Attack of the Vegans

[ataventure]

Forgive me if this type of topic has been posted before.

I was going through the last few pages of posts on TH when I came across an article about a new diet fad entitled "The Paleolithic Diet." Intrigued, I clicked on the article, read it through with interest, and went to read the multitude of commentary at the end.

The first of these comments was from a vegan dieter named Rob. Rob decided to bash the consumption of lean meats, eggs, and dairy, saying that a vegan diet was 'better' and more morally upstanding.

This isn't the first time I've encountered hostility from vegan dieters on TH. I'm not sure what determines the thought process of agressive vegan dieters, but it is something I've come to witness in the environmental community as a whole.

The militant vegan (a term I've heard to describe the current leaders at the HSUS) seems out of place in the environmental community. They're off in a class by themselves, raised up on a personalized pedestal, judging those of us who are vegetarians, omnivorous, or out and out carnivores. How dare we, the remainder of the environmental community (and, I'd gather, the majority), consume animal products!

Whether or not the majority of environmentalists eat meat is little concern of mine. Certainly we can all reduce our dependence on meat consumption in order to decrease our impact on the environment, but I see no reason to give up the consumption of animal products entirely. More so, I see no reason to differentiate myself from the rest of my community based on the foods I consume!

It seems a poor form of conduct, especially when we need all the unity we can get. Certainly, the environmental movement has grown significantly in past years. But we need all the warm bodies we can gather.

In a way, it reminds me of the feminist movement: torn asunder by the increased number of factions with their own manifestos on the rules of required behavior.

[OG]

Ataventure, I think the problem is that veganism is not unlike being against abortion. People get into both of them because they have an unusual amount of compassion for other living beings. Consequently, ANY killing is wrong to them, so they act as someone would if they witnessed someone trying to kill someone before their eyes. They just can't countenance it in any shape or form.

This ongoing emotional state, though, is counterproductive in the larger sense, since it closes off any search for common ground which would lead to less suffering. This all-or-nothing attitude they take on probably does more harm than good, and they lose touch with what they're actually trying to accomplish.

Extremists also tend to look at anyone who doesn't agree with them as evil, ignorant, or both, so they have a habit of preaching and moralizing to people as if they're dumb devils.

So I can understand their mentality, even though I can see how it leads to poor results. I think if we all just keep emphasizing the common ground and how we all want things to keep getting better, it will help keep these things from polarizing to the extent that they do. It's also important to value their choice of beliefs, even if we don't agree with them, and to be as rational as we can about where the real damage/suffering is going on and being positive and creative about how to lessen it.

[rationalist]

See, now I would argue that we NEED the extremists. After all, if there were no vegan-environmental-extremists, then you and I (who are currently seen as moderate progressive) would be the extremists, and wouldn't be listened to as well. Extremists provide a useful point of reference for the rest of us.

[stevejust]

I can tell you that it is hard to actually go through the transformation from a conventional, societally conditioned, socially transmitted diet to one that is counter cultural. Most everyone who goes through it goes through a time of militancy-- it's almost a natural psychological coping mechanism. So please forgive them, because that's where they're coming from. I was like that when I became vegan 12 years ago, but now I hardly ever talk about why I don't eat meat.

So I'm asking you, please, just ignore them when they try to tell you it takes 12-16 pounds of grain to make one pound of beef. Ignore them when they tell you it takes 2,500 to 5,000 gallons of water to produce one pound of beef. Ignore the fact that each and every cow poops 120 POUNDS OF MANURE each day. Ignore the fact that it takes 7 times more land (and slashed rainforests, etc.,.) to feed a person consuming a regular american diet than someone who eats lower on the food chain. Ignore the laws of thermodynamics. Ignore the fact that 10s of BILLIONS of animals die each year, and those 10s of BILLIONS of animals have a ginormous impact on the environment. Ignore the fact that cows put out more GHGs than automobiles. Ignore all that, because those are the inconvenient truths of the environmental impacts of your and Mr. Al Gore's diets. Don't think about what it means, because you might come to the conclusion that you might not be doing everything possible for the planet. You might realize why Albert Einstein wrote, "Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances for survival of life on earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet."

