What is the Best Argument Against Veganism?

[Mischief]

I don't think that the real question is "What is the best argument against veganism?", because the only real argument against veganism is that vegans need to supplement B12. The real question is what are the best arguments for veganism, and how to present them coherently and persuasively.

 

[Scorpius]

I found a number of online sites advocating veterinary hospice care, starting with the Nikki Hospice Foundation (which appears to have been the first one), but vets I've asked don't seem to be that familiar with the concept yet, although I live in a well-populated area.

This is the one by me: New England Pet Hospice & Home Care

The veterinary hospital I work at also has an oncology department, which is arguably like pet hospice, as the main goal of therapy there is to keep pets with a cancer diagnosis as comfortable as possible. They do a good job at it.

As for the rest of this train wreck of a thread: are we really having the "happy cows" discussion again? Jeeesus.

 

[flyingsnail]

I think a lot of veg*ns think that killing an animal unnecessarily is uncompassionate.
If a bunch of animals get killed during agricultural farming, that is simply unavoidable.

What exactly does it mean to kill "unnecessarily"? In what sense is it unavoidable? While I doubt you could prevent every death, you could certainly do better than current practices which don't make any effort protect animals.

Do you really not see the difference between someone murdering someone painlessly, and someone accidental being run over by a car?

Yes, there is a difference, but I don't think this distinction is what we are dealing with here. The animal deaths that occur when harvesting plant crops aren't accidental, instead they are the direct result of the sort of equipment that is used. If, for example, wheat results in the same amount of animal deaths per calorie as dairy how exactly is one cruel and the other "cruelty-free"? Cows are culled in dairy production for much the same reason animals are killed when harvesting plant crops, namely, methods that seek to maximize profit. As mentioned, in the case of grain fed cattle dairy will always result in more animal deaths but I've yet to hear a convincing case that this is the case for pastured dairy.

 

[flyingsnail]

The fact that there are a few inconsistencies within the vegan philosophy doesn't mean that I would reject veganism completely.

Sure, but shouldn't inconsistencies be addressed? So long as they exist they will be pointed out and used to discredit the entire enterprise.

I don't think that the real question is "What is the best argument against veganism?", because the only real argument against veganism is that vegans need to supplement B12. The real question is what are the best arguments for veganism, and how to present them coherently and persuasively.

How is the need to supplement with b12 an argument against veganism? In any case, the "best argument against" and the "best argument for" are two sides of the same coin. I don't think you can make a convincing case for some position unless you entertain and respond to common criticisms.

 

[Blobbenstein]

Yes, there is a difference, but I don't think this distinction is what we are dealing with here.

it depends what animals are killed in harvest, and general crop production.
I think I can see that field mouse dying is just as bad as a cow dying.......but also I feel that the way an animal dies is important, and that deliberate killing is somehow worse that accidental death. The intent is important...so someone deliberately killing a field mouse, and a field mouse being run over by a vehicle are different, those two things as part of society, mean different things.
I don't value a worm, or some kind of larvae dying in a harvest as much as a cow, or a field mouse....so it isn't just about numbers, to me.

 

[Tom L.]

What exactly does it mean to kill "unnecessarily"? In what sense is it unavoidable? While I doubt you could prevent every death, you could certainly do better than current practices which don't make any effort protect animals.

We probably could, since comparatively little is done to protect animals who aren't either pets or in danger of extinction. This issue strikes me as comparable to accidental deaths in traffic accidents. We certainly have various laws and technologies to prevent them, but is everything possible being done? I really doubt it. Most people accept this as part of modern life.

Yes, there is a difference, but I don't think this distinction is what we are dealing with here. The animal deaths that occur when harvesting plant crops aren't accidental, instead they are the direct result of the sort of equipment that is used. If, for example, wheat results in the same amount of animal deaths per calorie as dairy how exactly is one cruel and the other "cruelty-free"? Cows are culled in dairy production for much the same reason animals are killed when harvesting plant crops, namely, methods that seek to maximize profit. As mentioned, in the case of grain fed cattle dairy will always result in more animal deaths but I've yet to hear a convincing case that this is the case for pastured dairy.

Hard data for this is often hard to come by. I know, because I looked for it a number of years ago when this issue first gained public attention among vegetarian circles. I finally had to mostly settle for what information I could get indirectly, such as population studies of small animals in various fields, yield per acre of various crops, what pest control measures were recommended for certain crops... My reason for finding out the last one was, if there was no need to control damage from a certain kind of animal in a large field planted to a crop, I assumed that the population of that animal would be small or nonexistent in that field: if a vole did not rely on potatoes to any extent for food, a potato field would presumably be an uninhabitable desert, as far as voles were concerned (except maybe for the edges, which might be used for shelter, while adjoining areas might be used for food). I would then have considered potatoes to be a "vole-safe" food.

