage you to tell them so.
I read your key points and thought, what a load! You spend time bashing vegans; have you bashed corpse-munchers in your call for arms for more infighting?
That said, I feel a better ending would include a call for tough love to shake the apathetic majortity – remember most people know and don’t want to know anymore, nor do they wish to change.
Being vegan is not enough. If you are not an Animal Rights activist, you are not really vegan. Vegans do no harm and have an obligation and duty to make sure others do no harm. How far is your circle of compassion open?
“A human being is a part of a whole, called by us ‘universe’, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest… a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty” Albert Einstein
“Just because you got the monkey off your back doesn’t mean the circus has left town” George Carlin
The world is a dangerous place to live, not because of the ignorant and/or apathetic corpse-munchers who are evil, but because of the vegans who don’t do anything about it.
Once one knows, they have an obligation to let others know.
Silence is complicity, as is tolerance, as is participation … most vegans subsidize factory farming and war with a third of their incomes, whether they realize it or not, via taxation. Supporting thses things is not vegan. The revolutionaries rebelled against taxes as are the tea-baggers. Vegans need to stop funding/supporting evil with our vegan dollars. Money is all these evil sorts care for. Vegans need to put their money where there hearts are.
As a corpse-muncher is born every ten seconds in the USA, vegans everywhere should be enraged at the indoctrination of our open-minded/hearted youth in schools unless we want to overlook the magnitude of lives saved when one goes vegan at an early age, and we are willing to instead, spend mega time with little results trying to convince closed-minded/hearted brainwashed adults that veganism is all good.
Impressionable children are forced to go to school. Advertising of any kind in schools is immoral. Allow children all the information without being marketed to, so they can make their own decisions. A milk mustache on a sexy woman has nothing to do with reality – it is pure marketing.
The real battle for a vegan world lies in children across an institutionalized level – schools are the real battle ground of Animal—humans/children are animals too—Rights; but until vegans see the big picture we will have calls for infighting and closed circles of compassion devoid of children – the future.
Corpse muncher… you do realize terms like that are why people don’t take you seriously, right?
By the way, to those of you who have commented on this post, thank you very much for re-affirming every single pre-conceived notion about vegans I have ever had. Especially you, “warwak”.
Are you people blind, or just dim? Until you’ve managed to kill off 98% of the U.S. population, you’re in for a very long and very uphill struggle. Do you know why people don’t take animal rights activists seriously? Because they’re hypocrites. You think they’re so cute, look at those big adorable eyes, how could anyone ever want to eat that? A previous commentator raised the question of whether or not plants count as sentient beings, and of course not one person was willing to entertain the idea. DON’T YOU GET IT? You are quite literally damned if you do, and damned if you don’t. There is no possible way to survive on this earth without first killing and then consuming a living thing, even if that living thing is something to inconsequential as a soy bean stalk.
On a final note, I’d lay odds that if tomorrow people began eating boa constrictors instead of cows, not one of you would say a thing. Truth is, you’re hypocrites just like the rest of us, you’re just hypocrites about that, too.
Faja Klaus wrote, “Corpse muncher… you do realize terms like that are why people don’t take you seriously, right?”
Wrong.
Maybe you don’t take me seriously, and that is cool with me, but, there are plenty of free thinkers who are also tired of soft acceptable terms as “meat-eater” that love and use the term. Even many corpse-munchers find the term curious and dive into my essays and go vegan as a result. We will have a vegan world when we view corpse-munching as we now view cannibalism. Terms like corpse-muncher help get us closer to that attitude. Cannibalism is gross, but is not against the law. Meat-eating does not sound gross to most, while corpse-munching better describes the horror.
Sarah, thanks for a great article! I especially appreciate your emphasis on the vegan’s dedication to uncovering truth, rather than obfuscating it.
My suggestion is for animal right activists to concentrate on the notion of speciesism (which you mention), rather than primarily on veganism. Presenting anything as the moral way of life invites that “OK well that’s your choice, please respect mine” reaction that I actually find to be quite understandable.