Ignore all of that, fellow "treehuggers," because you're not ready to hear it anyway. Go on thinking that your compact fluorescent light bulbs, your hot water heaters on demand, your carbon offsets, and your hybrid is enough to show you care about the environment.

I apologize if I sound like I'm standing behind a pulpit on a sunday morning. But hey, if you're looking for people to say, yeah, those damn vegans are pretentious, pious, smug, hollier-than thou attitudes... ask yourself why they have them to begin with.

I set out 12 years ago to prove the vegetarian propaganda wrong vis a vis its claimed impact on the environment 12 years ago. I'm a pretty smart person. I love poking holes in logic. I was a failure. And I'd never eaten a bean burrito in my life until the day I stopped eating meat.

If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

[OG]

I can tell you that it is hard to actually go through the transformation from a conventional, societally conditioned, socially transmitted diet to one that is counter cultural. Most everyone who goes through it goes through a time of militancy-- it's almost a natural psychological coping mechanism. So please forgive them, because that's where they're coming from. I was like that when I became vegan 12 years ago, but now I hardly ever talk about why I don't eat meat.

So I'm asking you, please, just ignore them when they try to tell you it takes 12-16 pounds of grain to make one pound of beef. Ignore them when they tell you it takes 2,500 to 5,000 gallons of water to produce one pound of beef. Ignore the fact that each and every cow poops 120 POUNDS OF MANURE each day. Ignore the fact that it takes 7 times more land (and slashed rainforests, etc.,.) to feed a person consuming a regular american diet than someone who eats lower on the food chain. Ignore the laws of thermodynamics. Ignore the fact that 10s of BILLIONS of animals die each year, and those 10s of BILLIONS of animals have a ginormous impact on the environment. Ignore the fact that cows put out more GHGs than automobiles. Ignore all that, because those are the inconvenient truths of the environmental impacts of your and Mr. Al Gore's diets. Don't think about what it means, because you might come to the conclusion that you might not be doing everything possible for the planet. You might realize why Albert Einstein wrote, "Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances for survival of life on earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet."

Ignore all of that, fellow "treehuggers," because you're not ready to hear it anyway. Go on thinking that your compact fluorescent light bulbs, your hot water heaters on demand, your carbon offsets, and your hybrid is enough to show you care about the environment.

I apologize if I sound like I'm standing behind a pulpit on a sunday morning. But hey, if you're looking for people to say, yeah, those damn vegans are pretentious, pious, smug, hollier-than thou attitudes... ask yourself why they have them to begin with.

I set out 12 years ago to prove the vegetarian propaganda wrong vis a vis its claimed impact on the environment 12 years ago. I'm a pretty smart person. I love poking holes in logic. I was a failure. And I'd never eaten a bean burrito in my life until the day I stopped eating meat.

If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

Thanks for demonstrating what I just said. Everyone is just ignorant and evil - except for vegans. Vegans alone are pure, wise, and good. How's that working out? Have the cows stopped being killed? How about the pigs? Did you save them all with the great power of your condescension?

And as for doing enough for the environment, I assume you have never used a motor vehicle since you became a vegan, right? Never flown? Never gotten on an escalator? Your home run on solar or wind? All your clothing material organic? All your food? No packaging?

I mean, nothing is OK unless you're "pure", right? Or don't you actually care about the environment? Because unless you're living in a mud hut in the dark wearing hairshirts, I assert that you don't -- by your logic.

[stevejust]

Why don't you try posting some facts about how eating meat is good for the environment? That's usually how debates work. Instead of making an argument on the issue at hand, you accuse me of being condescending, when I said to ignore me right in the post. Several times. You might have avoided making a condescending response to my what I thought was pretty obviously a tongue-in-cheek response by me in the first place.

