Podcast and article about debunking and critic veganism / vegetarinisn / animals right - philosophy


 

Debunking vegan propaganda


 

Vegan myths debunked


 

Article, podcast, Lecture

For listening.


 

**Download the  podcast

Podcast debunking and critic veganism / vegetarinisn - Download MP3

 

Podcast text:

The veganism fallacies

Fallacies of veganism, vegetarianism, animals-rights and other seemingly positive attitude toward animals


 

Written by: Amichai Elinson

Read for you by: Paul Gibson.


 

* Veganism and vegetarianism is used here as one term.


 

Vegetarianism or veganism are not necessarily associated with objective compassion for animals, or reducing their suffering and killing. What is meant by "objective"? If the vegetarian (or vegan, activist ect.. to make it simple I don’t treat them differently) feels sorry for the cows who die within a short period of time in a regular slaughterhouse, but does not pity the animals that died in the process of growing the plant food: for example, spraying and pestilence, which come with more suffering from slaughter - his feeling that one food involves suffering and death and the other does not - is entirely subjective. If he claims that animals deserve rights, this should apply in both situations.

 

Before we continue, please note one remark - to make it simple, I use the two words - vegetarianism and veganism as one term)

***


 

Animal rights, being equal to human rights - is an impossible situation - As I understand, claims about "animals-rights" are a failed attempt of trying do the same as human rights and obligations between human beings. Just as there is a problem in imposing duties on animals (what is the duty of the shark?), There is the same problem with rights (does a rat have a right to life ? How do you do this when a snake intends to bite or choke it and then eat it?) Animals do not understand rights and do not act accordingly. The concept of rights has no meaning even within a certain species of animals. What right does a lion have among the other lions?

How do you recognize the right to adequate living conditions for each animal? The "vegan dream," certainly does not allow it in its agricultural areas, or in nature at all.


 

What determines who deserves rights? Consider the following: Suppose that one day, there will be software with artificial intelligence, which has awareness like a human being or even higher than. Would it be permissible to kill it, or delete it ?
If the criterion is, the existence of awareness, or the ability to feel, to love, etc., then the answer supposedly is that we should not.

In my opinion, we will not be able to uphold the laws that are practiced today between people themselves, in the same way with software.


 

And with animals? How, seemingly solve it, those who support rights for animals? Please note that they usually present the issue of animal rights vaguely, do not specify which rights, do not specify who have rights, does is it stop at the insects? a cockroach who flees from us at home, may feel fear, does it deserve rights ? what are the rights of the jellyfish? The reason I think, for the blurring is simple - if they show it clearly, the idea will collapse.


 

It is important to me to say that lack of rights, does not mean the lack of importance or irresponsibility from people. It is important to preserve animals and nature, but with realistic concepts, for example, the prohibition to drop sewage into a stream, or hospitals for ill and wounded animals, a dry area for every cow in the cowshed, and of course nature conservation in certain areas.


 

* Rights or not - In any case, plant farming, in which spraying, destroying the habitat (regular agriculture) - is not consistent with the realization of animal rights. Cows at a farm have even more protective laws.


 

QUESTION : For example, if there is decision to not hunt whales or hunt elephants, does this not mean that whales or elephants have a right to life, just as a person has a basic right to life?

Answer - No. The fact that people have the right to live (in an ideal situation) includes a protection from killing, does not mean that everyone who protects from killing has a rights.

It's like the logic in: "All dogs have 4 legs, but not everyone who has 4 legs is a dog."

Everyone who has rights should be protected, but not everyone who is protected has rights.

What would you do if a big whale wanted to devour a little whale? What about a flock of sharks / dolphins / fish attacking a whale, is that allowed? - I suppose if you think that wild animals are supposed to be in nature, and are not separated in cages and fed with - actually what? Meat if necessary?. So, if this is the case, we are dealing with the prohibition to harm animals, which is the responsibility of human under certain conditions.


 

In order to preserve wild animals in nature, the whole ecosystem must be kept: predators, preys, scavengers, pollinators, plants and the list goes on. What if a flock of lions / wolves attacked an elephant in the wild? You cannot say that they are forbidden. Or maybe it so? But then what about the wolves? Will they starve to death? Will they receive a vegetable substitute and a fence that will separate them from anyone who can be eaten by them? Will they be only at zoos?

In addition, without preying, the herbivores will breed endlessly, and they will eat the grass in their area until nothing remains, till they have no food, and die with much suffering. How do you prevent it? In nature, the predators or the microbes prevent an infinite multiplicity.. Animals who die under these circumstances - what rights do they have?


 

As I understand they have no rights. When there is a desirable condition, there will be an effort to preserve nature, but it is not the same as rights.


 

------------------

Captive animals, for example at zoos, live significantly longer than in nature. If the right to life is so basic, it means that keeping animals in captivity is desirable ?

------------------


 

Images from legends, cartoons and pets


 

In the "Reality" of the animated-film "Bambi" - a variety of animal species are in friendly relations and speak the same language with each other - a human language. In that case one can argue that it is also necessary to give them rights the same as human beings, and to blame the bad hunter. Its not possible, but we are "going out of the film".


 

In the reality of a nature reserve, or "jungle laws", it is not possible. Not even in vegan farming (plant farming).

There may be people whose familiarity with the animal world is mainly influenced by legends which humanize animals or pets, that treat them as part of the human family. I remind you that when pets do not have human beings who treat them, their fate is very different. They do not have a natural right just by being a dog, or a parrot, and a cat.


 

I am not against the protection of certain species in certain places, nor against the preservation of whole ecosystems or having pets, but the proper concepts should be used. For example, "It is forbidden to kill elephants in Kenya" or "Visitors are forbidden to harm anything, even not to pick leaves, in nature reserves," or "The law says that pets should not be abandoned and it is forbidden to poison street-cats."


 

The term "human rights", as its name implies, is for human beings by the virtue of being human beings. If we know a danger of predation to humans, or that other people are going to attack other people, it is expected that the authorities will protect them. They have a right of life. By contrast, "equal rights for man and animal," is something else, and will always be a paradoxical concept. Why ?


 

The mistake of equal right to animals - the attempt to give equal rights to animals as the same as given to a human being, is an attempt to make generalization from a possible set of laws between humans to impossible set of law with animals.