Focusing their attention first on a hugely problematic situation invites them to contemplate it for themselves. If they are honest enough to admit that animal exploitation is unjust, they will look for the ethical alternative with more commitment, because it will be self-directed.
If we present the solution first, most people will decide that there really is no problem, since they don’t want to change. Then they will view us as evangelical zealots who want to make everyone else believe what we believe. But as you point out, it’s not a matter of personal beliefs. It’s just recognizing that our pursuit of happiness has to yield to someone else’s interests in living and not being exploited by us.
I hope that makes sense!
Well then karwak, in the schoolyard spirit of name calling I do hereby dub you “Bean Stalker”.
Now look, maybe I haven’t made myself clear. What you do with your body is your own business, but it’s people trying to force their beliefs onto others that keeps abortion laws unfair to poor women and stymies intelligent discourse on the subject. Whether a person prefers to eat meat or not should be their own business, and they have no right to push their views on others. You will not see the end of meat eating in your lifetime people, and I sincerely doubt your great-grandchildren will either. By the sounds of it you put an awful lot of faith in genetically-modified crops, and while certainly an attractive solution you should bear in mind that instead of ingesting chemicals from meat you’re ingesting chemicals from plants, just a whole lot more of them.
To tell you the truth, being told what to do only makes me want to do the opposite all the more, which is why I will think of you, karwak, tonight while I eat a nice slab of steak. Why? Because I’m free in America and it’s my right to do so.
Faja Klaus, you wrote: “Whether a person prefers to eat meat or not should be their own business” and that people (by which I’m sure you mean vegans) “have no right to push their views on others.”
Listen buddy, I’m no fan of evangelicals myself, but when it comes to people trying to spread the TRUTH about a matter, I think they have EVERY RIGHT to spout off, whether you like what you’re hearing or not.
As I said in this week’s article, vegans (perhaps even the annoying self-pitying vegans who I wish would get a clue) are simply trying to help people deconstruct their erroneous perceptions of animals that years of social conditioning has instilled.
And the reason we care so much? The reason we speak with a level of passion many view as eccentric? We have perceived how these erroneous perceptions directly result in the deaths of over 56 billion animals every year (not including aquatic species), for reasons completely outside the realm of necessity.
And THAT is why it matters. That is why it’s so important that people begin to see clearly. If they could get to this point on their own, without all the “nagging” from vegans, that would be GREAT. But the reality is that many people would never question their views without a little push.
Can’t believe the “plants have feelings” argument is once again invoked. For all those concerned about the feelings of plants:
1. If you truly care about the feelings of plants, eat a plant-based diet and you will “kill” far fewer of them, as the vast majority of acreage in this country is used to grow soy and corn to feed the 12 billion animals farmed and slaughtered each year.
2. All fruits, and many vegetables, are given freely by the plant. If I pick a tomato, I do not kill the tomato plant. Same with an orange, strawberry, pumpkin, squash, etc. The same cannot be said about animal products.
3. Almost all plants succumb to cold temperatures. So if they were not harvested, then winter would kill them anyway. Unlike animals, plants cannot pick up and move to warmer environments.
Verbal Vegan,
You hop up on your soapbox every week and end every single column with the general statement, “if you care about such and such, you’ll become a vegan today”. Sounds an awful lot like “if you care about kittens and puppies, you’ll accept Jesus into your heart today”.
Your problem is that you refuse to accept anything on its own terms. The fact is, people eat meat. People like meat. Animals eat meat. Animals like meat. We’re more efficient at procuring ours, and while I’m not gonna make excuses for the deplorable conditions found in your average American slaughterhouse, I am gonna say that you’re daffy if you think statements like the ones you typically end your columns with are winning converts. You can’t guilt someone into a point of view! You’re not saying anything positive, you’re not talking about alternatives, you’re just presenting facts and telling us to hang our heads in shame like good little heathens. There’s no incentive to buy into your argument EXCEPT out of guilt!