I agree with the rest of your sentiments... we all do what we can. And no, no one is perfect.

But if someone comes to you and says "it might be immoral to drive a hummer" and you think about it, you might come to the same conclusion, or you might rationalize why it is not immoral to drive a hummer. Same thing if someone comes to you and says "it might be immoral to eat meat if you don't have to." You might decide that you do, in fact, "have to eat meat." But I went through the analysis, and at the end of the day, I couldn't provide a reason for why I had to eat meat. And that's all I'm saying.

[OG]

Also, just wanted to point out that "10s of billions killed" thing needs some context. Of the 9 billion animals killed for meat in the US, 96% of them are chickens. 96%.

And cows don't put out more GHGs than cars do. I've already debunked and given context to that one as well on the "Vegans In Hummers" thread.

[stevejust]

I'm looking forward to going back and finding your debunking of the IPCC report. Do you know what the IPCC is? Talk about being condescending, you're saying your analysis is more accurate than the IPCC?

[OG]

Why don't you try posting some facts about how eating meat is good for the environment? That's usually how debates work.

No, I'm not going to do a replay of what I went through on the "Vegans in Hummers" thread. And nowhere did I say that eating meat isn't bad for the environment, nor did I certainly say that it's GOOD for the environment. If you need to make up silly arguments that no one is making (strawmen), then you might ask why you're doing it.

Instead of making an argument on the issue at hand, you accuse me of being condescending, when I said to ignore me right in the post. Several times. You might have avoided making a condescending response to my what I thought was pretty obviously a tongue-in-cheek response by me in the first place.

Um, you did exactly what I said in my comment - got up and gave your speech to all the dumb and evil people here who aren't as "pure" as you, DESPITE you saying you're past the militancy phase. I'm not accusing you of being condescending, that was condescending. It's plain as day.

I agree with the rest of your sentiments... we all do what we can. And no, no one is perfect.

That certainly wasn't the attitude you were copping by basically telling us all we're not doing enough, that people like Al Gore aren't doing enough. All I was pointing out to you is that you can take anything to an extreme, and in the case of environmentalism, clearly you haven't. Therefore, you're evil -- by your own standards. Does that make you want to listen to someone who says such things to you?

But if someone comes to you and says "it might be immoral to drive a hummer" and you think about it, you might come to the same conclusion, or you might rationalize why it is not immoral to drive a hummer. Same thing if someone comes to you and says "it might be immoral to eat meat if you don't have to." You might decide that you do, in fact "have to eat meat."

Your presumption that none of us have heard the little vegan speeches before, that we aren't aware of what's going on, is condescending. Why do you think you somehow are more aware, more informed? Right, because in your mind, if someone isn't vegan, they're either dumb or evil. It couldn't be that they're at least, or more, informed than you and have simply come to a different conclusion or approach.

I'll tell you about what happens in the real world when you go up to many people and tell them things like "driving that Hummer is immoral" -- you get punched in the face. Far from converting them and making them think, you simply solidify and harden them in their position. And to compare someone driving a Hummer (which is an intentional F-You move) to someone who eats a turkey burger once in a blue moon is ridiculous. The latter person has clearly considered their diet and is simply very moderate. But lots of vegans wouldn't be satisfied with that, since that person is a Turkey Murderer.

[OG]

I'm looking forward to going back and finding your debunking of the IPCC report. Do you know what the IPCC is?

Gee - no! Who are they? I'm just a dumb and evil! How would I know?

The report you're referring to is published by the FAO, not the IPCC. If you had actually read the complete study, you would know this.

Perhaps you should read the whole paper before commenting on its comments.