(I can't remember whether this was the case- I'll have to review my notes, but I think potatoes had little damage from small mammals. Of course, one can't live on potatoes- as I see it, the recent publicity about levels of arsenic in rice shows the need for a varied diet.)

I think I still have a wordperfect document where I wrote all this down but I'd have to find it and it's maybe 10 years old.

 

[flyingsnail]

it depends what animals are killed in harvest, and general crop production.
I think I can see that field mouse dying is just as bad as a cow dying.......but also I feel that the way an animal dies is important, and that deliberate killing is somehow worse that accidental death. The intent is important...so someone deliberately killing a field mouse, and a field mouse being run over by a vehicle are different, those two things as part of society, mean different things.

If you know that some action will kill animals in what sense are the deaths related to that action accidental? The intent isn't really different either, people don't produce dairy with the intent of killing cows instead the culling of spent dairy cows is a byproduct of modern dairy production.

As far as worms and insect in general, I didn't have them in mind and wouldn't focus on them but vegans do avoid insect derived products so insect deaths should be relevant to them.

 

[flyingsnail]

Hard data for this is often hard to come by. I know, because I looked for it a number of years ago when this issue first gained public attention among vegetarian circles. I finally had to mostly settle for what information I could get indirectly, such as population studies of small animals in various fields, yield per acre of various crops, what pest control measures were recommended for certain crops...

Hard data is hard to come by, the only claim I was intending on making is that its not obvious, at first sight, that pastured dairy results in more animal deaths per calorie than common plant crops. Since vegans are the ones claiming that one should not consume dairy regardless of its production method, you'd think they would have a convincing argument on the matter but I've yet to see it. Yet...they remain vehemently opposed.

In any case, one of my points in all of this is that one of the "best arguments against veganism" is that its black and white. There are a lot of gray areas, a lot of unanswered questions....yet veganism insists on a particular position.

 

[ledboots]

In any case, one of my points in all of this is that one of the "best arguments against veganism" is that its black and white. There are a lot of gray areas, a lot of unanswered questions....yet veganism insists on a particular position.

Veganism black and white? But what seems to annoy the crap out of you is the very grayness necessarily built into veganism. AS FAR AS PRACTICABLE AND POSSIBLE is pretty flipping gray imo.

 

[Tom L.]

I don't think that the real question is "What is the best argument against veganism?", because the only real argument against veganism is that vegans need to supplement B12. The real question is what are the best arguments for veganism, and how to present them coherently and persuasively.

(bold emphasis mine) And even this isn't that much of an argument, IMHO. I know some people (lots, actually) want a "natural diet", but there are many things in modern life which aren't natural- medical technology, modern housing, clothes- without which our lives might well be much shorter and more unpleasant. I suppose one might argue that even wearing an animal's hide is not natural, and that humans should "naturally" live in a tropical/subtropical climate.

A bit off-topic for this thread: "Smithsonian" magazine recently had an article about the lives of the first humans in North America. Apparently they spent a lot of time and energy bashing each other over the head, judging from how many skull fractures they were finding. And it seems that these macho men didn't treat women very well either.

 

[flyingsnail]

Veganism black and white? But what seems to annoy the crap out of you is the very grayness necessarily built into veganism. AS FAR AS PRACTICABLE AND POSSIBLE is pretty flipping gray imo.

Yes, black and white, for example one doesn't eat any animal derived products regardless of the situation and details. Period. For example, the clear majority of vegans will kick you out of the vegan club merely for eating honey despite your reasoning. Eat a little dairy? You may as well go die. I think you may be misunderstanding my problem with the Vegan Society definition, its not that it allows a gray area which I think would be good, its that its inherently vague, inconsistent and doesn't seem to match vegan practice. The definition is a mere after thought used to push some issues under the rug, its not the driving force of veganism.

 

[flyingsnail]

(bold emphasis mine) And even this isn't that much of an argument, IMHO. I know some people (lots, actually) want a "natural diet", but there are many things in modern life which aren't natural- medical technology, modern housing, clothes- without which our lives might well be much shorter and more unpleasant.

Yes, I guess I just wouldn't consider this an argument at all. Its just plain stupid, I mean, whenever I've heard this sort of reasoning its been over the internet. There would be an argument if synthesized B12 was some how poorly used, but the opposite is the case, its animal derived B12 that is poorly assimilated by the body.