A similar example is when we try to include what we know on earth, such as gravity, or the possibility of breathing - into the space. On earth you can go out and go for a walk. It will not work at the moon, and what is possible in the moon, might not possible in black hole, Even though everything is part of nature.


 

Thus it is impossible to generalize from the relationships between people to the animals world.

In common relations between people, it is accepted that although there is an ability to kill each other, to steal and to rob, most people, thanks to education and law enforcement, will voluntarily abandon such acts, and thus we will live better. If someone does not give up on it, we will enforce it through the authorities.

Such an agreement is not possible with animals. The snake does not give up its ability to bite, and is not afraid of the humans laws and police investigations. The cow will not give up eating from your garden or from the fields, nor can she manage on the place she claims to be hers, and learn to respect a place that belongs to others.


 

A similar mistake "humane attitude toward animals" - Human - means that human being is at the center, and most important just by being human, unlike anything else. So, in my understanding, the term is used incorrectly when you intend use to animals. The proper term may be to be compassionate, considerate, and appropriate. It is not the same as humane.


 

That there is also the Is–ought problem.


 

A few things from the page of joke and shirt sentence:


 


 

* Without carnivores - the herbivores will multiply and multiply until they destroy all the plants, which will also lead to the extinction of herbivores, and later - the extinction of predators that may need them later.
------------------

* Even if for vegan food, one animal was deliberately killed, such as by spraying poison, it drops the ground of the major claims of vegans such as "meat is a murder," or that animals should be treated equally as humans. Because murder is murder is murder.

---------------

* If eating a hamburger is a murder, then murdering is just like eating a hamburger.
------------------

The vegetarians are eating the food of my food.
------------------


100% of people are linked and responsible to killing animals for their food. For some of them its animals like cows, goats, chickens and pigs. For some other people animals have died of plant farming, such as hedgehog, porcupines, rats, mice, turtles, and worms.

------------------

Some people perceive nature like in a common cartoon, where the animals speak, and are equal in their wisdom to human. For them, a bear is not a predator, “he” is Winnie the Pooh, and a mouse is Mickey Mouse.
------------------

In reality, nature does not care if Bambi's mother is killed.


 

In contrast, the cow's farmer cares about a calf, even if he separates it from his mother. Both cases are not perfect.

------------------


 

Meat is murder and suffering? If so, what is veganism ?
The claim of "murder" and suffering because of eating meat - and that veganism is free of the same problems, is fundamentally wrong.

If, for example, we buy lettuce, carrots, pumpkin, radish, pepper - it’s a product that gets reproduced - first all the area was plowed and all the nature that was there before is destroyed with the entire habitat that was there. The hedgehog and the snake and the beetle, lose what they had. An insect that lives in the bushes surrounding what we eat, will lose his food, and so on, his predators also will lose their food.

Rats, mice, rabbits and bats that maybe have a luck and survive, might be poisoned and die slowly. The hawk or the falcon that find the dying mouse or the wolf or jackal that eat their poisoned carcass will also be poisoned, and so on. Birds are killed, or just remain without food. Masses of insects are sprayed, and lots of other animals are hurts: the lizard, the turtle, the hedgehog, the boar and many others. Those animals are tortured and suffer long deaths and suffering, and many generations of animals that could have been without such actions - destroyed. Later in the barns - taking cruel measures against "invaders."


 

When did you see meat opponents protest against each other? - It seems that they don’t really care about animals, nature, or know the subject well - but they care about veganism, and that no one will tell them what to eat.


 

It should be noted that the description above about plant farming, is summed up. It is possible to add more and more, such as the fragmentation of living areas, or attraction of species that were foreign to the region and are now competing with locals, pollution of groundwater, river and general environmental pollution.


 

As far as it is known, the main reason for the mass extinction of animal species, is the destruction of their habitats.

To demonstrate it, let's say that only "a few" types of pollinating insects are extinct. Now the plants that depended on them will be extinct too. The same plants were food and a habitat for other animals, which would also remain without what was provided. The predators of those animals also remain without food. This is how a wide-range change is made, and more than once - for good and with suffering.


 

This demonstration, which began "only" with the disappearance of a few pollinators, was a relatively delicate example: because agriculture has already destroyed most of the natural flora and fauna, for example, with a plow and spraying, starting with bacteria and small mushrooms… when will it end?


 

Organic-agriculture also uses massive strategies that greatly alter the natural area.


 

Anyway there is no big difference between a vegan and a butcher.

One gives up meat, the other gives us meat.

* Oops Sorry. A comical pause.

------------------


 

Why vegans against honey? On the one hand, according to them, it is okay to spray their produce and destroy insects. On the other hand, honey bees that are not sprayed, and even feeds, protects and treats - but according to many vegans, honey is forbidden.

------------------

More seriously, this is what is called double standards or hypocrisy.

Another example:

- systematic killing of animals in the meat industry is portrayed as murder and acts of the Nazis.

- systematic killing of animals for vegetable food, is a taboo, meaning the vegans don't talk about it, or it is presented as "there is no choice, so it is permissible."

------------------


They seem to have a utopian idea of ​​equality and harmony with animals, but to some other Utopian believers, who tried to realize it, but found themselves in worse shape. Utopia usually offers one idea, without flexibility, that everyone has to obey, while life is complicated, and there is no real one person who knows everything.

Claims that "eating meat is murder”, and other similar claims, are often mere arrogance and misunderstanding of vegetarians as if they are righteous, and are not related to the killing of animals, while others are.

Where is the problem with eating meat - is it the taking of life? - If the principle of taking the life is the problem, killing animals such as goats, cows, pigs and chickens are insignificant compared to the huge number of bacteria that are killed. Our immune system kills masses of germs, we discharge to a cruel fate in the toilet and while we wash our hands, do laundry cleaning with water that has been mixed with chlorine that also killed and prevented life in the water. Our cleaning activities also kill and injure masses of house dust mites. All of our activity does something. If the principle that taking of life is the problem, then the plants also have life, according to any biological definition. Tree is not just wood. If the mere principle of taking life is the problem, the large animals are the very marginal part, especially in relation to microorganisms .


