Is there really a strong argument you can make against Veganism?

[ZenAlex]

The science seems to suggest you can get everything your body needs from plants, so if that is the case, what argument can you make against being Vegan?

I'm not trying to be bitchy or self righteous, I'm just curious to hear your guys point of view.

[undeather]

27 minutes ago, ZenAlex said:

The science seems to suggest you can get everything your body needs from plants, so if that is the case, what argument can you make against being Vegan?

I'm not trying to be bitchy or self righteous, I'm just curious to hear your guys point of view.

From an ethical standpoint, there is really no good argument to justify eating meat - or even broader, any animal product at all. I have listened to many debates about this topic since it's a question I have been intellectually wrestling with for years. In the end, if you are truly honest, veganism just trumps any proposition with the superior arguments. 

That said, I will still keep eating some animal products because I just enjoy the shit out of them. I do eat primarily plant based (and have been vegan before), but life without parmesan cheese, eggs or some good steak here and there just takes so much of lifes zest away for me personally. I will keep living with the cognitive dissonance and that's it. Lab grown animal products will solve this dilemma in the future. 

From a health perspective, things become a little bit more difficult in my opinion. The vast majority of individuals will do extremely well on a proper, whole food oriented, vegan diet. You can also argue that by cutting out most sources of saturated fat, the diet is inherently anti-atherogenic. However, there are many, many, many case reports of people reporting feeling shit after cutting out animal products. The usual counter-argument from the vegan side is that those individuals usually eat too little calories, don't supplement properly (B12, D3) or follow a ridicolous FAD-diet pattern (like raw-veganism, fruitarians etc.). I am not at all conviced by those arguments - they will explain some but not all cases. There will always be outliers who just won't fit the bellcurve. While general patterns are true (a more plant based lifestyle is health promoting), the complexities of the human body will always leave room for if's/and's/or's. We are complex biopsychosocial contructs after all. 

I think @Jason Actualization's case is pretty interesting. Even though I fundamentally disagree with his approach (which is inherently unscientific), one just can't ignore the effect his lifestyle-change had on his health (if he is telling the truth, which I think he does). 

Anyway, enough blabber from my side. 

[Jannes]

There are people with certain diseases who need to eat animal products to survive. Leo is an example of that.

If you have fitness goals getting enough high quality protein can be difficult, as you would need to eat very specific foods as a vegan to get to that amount which would include lots of legumes which can make you fart a lot and its also very inconvenient. Vegan protein powders can potentially contain lots of heavy metals so that might not be an option either. Doesnt mean you need to eat meat though, a bit of high protein dairy products can also do the trick. 

[LSD-Rumi]

There is nothing wrong with consuming animal products, as long as animals are raised well and killed painlessly. The problem is that we as humans are massively over-consuming animal products these days, leading to high demand for them. To keep the prices low, Farming industries use all sorts of unethical practices to cut down on the costs of production.

I think a better trend than veganism which is extreme for most people, is to popularise the idea of minimizing the consumption of animal products while also promoting better animal raising conditions.

I personally decided not to go vegan but to cut down my consumption of meats/eggs/milk, etc...

 

[ZenAlex]

3 minutes ago, LSD-Rumi said:

There is nothing wrong with consuming animal products, as long as animals are raised well and killed painlessly. The problem is that we as humans are massively over-consuming animal products these days, leading to high demand for them. To keep the prices low, Farming industries use all sorts of unethical practices to cut down on the costs of production.

I think a better trend than veganism which is extreme for most people, is to popularise the idea of minimizing the consumption of animal products while also promoting better animal raising conditions.

I personally decided not to go vegan but to cut down my consumption of meats/eggs/milk, etc...

 

But Vegans would argue that if you don't need to eat the animals, then their slaughter is completely unnecessary so it's unnecessary animal exploitation/killing purely for pleasure/convenience rather than need?

[Schizophonia]

3 hours ago, ZenAlex said:

The science seems to suggest you can get everything your body needs from plants, so if that is the case, what argument can you make against being Vegan?