[stevejust]

I didn't spend a lot of time in the vegans/hummer, meat eaters/prius thread... but I take it your saying that the IPCC (which is doing a global analysis) is wrong because of carbon sinks in the US curtailing more emissions than beef production in the US causes (nevermind imports). I wasn't talking about the FAO report... I'm talking about the IPCC report. I'm not talking about Livestock's Long Shadow.

I can't even begin to address this because it'd be like trying to nail jello to the side of a barn. You can't start switching parameters of an analysis to fit your conclusion that a study done by the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change of the United Nations, which produced the underlying data showing that cows produce more GHG than cars is wrong.

And believe me, if I wanted to be condescending, you'd know it! The fact that you think it's plain as day that I was being condescending is a function of you reading into the post what you want. I was being light hearted, albeit sarcastic.

Unfortunately, humor doesn't always translate well, such as in the vegans/hummer, meat eaters/prius thread when I responded to the claim that all vegans were pale and sickly and I offered that I was 6' 1" and 190 pounds and ready to fight false environmentalists. I would never fight someone who thought they were doing good for the planet. But I would ask them if they're doing all they can, and if they say yes and they're lying to themselves, I might call b.s., as I'd hope people would do with me and my own hypocrisies and foibles.

[OG]

From that report:
"In terms of health and nutrition, livestock products are a welcome addition to the diets of many poor and under- or malnourished people who frequently suffer from protein and vitamin deficiencies as well as from lack of important trace minerals. Children in particular have shown to benefit greatly in terms of physical and mental health when modest amounts of milk, meat or eggs are added to their diets, as shown by long-term research carried out in Kenya."

[OG]

I didn't spend a lot of time in the vegans/hummer, meat eaters/prius thread... but I take it your saying that the IPCC (which is doing a global analysis) is wrong because of carbon sinks in the US curtailing more emissions than beef production in the US causes (nevermind imports).

You're not paying attention. I have never contested IPCC numbers.

I can't even begin to address this because it'd be like trying to nail jello to the side of a barn. You can't start switching parameters of an analysis to fit your conclusion that a study done by the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change of the United Nations, which produced the underlying data showing that cows produce more GHG than cars is wrong.

Perhaps you should stop trying to be clever and condescending for two seconds, then you would pay attention and notice that the report was made by the FAO, not the IPCC. The more you keep flogging me with something you haven't read just proves that I'm more informed than you are and that you just latch onto little factoids without investigating where they come from.

And believe me, if I wanted to be condescending, you'd know it! The fact that you think it's plain as day that I was being condescending is a function of you reading into the post what you want. I was being light hearted, albeit sarcastic.

Here's a little test for you. Memorize that little speech you gave, then go out on the street and try and make people listen to it. Then come back and tell me how they responded. Let me know if they considered it condescending.

But I would ask them if they're doing all they can, and if they say yes and they're lying to themselves, I might call b.s., as I'd hope people would do with me and my own hypocrisies and foibles.

And what would be the point of that? I assume the vast majority of people here (except for the trolls who pose as "skeptics") are already doing factors more than the average person and are well aware of all the impacts of their life. Instead of trying to squeeze blood from a turnip in the vain attempt for some false sense of purity (and giving people a sense that they're never doing enough), perhaps you should help 10,000 times the number of people change just a little bit, as that would do more overall in terms of the common good.

The circular firing squad is pointless and counterproductive.

[stevejust]

I give up.

You mean to tell me if you feed people who are malnourished "modest" amounts of animal products, that's a good thing? Who would've thought!

I'm going to go to McDonald's right now and make up for 12 years of not eating meat!

[OG]

I give up.

You mean to tell me if you feed people who are malnourished "modest" amounts of animal products, that's a good thing? Who would've thought!

I'm going to go to McDonald's right now and make up for 12 years of not eating meat!

Feels good to be told what you already know, doesn't it? Do you contest what the FAO said? Or are you just picking and choosing what to accept from their report? Vegans keep telling me that meat is never helpful or necessary. Is that a lie?