 

Yes, I know that vegans are annoyed by the argument that says, "plants also suffer," but that is not what I claimed. Even if plants respond to harm, it does not mean that the plant cares. What I was trying to argue was about the objective meaning of the claim of intentional termination of life.

There is a paradox here. If this is a problem, then the big animals are the tiny part. If the intentional end of life is not a problem, then those who claim that meat is murder, or that it is like what the Nazis did, etc., were wrong, and they have to correct their opinion, and the sites and articles of vegans or animal rights who claim such things.


 

* about comparing the holocaust or genocide to our treatment to animals - if all the people will enforce being a vegan, then there is going to be general destruction and mass of farm animals, at least for the most part, because they are all grown. So ?


 

"Rewriting claims"


 

In an argument with one who has vegan tendency, he may rewrite the argument again and again. If he claims that meat is murder, and he is shown that it is not true, then he will argue that meat is unhealthy.

Oops ... wait a minute. What happened to the “murder”?

You show him the fallacies about his health claims, so he will change the subject to animals suffering.

Oops ... what happened to the health issues?

They will tell him that in plant agriculture for his own food, animals suffer, so the claim will change to the matter of quantities, or that for plant food we must do it ...

Oops ... what's going on? There's no correction of the approach, there's only a rewriting the basis of the theory, according to the argument, regardless the constant collapses of the theory.


 

Sometimes there will be an insult, or sending horror pictures, or trying to attack our personality, or links to things on the Internet, which won't change the picture.


 

The response that I think should have been is: "Oh, how was I wrong? What are these vegans sites ?, The information is wrong, I have to update the others, I have to start building a new theory from the beginning."

This is not the common response.


 

Suffering


So maybe the problem is the suffering of the animals. I will not deny that there is suffering in the animal industry, but at least in principle, animals can be raised in conditions with less suffering comparing to living in the nature in many ways. An animal farm with full or partial access to grazing, with medical care when necessary, who cared for, plenty of water, food and protection from predators and weather hazards - may enjoy more than in the wild, where there are no such luxuries - but vegans do not support such growth - they support being vegan. Is there any animal grower, that vegan sites will recommend?

In a case of a farmer who raises his animals with good caring for their well-being, we could ask, what is better to those animals? Such a good life, and ultimately die with minimum suffering, or not living at all? After all, if the farmer would not grow them up, feed and take care for their next generation, then these animals won't be.


Even living in nature has inevitable suffering. If wolves prey the zebra - it will suffer. If the zebra has a "suckling baby," the baby is left without a mother. If the wolves cannot devour, they will suffer from starvation. Even their puppies if there is. Someone will suffer anyway.


 

Even in cities, you can see a cats prey someone, but before the final killing, they "play" - from the point of view of the cat or it’s puppy or are abusive - from the point of view of the prey. Usually the females do that when it has babies, to teach them gradually how to kill to survive.


 

***


 

If there is an argument that says: ‘because animals today suffer in the farms, it is forbidden to eat them’, this argument implies that animals who raised in good conditions may be eaten.


 

...But I don’t know of any vegan who "eats it".


 

In the walls of slaughterhouses...


Is the slaughtering is the problem - and if all the slaughterhouses had glass walls, would everyone become vegetarians? - It seems that this is actually one of the weak points in the claims of vegetarians and vegans, because slaughter animal is done with less suffering than in nature, where animals die from disease, from cold and hunger, or preying, snake bites and other kind of deaths. It is not more pleasant.

There is a principle in the nature, whether it seems right or wrong, that there is no life without death. If the creatures would not have death, there would be no place for the new offspring. The process of evolution would have also stopped, and lots of new creatures would not have been.

Why? - Because evolution is based on small changes between parents and offspring. The offspring who are more suited to the environment are more likely to survive, and after many years and accumulation of changes, it seems that another creature has been created. Death is necessary for this process. Without evolution, we couldn't be, nor the other creatures that we know today.


 

Intuitive perception of the animal world

We do not understand nature and the animal kingdom intuitively - even in a very basic manner like in the past even the smartest thought that that they were true, for example, they thought the Earth was not moving - "its a fact, we feel that it stands still". Nor did they think the earth shape is like a ball. Likewise there are many diversions toward animals and nature.


 

People have different attitudes and feelings to different animals, and this feeling seems natural to them, and therefore true, but actually it depends on culture, relationship, personality, propaganda, religion, knowledge, attention, intellectual ability and more. Unfortunately, less depends on objective things such as how to preserve nature, or how take care of an animal's welfare.

 

Just as people have visual illusions, failures and biases in almost every subject, the understanding about animals is biased as well.


 

Here are some examples on bias: a mouse, a dog, and a panda are similar in intellectual ability and in the ability to feel suffer - but the attitude they will receive from people in Western society will be radically different, according to biases, making biologically arbitrary categories, and a strong feeling of natural justice and that we must act that way.

It is reasonable to assume, that if someone shall go and demonstrate in the streets, that "rat and mice has rights", he would be perceived as odd, or too righteous or perhaps it's a kind of humor (where is the secret camera…). Those who do the same thing for livestock, and certainly if its for dogs and cats - will perceive another way.


 

Interestingly, a scientist who make experiments on rats to promote science and the health of all of us, is required to maintain strict conditions to protect the animals, but he is much more condemned by animal organizations, while those who do things much more cruel, such as poisoning mice that interfere in the process of making luxury foods such as cakes and sweet vegans drinks - will be perceived as a straight businessman.

The panda, thanks to its resemblance to a toy bear, and due to cute and attractive appearance in a humans eyes, would be treated much better than most or all the wild animals.


 

Emotional Appeal

Vegan propaganda often appeals to the emotions: for example, they show horror films, ask what would happen if someone would do the same to you? Insult you and get insulted them-self, anger you and be anger them-self.


Even we can understand the nature of human emotion, there is a problem here, because, as we have clarified, emotions are incompatible with a variety of objective things, and does not allow us to understand many things. Example: what is the size of the sun according to emotion or intuition? Which genius understood 1000 basic things, for example, that the world is round and rotating?

Furthermore in different cases, people have different feelings.