No, plants do not contain:

-B12 

-D3 (an exogenous source is important if you live outside the equator)

-EPA/DHA

-Taurine

-L-carnitine

-Iodine (except if you regularly eat seaweed, and there is no archaeological evidence that this is something "natural" for humans).

2 hours ago, undeather said:

From an ethical standpoint, there is really no good argument to justify eating meat - or even broader, any animal product at all. I have listened to many debates about this topic since it's a question I have been intellectually wrestling with for years. In the end, if you are truly honest, veganism just trumps any proposition with the superior arguments. 

No lol.
Unless you are faithful to some theological system which condemns and especially punishes the consumption of animal products, ethics is only an abstract and relative concept in your head.

Quote

That said, I will still keep eating some animal products because I just enjoy the shit out of them.

Obviously, a diet without animal products is a nightmare for anyone who is in tune with their intuition.

Quote

I do eat primarily plant based (and have been vegan before), but life without parmesan cheese, eggs or some good steak here and there just takes so much of lifes zest away for me personally.

Yes, but why ? 

Quote

I will keep living with the cognitive dissonance and that's it. Lab grown animal products will solve this dilemma in the future. 

Cognitive dissonance also works the other way.
I can say that Vegetarians are Westerners (Hindus are vegetarians for another reason, theological) who grew up in excessive comfort and are too fragile to support a potentially ego-damaging reality.

So they create a neurotic delusion based on morality (even if they are most of the time atheists lol), try to disgust themselves with animal products by manipulating their jargons, for example by calling meat "corpse", or milk “animal excretion”...

An authoritarian upbringing or certain traumas can also play a role, some people are stuck (out of fear) in sadistic-anal regressions and have the impression that they will hurt themselves if they give in to their libido.
It is not really “veganism” that is concerned here, but hygienist motivation and in particular anti-fat positions.
It is common knowledge that the typical McDougall follower is a mentally ill person obsessed with his weight, and believes that comfort foods (basically fats) will make him gain weight and harm him in some way other.

But again, it's a mentality that we find in all hygienist circles, the biggest French bodybuilding YouTuber grew up in a Jesuit-influenced family and was a scout.
He regularly says that he eats his oatmeal breakfast without a sweetener because “if it tastes too good, it’s not good.”

Quote

From a health perspective, things become a little bit more difficult in my opinion. The vast majority of individuals will do extremely well on a proper, whole food oriented, vegan diet.

Say it clearly, a daily supplemented and without deviations diet.

I too can do very well with a diet based on white sugar, if I supplement well.
It doesn't mean that the sugar packet diet is the optimal, natural diet, or simply a pleasant and sustainable diet.

Quote

You can also argue that by cutting out most sources of saturated fat, the diet is inherently anti-atherogenic. However, there are many, many, many case reports of people reporting feeling shit after cutting out animal products.

You may be anti-SFA, but even then most animal products aren't even that high in SFA.

Quote

The usual counter-argument from the vegan side is that those individuals usually eat too little calories

Why ? If it's a good diet then you're naturally supposed to be able to eat enough, right?

Quote

don't supplement properly (B12, D3) or follow a

yes

Quote

ridicolous FAD-diet pattern (like raw-veganism, fruitarians etc.).

It's not ridiculous, it's just kind of giga cope.
Often people who are not misanthropic/self-flagellationist enough to inflict huge plates of disgusting whole grains on themselves, and who at the same time are too afraid of having a high-fat diet.

Quote

I am not at all conviced by those arguments - they will explain some but not all cases. There will always be outliers who just won't fit the bellcurve. While general patterns are true (a more plant based lifestyle is health promoting), the complexities of the human body will always leave room for if's/and's/or's. We are complex biopsychosocial contructs after all. 

Epidemiological studies have little value and serve a political agenda.