Me personally? If I were in your shoes I’d be talking about vegan dishes and such, presenting statistics on what food tastes best and fills you up good and proper, etc. Might make more people curious to try them…
…And besides, I’m not a vegan. By the way, the vegan challenge still stands if anyone wants to recommend recipes.
Faja Klaus wrote: “You hop up on your soapbox every week and end every single column with the general statement, ‘if you care about such and such, you’ll become a vegan today’. Sounds an awful lot like ‘if you care about kittens and puppies, you’ll accept Jesus into your heart today.’”
Wow. Can’t you see that the second statement contains an absolute non sequitur? The first statement, unlike the Jesus bullshit, has a basis in fact. I’m not asking anyone to accept anything on blind faith. If you can’t see the factual connection between not eating animal products and reducing suffering, then you’re the one who’s “daffy.”
You also wrote: “You can’t guilt someone into a point of view! You’re not saying anything positive, you’re not talking about alternatives, you’re just presenting facts and telling us to hang our heads in shame like good little heathens.”
First of all, I am NOT trying to guilt anyone into seeing my point of view. I want people to start looking OBJECTIVELY at the situation and make decisions for themselves. You said yourself I am “just presenting facts”—which is true! That’s the whole idea! I don’t want to mislead anybody here; and I’m certainly not telling you all to go hang your heads in shame. Is that how you feel personally? Because I have to say, all your talk about feeling guilty is something only you can assess.
Also, there’s a very good reason why I’m “not talking about alternatives”—and that’s because THERE ARE NONE. As long as we exploit animals, there will be suffering. End of story. You can’t argue with that, and the whole ‘appeal to nature’ thing is super old. You CAN be vegan, therefore you CAN reduce suffering, so why not!?
Good article.
And Faja, from all your comments on this site you’ve proven yourself to be a anti-vegan stalker who comes up with the same omni BS as the majority of the populous do when faced with the chance to change to a more compassionate lifestyle.
Religion requires false hope and blind faith to something there is no proof of. Veganism requires knowledge of the true goings on and whats really best for us, animals, and the planet. Two very different things. We don’t pray to some non existant being in the sky…we help animals in ways we know we can. Stop whilst your ahead, because you won’t win this little verbal war you have going on here and in your mind. It’s frankly pathetic.
And LOL @ the person who suggested making wild or captive carnivores vegan. What a freaking idiot. It’s omnivores with their deluded ideas of what vegans do and don’t do that make veganism look bad, not the vegans themselves.
@The Verbal Vegan
Jesus is not bullshit, and a lot of people will thank you to not
spew such blasphemy about Him. Have a nice day all, amd God bless!
c’est pathétique, this fighting over the same cause
find something else to do
Many people who choose to eat meat (like Faja Klaus) like to pretend that is a ‘personal decision.’ For example, Faja Klaus said:
“Whether a person prefers to eat meat or not should be their own business, and they have no right to push their views on others.”
Eating meat is far from a personal decision. The choice to eat meat despoils the environment we share, it deprives poor people around the world of food that is wasted on livestock, and most of all, it deprives another individual of their life.
Nope, its not a personal decision by any stretch of the imagination.
Ooh, sorry, one more thought:
If “Dr.” Rosset is really a doctor concerned about people’s health, then why is he directing people to the website of Dr. Mercola, who has been ordered by the FDA to cease making false and dangerous claims?
Check out this article about Dr. Mercola on the “Quackwatch” website. When you hear bizarre claims about the dangers of soy, you can almost always trace it back to the website of quack Dr. Mercola, who ironically markets his own ‘safe’ soy products:
http://www.quackwatch.com/11Ind/mercola.html
Excellent beat ! I wish to apprentice while you amend your web site,
how could i subscribe for a blog web site? The account aided
me a acceptable deal. I had been tiny bit acquainted of this your broadcast offered bright clear concept