Take children, for example, who are more innocent. We find that there are children who relate to the dog in their home as a family member. Some are cruel to animals, some are doing cruel things out of curiosity, there is real aggression among some, such as throwing things at street cats. Some are afraid of animals even though they have not been attacked by them. Some are not afraid even if they encounter small injuries from animals, some see them as attractive and lovely, there are mixed and different feelings, and even imaginary animals that do not exist in reality.


 

Different feelings to animals are also different in adulthood. For some, a dog can be regarded as family member. Some people do not understand how someone can take dog into the house. In some countries, dogs might be considered as food. Everyone thinks thinks that their understanding is obvious and natural, but if it's natural, how are there conflicting approaches? The use of emotion and intuition may be appropriate for the beginning of an exploration, but certainly cannot determine the definite conclusion.


 

In any case, emotion does not mean that you have to do what you feel. If someone hates someone, that doesn't mean he has to attack him; If someone is in love and wants someone, that does not mean that they can and must realize all their fantasies.


 

From those things we can understand that emotion appealing can be many times problematic, does not serve the truth, our goals or the benefit of nature.

Emotional appeal can also be done with "horror films" that vegans often distribute and watch themselves. Here we go discussing about :


 

Using horrors pictures and movies


 

First, even if what is presented is indeed disgusting, horrific, it does not necessarily mean something moral. Even what other people do in the bathroom or while they are vomiting, may disgust you, but that does not mean anything moral. Vegetarian food, is food that eats manure (because the fields are fed, and the plants use it). What does it mean morally?


 

* If a plants needs animal manure, then they are not vegan - they needs animal products . Indirectly, vegan also consumed animal products.


 

Second, horror films shows only the narrow side they want, the worst and the most outrageous, and often with the interpretation tilted to the side they want, accompanied by music and effects that they chose.

In the same way one might show only the other side - the most beautiful moments. In both cases, these are propaganda films. For example, you can show an animal suffering from a serious illness in nature, as opposed to a cow when it is ill, the coward gets up to take care of her in the middle of the night and is assisted by an excellent and well-equipped animal doctor. If so, he would claim: "It is best to be farm animals, and certainly not to live in vegan fields, where the farmer gets up in the middle of the night to poison and shoot wild pigs that come to his fields."


 

A satirical demo

Horror. Lying in his own manure

 

Different species, which are not fit to be together, are densely packed

 

A last glimpse of freedom?

 

A sick cow.

You can notice that above it on the left is a sprinkler that makes fog, wetness that should cool the cow. But such a system should work together with a fan to ventilate, but the growers didn't install a fan. Constant moisture causes disease (we aren't dealing with fish or a hippopotamus).

 

Dirty water dishes. The sawdust from wood chips has a synthetic lacquer, and its toxic to animals. Mixing things from the floor with drinking water causes diseases.

 

Death cells. Reminiscent of dark days in history.

 

A 16-year-old boy does not come to school and does heavy work, with weights that are not suitable for his age and weight and without proper equipment.


 

joke:


 


 

------------------

How could a farm with fences, that imprisons the animals all their life, be called "the farm of freedom ?."

Since when is imprisonment freedom?


 

------------------


 

The above photos are real and were taken in a "Farm of Freedom" established by vegans. I'm in favor of this place, and the published pictures. They were aimed to make a satirical demonstration of what the vegans are doing seriously.

The picture of the pig in the mud is real, but it was purposely concealed. It has also a dry area, and that is what it wants. In a same ways meat-opponents took pictures of a pig in the manure, without mentioning that there is actually a dry area near side, but the pig chose to lie in the mud.


 

The cows picture in the "freedom farm" may look sick, because it lies alone. But who really checked? And if she's sick, so what? It might happen.

In the pictures I saw on the Net from vegans, they take a picture, for example from a cow that according to their opinion has Bovine mastitis (Udder infection). They do not take a photograph of the healthy majority, and do not mention that there is good treatment, and after a few days it will pass.


 

------------------

Why don't we see animals saved from the plant-farming?


 

------------------


 

A 12-year-old boy, who was looking at these pictures, told me that it was not like the pictures he receives from vegans. In the picture form them, there is blood .


 

Blood indeed cries out, but does it say something objective about suffering? The animals on the vegan-freedom-farm will also die sometime, but not in slaughter. If so, there is a chance that in principle there will be pictures of sick animals for a long time, some of them will scream in pain, sneeze, flutter, choke, shiver, have difficulty breathing, will not be really conscious, cannot stand up, eat or drink. In the end they may be given euthanasia, after much suffering.

Isn't it?

------------------


 

* If you keep in good conditions and a very small amount of animals, it will not solve the problems of the rest of the majority's of the animals.


 

If the opposite is true, a very large number of animals will grow in good conditions, so they will not be able to claim that animals should not be eaten, because of their growing conditions.


 

------------------


 

Making you disgusted


 

"Honey is vomit, egg is a hen’s period, milk is infection, you eat crops and secretions ..."

They're mixing up an incorrect biology and health logic that is not right. Honey is not vomit, egg is not like woman's period, milk is not infection . With regard to "secretion eaters", if secretion is unhealthy just because the fact that it is a secretion, then it is forbidden to breathe, because oxygen is the secretion of plants. There is also air emissions from humans and a variety of creatures in the environment, including bacteria, of course; And what about emissions of cars and factories? The baby must not have breast milk, according to this logic, because it is also a secretion, and is also an animal product.


 

"Crop-eaters" - what is the intention? In the language I know, it is a dead person, not cooked meat with veterinary supervision. If it means something that once was alive, then also plants were once alive, by any biological definition and the masses of bacteria that were on it and died in the cooking process, the spraying or from the eating, are also "corpses" and the apparent conclusion that it is forbidden to eat from the plant.


 

There are also people who are disgusted by vegan food, and some love it. Such claims are not health-trues, or moral or biological;-truth.


 

If someone thought says that it is forbidden to eat honey, because it is vomit, and milk is forbidden because it is infection or secretion, then when it turns out that he was wrong, he should think that now it is okay to eat, shouldn’t he?

In an argument with a vegan, it somehow doesn't work.

* If their theory is so correct, why do they need the wrong claims? Why does a better knowledge not change their minds?

 

 

Lecture by Gary Yourofsky


 

Part II


 

Conflicting needs

 

"The best for animals is to be free at nature" - some would say. But when you want to take care of animal's welfare, you discover that there are conflicting needs - not everything in nature is a celebration or as peaceful in the meadow.