Yesterday I saw an anti-smoking video which claimed that smokers had a loss of gray and white matter.
Intrigued, because I had in mind a study showing that tobacco users were half as affected by Parkinson's disease, I went to see the study, and it showed that smokers drank on average twice as much alcohol ( which is very neurotoxic) and practiced less physical effort (neuroprotective).

Quote

I think @Jason Actualization's case is pretty interesting. Even though I fundamentally disagree with his approach (which is inherently unscientific), one just can't ignore the effect his lifestyle-change had on his health (if he is telling the truth, which I think he does). 

If I had continued to follow what you think is the advice of the scientific community, I would still have massive brain fog, lots of aggression and lots of gas.

Btw, the medical order in my country does not recommend veganism, "in particular for pregnant women and childrens", the Belgian order even made a report openly condemning the promotion of veganism.
Who represents science the most? The order of doctors from several Western European countries or a gang of oddball outsiders, mainly confined to the United States?
Franco-German doctors making an Arte documentary on how the consumption of fish is neuroprotective and helps reverse diabetes in synergy with a weight loss diet, or the other madman of Neil Barnard who explains in a sensational and conspiracy theory Netflix documentary bogus on diabetes by roughly extrapolating the Randle cycle?

Linking veganism to science is false.

1 hour ago, ZenAlex said:

But Vegans would argue that if you don't need to eat the animals, then their slaughter is completely unnecessary so it's unnecessary animal exploitation/killing purely for pleasure/convenience rather than need?

 

Whatever ? Why such a scarcity mentality? This is exactly what I was talking about before as the toxic result of a toxic authoritarian and guilt-ridden upbringing/culture.

I also wonder if this is why there are many fewer vegans in Catholic cultures than Protestant ones.

Edited October 9, 2023 by Schizophonia

[ZenAlex]

@Schizophonia

 

No, plants do not contain:

-B12 

-D3 (an exogenous source is important if you live outside the equator)

-EPA/DHA

-Taurine

-L-carnitine

-Iodine (except if you regularly eat seaweed, and there is no archaeological evidence that this is something "natural" for humans).

All of these things can be found in supplementation or fortified options. So it doesn't matter.

Edited October 9, 2023 by ZenAlex

[Schizophonia]

2 minutes ago, ZenAlex said:

@Schizophonia

 

No, plants do not contain:

-B12 

-D3 (an exogenous source is important if you live outside the equator)

-EPA/DHA

-Taurine

-L-carnitine

-Iodine (except if you regularly eat seaweed, and there is no archaeological evidence that this is something "natural" for humans).

All of these things can be found in supplementation or fortified options. So it doesn't matter.

It's starting to add up to a lot of supplements, lol.

[MarkKol]

3 hours ago, undeather said:

raw-veganism

This is the first thing I tried to optimize my health and I can vouch! A very very hard diet to maintain. 

In the end I settled with not consuming any type of wheat and dairy products. Just homemade egg whites, lean beef and lean chicken. Keep it mostly <200mg cholesterol and <20g of saturated fat.

However after hearing about the low polyunsaturated, high saturated fat diet I'm willing to try it out in the future for a week or two. Many people say that saturated fat is actually good for heart health although I'm not sure (vice versa).

There are many people who say that your saturated fat intake should be as high as possible while not consuming any type of polyunsaturated fats and vegetable oils, not sure where this mindset comes from.

Edited October 9, 2023 by MarkKol

[LSD-Rumi]

2 hours ago, ZenAlex said:

But Vegans would argue that if you don't need to eat the animals, then their slaughter is completely unnecessary so it's unnecessary animal exploitation/killing purely for pleasure/convenience rather than need

If they are raised and killed well, it is not exploitation, it is a mutual benefit.

 

[undeather]

Quote

No lol.
Unless you are faithful to some theological system which condemns and especially punishes the consumption of animal products, ethics is only an abstract and relative concept in your head.