Along with the fact that animals have space and the possibility to do a variety of actions, along with that comes "cruel nature" pain and suffering, hunger, disease, thirst, hard weather, enemies and fear of enemies. Some animals die with great suffering, could be from skin disease, wounding, gastrointestinal lesions and some form another long illness, or fall to preying, when they begin to be eaten alive.


 

Captive-animals may suffer from deprivation of freedom and the prevention of natural behavior, boredom, imprisonment, but enjoy other things such as plenty food and water, protection from

predators and parasites, medical treatment, protection against bad weather and they finished their life in a short way with less suffering than usual in nature or at plant-farming.


 


 

Objective vs. subjective


 

Why can't I reach agreement with a vegan?

I suppose, that one of the reasons is that the vegan wants recognition in his subjective world. I gave examples of disgusting horror films, emotion appealing, and intuitive perception. These are real things in the inner world of people.

What in the objective, external world? There are things that were indeed terrible, and some have only been experienced as such, but the feelings may be very strong. Someone who has watched horror movies or visited a slaughterhouse may develop signs of post-trauma. This is a matter that requires serious consideration. I believe them that they are really shocked.


 

On the other hand, if we really want to fix things in the real world, beyond the experience of a specific person, it is impossible without reference to objective reality. The death of an animal seem bad, it is hard to see even a dog who had euthanasia, and if it is a dog we raised and loved - most of us prefer to leave the veterinarian's room to not see it. This does not mean anything objective about the dog situation - that may have been saved from its agony. Take another case: A vegan who will send me only links studies that seemingly claim that meat is unhealthy, will be automatically disqualified, because he ignores other good research, and scientific consensus of all science-based health care bodies. He tries to validate his subjective perception. A vegan who will send me sources that show that the breeding process in the farm animals was only in a way that harms them, without showing the benefit, for example resistance to certain diseases, it again shows the subjective world. If he claims, for example, that cows have been cultivated so that they give a lot of milk and so suffer from it, then what does he suggest? That we raise cows that give a little milk? How much do we know when it's okay? Does he want us to stop raising cow until their extinction? These are things that in the objective world should be discussed. In a field of plants, a mouse is killed with poison, in the animal industry by slaughter, in both cases death. A claim that one is murder, and the other is not, is only a subjective feeling of someone.


 

As long as one talks about his subjective experience, and the other talks about objectivity or at least aspires to - these are two lines that do not meet.

Of course meat-eaters also have a subjective experience, which probably will not meet with that of the vegans. "I eat meat because it tasty." Lack of caring about inappropriate conditions for living in the farm, and eating unhealthy sausages because "we need meat in the diet."


 

Not only that, everyone is probably biased in many ways, the difference is that there are those who are more, some are less, and some are aware, and try to overcome the biases.


 

* Talking about it Intuitively - there is probably no one, who loves fruits, vegetables and seeds so much that it is only because of that, he wants to become a vegan.


 

The amount of death and suffering

The question that is interesting is - Where more animals die, suffer and there is more damage to the nature, then growing large animals in good conditions seems to be the best solution? Surprising?


 

Take one bull. It weighs about ton and could eat in wild pasture, and provides about of 500 kilos of food, but it is one of the animals that is killed, as opposed to many more animals that are getting poisoned and die at a plant fields in industrialized agriculture to provide a similar amount of food, and with a similar nutritional quality - lettuce, cucumber, eggplant, etc, are not a dietary substitute for meat - it does not contain the same amount of calories, protein, iron, B12, etc. Natural pasture does not spray, so add to that the other wild animals that could live there. Add also the fact that the ox is not only meat, it is also add manure to the field, as opposed to a field that is often has fertilizers brought to it from an outside-source and from a non-renewable source. The growth conditions of the ox are good. This seems preferable to plant food, according to the main arguments that the vegans say - preventing unnecessary killing and suffering, stop damaging the planet and so on.


 

It is true that the big majority of the farmers do not raised animals that way, but this claim can be used against common breeding methods, but not against any kind of animal breeding or eating meat. This example demonstrates that the reduction of killing and environmental damage is not necessarily related to vegetarianism and veganism, and that the spreading of false theories by vegetarians and vegans causes damage in precisely the subjects they demand for improvement.


 

The absurd thing is that a vegan, who wants as little as possible dying of animals, should rather eat the flesh of large animals that were in pastures, and should be the first to do so. The more people do it, the demand will grow and also go to people who prefer to buy meat for other reasons, for example, because they think it is healthier, and less animals will die and suffer.

Not just one bull, one person. A regular nature supervisor who, in a few years of work, prevented river pollution, theft of sand, prevented illegal hunting, brought injured animals to treatment, prevented illegal fishing, documented and brought to trial nature-offenders, prevented lots of activity against animals and nature just because a deterrence and by being at the place… and prevent throwing of trash by an unauthorized truck, reveal a beginning of fire and stop it and to prevent a natural disaster, prevent the destruction of natural resources by vehicles, treat polluting travelers, returning lost travelers to a safe place - saved and helped far more than a large number of vegans, and people

who are against experiment on animals and natural supplement sellers- perhaps more than all of them together. This is an example of maintaining and keeping animals and nature in a normal proper way.


Arguments for vegetarianism do not present such a possibility, just the possibility of vegetarianism as a main thing.


 

There may be a difference in the fact that vegetarians/vegans do not eat the animals, but they are certainly associated with the mass and unnecessary killing of animals, and producing real and long suffering to animals in extreme systematic way, until extinction.


 

The main accusation of vegetarians against meat-eaters is that they do not check or are aware of these things, this accusation applies also to vegetarians. They also do not check, deny, and cause destruction, even though it can be reduced.


 

In addition, they present only the possibilities in which there is a terrible suffering for animals and livestock, or when there is no terrible suffering, they distort and present it as such, claiming that it causes damage to the environment, also in case where its not. They claim that meat is not healthy, despite the scientific consensus that the right portion in the right amount is very healthy. Activists says that animal experimentation has brought no benefit - even though it brings huge benefit to humans, and also to animals that are receiving medical treatment, and even to those people who oppose the experiments themselves - when they have a medical problem, they receive treatments, which was previously tested on animals.