That's such an ill-considered argument.
Moral relativism is exactly why vegans are able to ground their propositions on such a robust, ethical baseline. The same heuristic that applies to our fundamental code of conduct (don't kill/steal/rape - i.e reduce suffering) can be exteneded to include non-human animals as well. By saying "ethics is an abstract and realtive concept in your head" you are saying absolutely nothing by being technically right. I mean, the nazis  thought they were doing their world a favor by killing all those jews. Now, even though there is no absolute ethical framework, would you not agree that killing all those innocent people was a terrible thing to do? Thought so.

 

Quote

Obviously, a diet without animal products is a nightmare for anyone who is in tune with their intuition.

Millions of people lead healthy and happy lives under zero percent animal product consumption.
I was a semi-professional tennis player for years, eating an almost 100% vegan diet - and I felt great.
Refering to ones intuition is fine with me, but thinking that "my intuition" is somewhat of a proxy of what other people should or should not eat  is a bit of a schizo-take. 
 

Quote

 

Yes, but why ? 

 

Because it's delicious.
Unhealthy food can be fucking delicious. 
 

Quote

I can say that Vegetarians are Westerners (Hindus are vegetarians for another reason, theological) who grew up in excessive comfort and are too fragile to support a potentially ego-damaging reality.

What does that even mean.....
 

Quote

 

Say it clearly, a daily supplemented and without deviations diet.

I too can do very well with a diet based on white sugar, if I supplement well.
It doesn't mean that the sugar packet diet is the optimal, natural diet, or simply a pleasant and sustainable d

 

If your definition of an "optimal" diet is one which doesn't require any form of supplementation, then yes - it's not not an "optimal" diet. 
If you want to talk about health outcomes, then a diet with high amounts of animal products is not "optimal". 

The need for supplementation is mainly a byproduct of our food-ecosystem and not the diet itself.

A diet of purely white sugar + all supplements (macros + micros) will make you feel miserable and if you disagree with that, you need to take a basic course in physiology. 
 

Quote

You may be anti-SFA, but even then most animal products aren't even that high in SFA.

Outside of certain oils, the vast majority of SFA-sources are animal based.

 

Quote

Why ? If it's a good diet then you're naturally supposed to be able to eat enough, right?

Lol. That's like saying that meat consumption is not natural because it makes you prone to overeating - and that's why so many americans are fat. That's obviously a complete strawman and non-sequitor. 

Over and underconsumption of calories is a complex phenomenon with a whole host of interacting, bio-psycho-social factors. 
Eating disorders are found in any dietary pattern.

I (obviously) used the example to point out an unhealthy user bias in that sample. 
 

Quote

 

Epidemiological studies have little value and serve a political agenda.

Yesterday I saw an anti-smoking video which claimed that smokers had a loss of gray and white matter.
Intrigued, because I had in mind a study showing that tobacco users were half as affected by Parkinson's disease, I went to see the study, and it showed that smokers drank on average twice as much alcohol ( which is very neurotoxic) and practiced less physical effort (neuroprotective).

 

Can you see what you are doing here?
You are taking the worst of the worst example from a study design perspective and therefore declare the whole field of epidemiology  as inadequate. Does that mean that randomized controlled trials are useless if I find you a shitty one? 

Look, there is good reason to shittalk epidemiology and I have done so multiple times in the past. 
However, the truth is that there are extremely well designed epi-studies out there. The art of the good and honest scientist is to find out which data is reliable and which is not. Some epi-studies are so well designed, that the data quality is even superior to some RCT's. Black and white thinking will lead you nowhere. I agree that those kind of studies are SOMETIMES used to serve a political or corporal agenda. However, its a logical fallacy to think that now ALL epi-studies are bad. That's just not the case....and if you really think that, you need to learn more about the subject.
 

Quote

If I had continued to follow what you think is the advice of the scientific community, I would still have massive brain fog, lots of aggression and lots of gas.