 

Many times they add "apparently" sources to their claims, but in a problematic way, ignoring a good source with broad scientific consensus. Their approach is usually pseudo-science.

 

In any case, the mere transition to veganism, is not the principle of "minimal damage". In addition to what we have shown, many vegans are buying off-season fruit and vegetables, imported food from afar countries -processed food and not for the benefit of health. If you claim that any non obligatory killings and injury is a Holocaust and a murder, so what are you doing according to your perception?


 

Equality


A common argument among “animal right supporter", is that there is equality between human and animals, so just as it is forbidden to kill a person, it is forbidden to kill an animal, or if you imprison animals and kill them, you behave like a Nazis or some actually call you a Nazi.

But this claim acts against itself. If we claim that humans are equal to animals, it follows that it as animals kill and pray and even cause species to go extinct, it is also permissible for humans, and if we claim that we are not equal to animals, then the initial claim, that there is equalization - falls.

Those who do not solve this paradox, and continue to argue for equality, in my opinion, lose in that argument.

In any case, in plant agriculture, animals are destroyed without being considered equal to humans.


 

In the natural world there are many other “animal behaviors”: beating, poisoning, rape, theft, blood sucking, parasites, killing for pleasure, fighting to death, amputation.


 

health


 

"Vegetarians don't live longer, they just look older”, thus said a joke. It does not have to be true, but a way to think about what you should test.


Another common argument among those affected by vegan propaganda say, that meat, milk, eggs are unhealthy, and therefore everybody should be vegans. Usually those claims are accompanied by an article / research / video link or a complete lecture on YouTube. I have seen some of them, and all of them have many distortions. This is a scientific matter, and science is determined by what experts say (please watch out that not everyone who is a Doctor, is also an expert in the field that he talks about). On that issue, all the formal bodies which are based on science, such as health ministries, recommendations of associations such as the associations of cardiologists, health funds, nutrition guides of countries, representative bodies of nutritionists who publish nutrition recommendations or even textbooks - recommend animal products, in the right amount, as part of a healthy diet. So everyone claims, to the best of my knowledge, there is no such body that claims to remove all animal products and that everyone of them is unhealthy only the opposite.

Go to the websites of formal health organizations and see what their eating’s recommendations are.

All of them, without any exception, clearly and repeatedly recommend that you should eat animal products.

If so, a claim that you should go vegan as a necessary step to cure or prevent disease is a form of alternative medicine, not conventional medicine. Alternative medicine is medicine that has not been proven or proven to be untrue.


 

In any case, I find no reason to prefer the claims of those who became "experts", based on Facebook, YouTube and vegetarian sites.


 

Even if some researches shows that vegans have fewer diseases relative to the general population, this is not all the studies. It's not about all the disease, and does not mean that veganism is the only way or the best way.


 

There are many studies on other diets that reduce diseases, the most common that I see is "Mediterranean diet". It is not vegan. Many people eat badly, and a strict diet will prevent them a lot of troubles.

In addition, there is not only one diet that suits for everyone.

A vegan diet could be eating mainly fries and cola and if so, it is not healthy. It could be a strict menu based on health principles, and then at least some people will be healthy, but its not proof that it is healthier than a strict diet containing animal products. Even a diet with animal products can consist mainly of fries, sausage and cola, and then it will not be healthy either. The story of a healthy menu is much more complex than the discussion of plants food versus animal product.


 

It should mention also, that articles in that field emphasize prominently that vegetarians and vegans are risk group of dietary deficiencies.


 

anecdote:

* A vegan once proposed an idea: to make a scientific journal that will present the benefits of veganism and thus they promoted their ideology. The idea fell because: It became clear that if it is a scientific journal, then any information that met scientific standards would come into it - for or against. If there is anything against it, it will not promote veganism. If they only put things in favor - it will not be science.


 

------------------


 

According to some surveys, small surveys, this is what we have, most of those who started vegetarianism - stopped about 75% and the main reason - about a third of the retirees, did so for health reasons.


 

There are extreme cases of death due to veganism in small children who have been forced to be vegan by their parents, or almost death and have a terrible health condition. It is hard to believe, you are welcome to ask me for links, or to search by yourself...


 

------------------

* It is said that veganism improves health, but what has brought much more to huge improvements in health is animal experimentation, which many vegans opposed.

------------------

* The whole scientific method brought a huge improvement. Many of them oppose science and research when they show results against veganism, but take the opposite approach when the results in their favor (hypocrisy, double-faced).


------------------


I know the almost automatic argument with a vegetarian, that the animal industry finances the research and therefore is bias in its favor for meat, and that the studies are biased by the pharmaceutical industry to make us sick, so then they

can sell drugs. This argument is not accompanied by any concrete evidence. The failure here is, "If it can be true - it is true" (they skip something in between). Indirectly, it turns out that this vegetarian knows better than all the health bodies in the world. I don’t trust it.

The vegetarian claims bias, while he himself is bias. It is likely that if the research is in favor of veganism, he will praise and agree with the same science, which he has slandered. It is also bias.

In any case, his claim is identical in its validity to the claim that too, will not be accompanied by concrete proof that the studies for vegetarianism have been made by the plant food industry and its farmers, and therefore they have been bias in the favor of eating vegetarian food.


 

------------------

Summary: There are those whose automatic response is: "If the research matches with what we thought before, it is good, if not, it is a sign that it is bad.

Think about it.

* If you already know what is right, why would you look at what the studies say?


------------------


 

There is currently no large science-based body that claims it to be unhealthy to consume meat, milk, and eggs - Only the Opposite. How does it happen that in a conversation with vegans they have ostensible references, which say otherwise, for example, newspaper articles about research, lectures and more?


 

Many times this is a combination of studies that they did not understand correctly, or a reference to writers and lecturers who did not understand correctly, as well as a kind of "cherry picking" from parts of data, and ignoring contradictory information. It is possible to do the opposite and appear to show otherwise.


 

* There is a common image for those who lack real ability, but have the impression of shooting a target. In this image, the bad shooter shoots an arrow, then draws a target around it, with the arrow right in the center. The shooter declares: "Look what a sniper I am, the fact is, the arrow is right in the middle."