Btw, the medical order in my country does not recommend veganism, "in particular for pregnant women and childrens", the Belgian order even made a report openly condemning the promotion of veganism.
Who represents science the most? The order of doctors from several Western European countries or a gang of oddball outsiders, mainly confined to the United States?
Franco-German doctors making an Arte documentary on how the consumption of fish is neuroprotective and helps reverse diabetes in synergy with a weight loss diet, or the other madman of Neil Barnard who explains in a sensational and conspiracy theory Netflix documentary bogus on diabetes by roughly extrapolating the Randle cycle?

Linking veganism to science is false.

 

Do you even know what the science says about veganism? I doubt that. 
I agree with you that some vegan groups use "SCIENCE®" to promote absurd health claims and fuel their propaganda pieces. I would include the Game Changer documentary, some of the ARTE stuff and Dr. Michael Greger/Neil Bernard in that category. 

But then to come out saying stuff like "linking veganism to science is false" is such a painfully stupid argument. I mean we have an abundance of data looking at all the different diets under very controlled conditions. And the truth is that vegan diets, if done properly, can be extremely healthy. In terms of some hard outcomes it still get's outperformed by mediterranian patterns, but that's it, really. There is surprisingly little discussion about what a healthy diet looks like within circles of professionals who know the data. I am not even advocating for vegan diets - I usually place emphasis on plant based, but never vegan. 

There is also a reason why some food-socieities dont reccommend veganism to pregnant women or children - and that's very simple. Because people are usually very bad at adherence when it comes to restrictive diet patterns. 

Ok, I have spent way too much time on this. 
Anyway, just wanted to clarify some stuff.

[ZenAlex]

46 minutes ago, LSD-Rumi said:

If they are raised and killed well, it is not exploitation, it is a mutual benefit.

 

The problem is relying on humans to treat the animals well, which you cannot. We have this fantasy of animals gleefully strolling through the fields and having a happy life before they are slaughtered but it's bullshit. 

[LSD-Rumi]

29 minutes ago, ZenAlex said:

The problem is relying on humans to treat the animals well, which you cannot. We have this fantasy of animals gleefully strolling through the fields and having a happy life before they are slaughtered but it's bullshit. 

I think the real fantasy is, to expect people to stop eating meat.

Pushing the concept of decreasing our consumption of meat is much easier than promoting veganism which is much more radical, veganism is hard to sell for most people.

Good animal welfare is achievable, it is not a fantasy.

Edited October 9, 2023 by LSD-Rumi

[Princess Arabia]

7 hours ago, undeather said:

From an ethical standpoint, there is really no good argument to justify eating meat - or even broader, any animal product at all. I have listened to many debates about this topic since it's a question I have been intellectually wrestling with for years. In the end, if you are truly honest, veganism just trumps any proposition with the superior arguments. 

That said, I will still keep eating some animal products because I just enjoy the shit out of them. I do eat primarily plant based (and have been vegan before), but life without parmesan cheese, eggs or some good steak here and there just takes so much of lifes zest away for me personally. I will keep living with the cognitive dissonance and that's it. Lab grown animal products will solve this dilemma in the future. 

From a health perspective, things become a little bit more difficult in my opinion. The vast majority of individuals will do extremely well on a proper, whole food oriented, vegan diet. You can also argue that by cutting out most sources of saturated fat, the diet is inherently anti-atherogenic. However, there are many, many, many case reports of people reporting feeling shit after cutting out animal products. The usual counter-argument from the vegan side is that those individuals usually eat too little calories, don't supplement properly (B12, D3) or follow a ridicolous FAD-diet pattern (like raw-veganism, fruitarians etc.). I am not at all conviced by those arguments - they will explain some but not all cases. There will always be outliers who just won't fit the bellcurve. While general patterns are true (a more plant based lifestyle is health promoting), the complexities of the human body will always leave room for if's/and's/or's. We are complex biopsychosocial contructs after all. 

I think @Jason Actualization's case is pretty interesting. Even though I fundamentally disagree with his approach (which is inherently unscientific), one just can't ignore the effect his lifestyle-change had on his health (if he is telling the truth, which I think he does). 