If our goal is, for example, optimal health, preventing killing, preserving ecology - vegetarianism and veganism are not the center of the target. You can collect all kinds of things, and create the impression that it is, but the problem is that you can also collect all kinds of things with the same level of reliability, and show that you do not.

* If their theory is so correct, why do they need all sorts of biases and half-truths? Apparently their theory is wrong, and does not do justice.

* The most prominent symbol of this justice is a scale, which we puts our considerations on both sides. The vegetarians claim morality, but if they are biased, and even more so if they are deliberately biased, it is immoral.

“You shall not pervert justice; you shall not [a]show partiality” (Deuteronomy 16:19).


------------------


 

The hunger and the global pollution


 

The claim that is common in vegan sites, but not only them, is that eating meat is wasteful, requires a lot of resources and creates a lot of pollution. According to those claims it creates a shortage of food and there is hunger in various parts of the world, which may worsen due to population growth and problems caused by climate change.


 

Will mass transit to veganism solve the problem?


 

Forcing veganism on all the population means, for example, that a hungry and miserable man who raised wheat will not be able to use the remains of the plant, to feed farm animals (the man eats only the grain of wheat, not the whole plant), and cannot raise animals in a pasture with grass that humans cannot eat, but animals can, and then he will have meat, milk and eggs. Without the animals he will not have garbage to manure his fields. Contrary to what vegetarian sites claim, forcing veganism can cause hunger, poverty, ecological problems, too little food for part of the population, and depletion of land. Animals are an important source of soil fertility - there is no natural ecosystem without animals.


Some would say in response: Yes, but there is something else. Many times or even mostly all, farm animals given food worthy to be eaten by people like wheat, soybeans and corn. If we want that animal to grow, lets say, in 1 kilos, we should give him 10 kilos of food. If there is poverty, it is possible to give it to the poor, otherwise it causes hunger.


 

On first thought, this may sound logical, with further thought, if this is the case, if its it is logic to encourage the eating of meat of animals which do not feed that way, for example fishing, hunting or grazing, all that to maximize source food efficiency. Their argument is that we must prevent hunger.


 

There are other shortcomings in this account, including that it is not always food which is also suitable for people. There is land suitable for grazing, but less for other crops. There are places where it is worthwhile to grow wheat only on rainwater, which in any case goes down, and if there is excess wheat, it does not pay to export it, so you give it to the animals and the humans get back meat, eggs and milk.


 

Unlike poor societies, Western society has a large surplus, which may given to beasts, because they grow faster, more fat, and females give more milk, and also find a way to get rid of excess.


 

When we see poor, starving societies, even on TV : Where they are in places full of cereals and soybeans and left hungry because they gave it to the beasts? I guess that's not what you saw.


 

If you still think that the reason for poverty and hunger is feeding farm animals, then cynically we can say that there are two seemingly simple solutions - you will be farmers and give / sell the food you grow to any poor you want, or if you aren’t farmers, buy the food from any farmer you want and make sure it will go to the poor, and not animals. It's simple, isn't it? You said that this was the reason. If you think this is not a solution, then stop distorting and say that the meat is guilty of poverty, hunger and all the troubles.

By the way, a cow does not have to eat seeds like wheat, corn or soya, supposedly and “take" it from the poor. It can eat grass, but then the cow grows more slowly, and gives less milk, but also a health benefit - in animals that eat more grass, there is more omega-3 in meat, milk and eggs.

You can also make another calculation, and show that in a kilogram of meat there are several times more calories than broccoli, and when you talk about food for people who are undernourished, it is important that food also has caloric value, as well as fat and protein. Or another calculation that shows that the best and most ecological way to produce food for humans is probably a combination of plants with few animals, since the animals will be able to eat the leftovers that man does not eat, make manure, and also provide food for the person. The manure will contribute to more flora, which will contribute to the growth of an additional cycle of flora and fauna, and so on. There is also uncultivated land which does not suit growing plants, but they can be used as natural pasture, thus producing food. Pasture also prevents fires, because dry grass will not develop and can be wildfire.


Another thing that makes you wonder - if it is true, as many meat-opponents claim, that producing food from animals, we need much more resources than plant foods and we can assume that most of these resources cost money: land, water, fertilizers, fuel - if so, why is Soy milk / almond / rice milk much more expensive than cow's milk, and even a kilo of milk is cheaper than a kilo of bread (the price in Israel), and the price of milk per kilo is cheaper than many fruits and vegetables, this while transporting the milk and holding it is more expensive because they are refrigerated. How can it be?


 

One possibility is that the price for plant food is simply unreasonable.


 

Other possibility which seems to be most likely, after all bread makers, cucumbers and peas are not the richest in the nation, so it may show that the theory about a lot of resources is not true.

Consider the following account, also true for meat eaters and to meat opponents of the meat - if we considered Total expenditure monthly, including food, insurance, transportation, communications and all the rest. How much of this is used by manufacturers to destroy nature and destroy animals directly or indirectly, and how much conservation, improvement and concern for the welfare of animals? How many of them are neutral? Why is the blame just on the meat?

I mean, consuming lot of things, with no connection to meat can create huge suffering for animals. A classic example is everything related to the wood and paper industry, which leads to the deforestation and thus the destruction of the animals and the forest that they live in. On such papers, associations for the sake of animals are printing their flyers against animal abuse ...


Another argument is common among vegans, and they also base their entire campaign, “meatless Monday", on it, is that there is a report by the United Nations who states that there is horrendous damage because of meat, and recommends one day a week without meat.

If this report is true, then it also implies that it is okay to eat meat six days a week, but the report has serious errors, and the UN has even admitted that there was a real error in calculating greenhouse gases.


 

What is the correct data? I do not know about anyone who examined the whole world. If we take the US as a place that represents what is happening in the world, the percentage of greenhouse gases from agriculture - including vegetable farming is 9% - according to EPA - the US Environmental Protection Agency. Transport sector is 3 times - 27%.