Anyway, enough blabber from my side. 

I think this was well put together; and, as a whole, summarized perfectly. 

[aurum]

@ZenAlex I’m an ex-vegan. It was a trash diet healthwise and did not work for me at all. Some people may be able to make it work with supplements if they’re very good about it, but I still wouldn’t recommend it. Going back to meat has been glorious.

[toasty7718]

I wouldn't look down on someone for eating for eating an animal product if their body just can't go with plants, like Leo for example.
 

If our goal is to minimize suffering, then it should apply to the person also. 


There are people who have an easier time being with animal products than without them.

 

But it's also important to remember that many people who go onto a carnivore diet do so out of desperation, and so with an elimination diet their gut microbiome isn't in such a constant state of inflammation, so therefore they feel better in the short term. This is an issue that can be addressed by working with a functional medicine doctor or naturopathic doctor who is willing to incrementally uptake your fiber intake to get your microbiome used to fiber. The long term benefits outweigh the short term costs. 

 

Having a complete nutrient profile is also of concern, like EPA/DHA, certain amino acids, and vitamin b12 (among others).  

 

Aside from that, I don't see any ethical considerations that justify killing an animal without necessity for survival. 

But if someone just isn't ready to make the full transition to veganism or isn't in a place to because of their environment or health issues that stem from it, then I would say ethically source animal products to only the minimum degree that supports you and hold right to ethical lines you draw.
 

I would be more than happy if somebody struggling to go vegan just ate farm-fresh eggs from the farmer's market to get by yet refused to eat eggs from restaurants and their friend's house, or something along those lines.

 

This also means not automatically going to something like red meat, a kill product. If I do xyz then I automatically should do xyz because it's black & white is dangerous thinking. 

"Humane slaughter" is an oxymoron. Would you want to be at the other end of that? This brings in the pie slice theorem of ethics—imagine if you cut the pie and the other got to choose which slice they got. 
 

As humanity becomes more and more conscious, our circle of concern will grow. This is a hallmark of stage green thinking. As humanity progressed, the differences that the we saw in other sentient beings (like women, black people, other tribes, etc.) don't matter because they experience as much as we do and they have deserve negative rights.
 

Empathy is the progressive expanding of understanding that things that are seemingly different from us have so much more similarities with us than we can ever imagine. This circle of concern will eventually expand to all animals and eventually all sentient beings as humanity progresses their level of consciousness. 

[Ajax]

Me Eat Meat! 

So decreed by GOD!

[sholomar]

There are some basic amino acids and nutrients that the body does not get by eating strictly plants alone. Fortunately you can supplement with these items. It really depends on the type of vegan diet you're eating. Some people eat junk food vegan  ... high carb processed crackers and chips and that's not very healthy. French fries are not healthy. In my opinion the large amounts of white bread and doughy items like pizza are not healthy. I would prefer to date a woman who ate mostly a rich variety of greens and fruits if she eats vegan and of course lets me have my steak with the great vegan meal she cooks me as an example. If she's eating these processed foods it's going to be a no-go.

I personally will not stop eating meat especially beef. Much of the beef that people eat out in South Dakota by is locally raised by Family Farms who treat the cattle well anyways. It spends its time grazing on land that is too hilly to be farmed for crops especially out in the western part of the state which is all unglaciated land.  Raising chickens on family farms and giving away or selling the eggs where I work is also quite popular.  This is a rural area and there's a lot of wide open space.

Edited October 10, 2023 by sholomar

[undeather]

Quote

There are some basic amino acids and nutrients that the body does not get by eating strictly plants alone. Fortunately you can supplement with these items.

Mind telling us the amino acids which you can't get through plants?

[toasty7718]

31 minutes ago, undeather said:

Mind telling us the amino acids which you can't get through plants?

I think what's he's referring to is if you aren't sourcing your protein sources intelligently from a variety of plants then you can end up with low levels of a specific amino acid.