A study from 2017 examined what would happen if the entire American nation became vegans. It is found that there will be more food for the people, but it won't provide full food, i.e certain nutrients will be in surplus, and some others will lack. And what about greenhouse gases? In the US agricultural sector, greenhouse gas emissions will be reduced by 28%, but in general, it is only 2.6% , another study examined 10 types of diet to determine which is most sustainable, and the vegan diet was only in fifth place. Better diet with vegetarianism with dairy products even a vegetarian with eggs, and a diet with a small to medium amount of meat. I do not know of any source who claims that vegan diets are the best for the environment, and even the problematic UN report did not claim that.
.

 

Talk to them


Conversations with the "believers" are problematic.

Assuming that these are not curses and threats (something that happens), for example, they write "proofs".

You show them that this is not true, so they ignore it instead of updating the opinion, write something else, insult, cutting off contact or continuing to send links to horror films, give links to articles, and you can see that that is problematic and unreliable or a reliable source that claims something else. They give enormous weight to every bit of argument that support their opinion, and ignore larger claims which show the opposite.

Such a discussion might be very short, because it is understood that there is no point in such discussion, or an endless discussion will develop without reaching an agreement because whoever insists on such principles can always adhere to his opinion, even if it is fundamentally wrong.


Recently, there is a new trend - after the vegans saw that they cannot succeed in arguing with those who are familiar with the arguments against them, they "close themselves" in Internet groups where they present their opinions. And those who know how to respond and contradict them are blocked, even if he speaks politely, to the point and gives good evidence.

So there is a situation that convinces the convinced, or creates a false representation that there is one truth, and aside from the unusual people that should throw away, everyone thinks the same thing, so that is the “truth".


 

What can we do


Good approach towards animals, for nature, for the sake of the earth, must be from an overview! It cannot really be that way, if you only do one thing like veganism, recycling bottles, saving abandoned dogs and cats, conserving a stream, or joining one of the green organizations. These things might be even harmful. Often dealing with one thing, distracts attention from what needs to be done. What is needed?


1. Moral consuming - consume less things in general (not just food) and live a life that can afford it - agree to live a life that consumes less natural resources.

The earth is destroyed, not because there are not enough vegetarians, but because its resources are too often taken in many areas, often destructive and immoral, and without allowing nature to regenerate.


2. Animal husbandry according to the approach call “animal welfare” - an approach which, in contrast to "animal rights", does not mean the same rights to animals and to humans, because it is simply impossible. Just as it is impossible to equalize debts - for example, paying taxes and that snake won't bite an innocent person, there is no equal rights or term of right. A relationship that can be held between people, is often impossible with animals. But animals can be raised under reasonable conditions, and we should understand what principles are required to do so, and to be committed to this up to certain point.
 

3. Actions according to real experts of nature and agriculture, who know the area, the needs of animals, and the knowledge accumulated in the world on those subjects.

Concern for nature reserves, helping breed endangered animals, allocation of water to rivers rather than pumping them to the end, reducing suffering, and agricultural farming that concerns welfare of animals, etc.


4. Government policy that will prefer, legislate, manage, educate, subsidize, supervise - in light of what has been said.
5. Reliable sources of knowledge, collecting them, dissemination, filtering out incorrect knowledge while exposing errors and failures.

6. Science and Technology. Remember - what solved the problem of animals that once worked in the service of man, there was almost no movements against animal cruelty, but the tractor, car and electricity, for example, that we prefer a car ride, not a donkey. Also remember that technological developments have created many other problems - such as the destruction of large-scale natural areas, pollution and climate change, and the consequences of industrialization of livestock.

Also take a note that stopping the use of animals for work is not "animal release" or "animal rights." Such animals are simply not raised.

Use the right terms, and let the wrong term go.


 

Often good and moral attitudes towards animals and environment preservation are distorted and exaggerated by extreme people, thus they make the light - darkness.

 

The statement is in favor of reducing animal suffering and protecting the planet, but argues that methods such as veganism / vegetarianism are not the best way to do so.

Remarks

 


 

1. The concept of vegetarianism or veganism includes certain concepts with it. At least that's how I treated things. Those who do not eat meat only because of shortages, but at every opportunity that pops up will decide to eat - is not vegan. Maybe poor. Of course not everyone thinks the same. It can be that someone is simply disgusted with meat and didn't eat it - that all. I meant to those who object to the use of animal product, with a host of concepts about health, morality, economics, agriculture, pseudo-science, and so on. This is more characteristic of the activists and movements whose leaders and many of their activists are vegetarians and vegans.


 

If someone is disgusted from meat, its something we should accept and understand. But if he also claims, for example, that others who do not do the same, are murderers, Nazis, eat for sure unhealthy food - such thing I definitely criticize. Anyone who does not say so I am not talking about him, but if so to my understanding it means that except for a subjective feeling, there is no reason for vegetarianism or veganism or equal rights to animals.

We should avoid bad practices, but this is true for everything, including bad practices for growing vegetables, raising children, using vehicles and weapons.


 


 

* The most appropriate name, apparently, should be "pepole opposed to eat meat" or "oppose the use of animal products."
An entire book can be written about it so it (there are but you can find it only in Hebrew : the nonsense of vegetarianism .


 

Almost at the end:
addressing all those who care about animals. It is true that in the animal industry there are terrible things and their advertisements are certainly not representative the whole truth. The solution is not other lies from various meat opponents. It is important to expose and understand the problem of vegan propaganda and its representatives, because to help animals, an ideology must be based on the right things. As long as an ideology develops on the basis of nonsense, its consequences will be appropriate, or else this ideology will remain in the hands of a some little delusional people, or worse - by an ignorant mob haunted by imaginary enemies and superstitions. This is not for the benefit of animals. It is not good for humanity.


 


 

Comments, feedback, corrections - can be sent to Email: pinat_hay@hotmail.com


 

Homework - the is Movement, not for sure real one, of "plant rights". Here characteristic text and then a question.



 

"Plants are peaceful, passive creatures that do not actively cause harm. Plants provide us with oxygen to breath [sic]. Plants provide us shade and prevent erosion. One could even say that Plantliness is next to Godliness. We must do everything we can to protect our plant brothers. We must halt the barbaric practice of building houses out of plant carcasses. We must stop the evil Canadians from draining the blood out of our maple comrades. And we must end the campaigns of the demented vegans who favor only eating our helpless but plant friends." (source).


 

I brought these things as satire only, but try to think, can you rationally debug those things? What are your arguments?