The Logic of Animal Rights

77 thoughts on “The Logic of Animal Rights”

  1. Well, you’re a much better and more patient being than I am. I threw in the towel some time ago insofar as trying to counter “rational” reasons or stances supporting gratuitous harm to others goes. I started reading the essay you so patiently and astutely critiqued and refuted.

    I ran into the part where he started writing about “survival of the fittest” and it was obvious he didn’t understand what Darwinian evolutionary processes meant by the term…I stopped. (survival of the fittest means the organisms are “fit” to survive/reproduce in the environment(s) available to them) The phrase has nothing to do with strength or intelligence, etc. except insofar as how those qualities might enhance the chances of living/reproducing. Many folks take that phrase and believe it means something like how many pushups someone can do and take off on wild fantasies of havoc and destruction and dominance.

    Once I stopped reading the ‘essay’ I looked over at his website, to which a link was provided and discovered that this fellow is astonishingly impressed with himself. Here’s a bit copied from his website:

    “Schulman’s articles and essays have been published in magazines ranging from National Review to Cult Movies, and in newspapers including articles for the Los Angeles Times.

    His nonfiction books include Stopping Power: Why 70 Million Americans Own Guns, endorsed by Academy-Award-winner Charlton Heston, The Frame of the Century? in which he suggested an alternate killer who could have framed O. J. Simpson for the murder of his ex-wife, and his autobiographical I Met God — God Without Religion, Scripture, or Faith, in which this former atheist describes the experiences that led him to conclude the existence of God, but still distance himself from all religions.”

    When I saw all of this blather I felt fairly safe in not worrying too much about whatever it was he was writing about. Anyone that is impressed that Glenn Beck or Charlton Heston thinks he has something worthwhile to say is not anyone that I want to fiddle around with.

    But, thank you for taking the time and effort to examine and highlight some of the silliness he is promoting in his writing.

    1. I lol-ed at “Anyone that is impressed that Glenn Beck or Charlton Heston thinks he has something worthwhile to say is not anyone that I want to fiddle around with”. And he most definitely does have a pretty big ego. The thought did cross my mind that writing a response to his article wasn’t even worth my time, but I had run into so many people using those arguments that I had to write a response to get it out of my system. His views of course seem silly to us because we know better, but for many people his views make sense and I had to set the record straight.

      I can get pretty annoyed when I see an animal exploiter presume to know this or that about animal rights activists and AR in general, thus making US seem like the silly ones to those who choose not to look any further than the writings of a buffoon like Schulman.

      Another annoyance is people lumping all animal rights activists in a group with PETA. The main thing I object to in regards to PETA is their misogynistic publicity stunts and advertisements. It would be one thing if an equal portion of their ads were naked, bloody, caged and chained men, but it is almost exclusively women depicted in these ads and demos. This not only does absolutely NOTHING for animal rights, but it also destroys women’s rights in the process.

      Anyway, I’m rambling. The main thing is that animal rights is a very logical conclusion to a very illogical problem. The sooner people realize this, the better.

      1. Uh, my thought about not fiddling around with certain sorts of folks is lent quite a bit of credence via the statement (in the comments to your post): “…is the use of deadly force justified against vegetarians….”. Hmmm….

          1. The most pressing health threat in the United States is obesity and Type-2 diabetes, both caused by excessive consumption of carbohydrates derived not from animal products but agricultural products. All the secondary diseases you mention are made worse by a diet high in carbs and low in animal proteins and fats. Your dietary advice is causing a lethal epidemic.

            Oh, and you Vegans also oppose eating fish high in Omega-3 lipids which are the first line of defense against heart-disease, high-cholesterol, sudden-death heart attacks, sudden-death strokes. More lethal dietary advice from the Vegan cranks.

            1. Obesity and type-2 diabetes of course are caused by carbs as well as animal products. Thank you for pointing this out. However, we must remember which KIND of carbs contribute to these diseases. I personally have never heard of someone becoming obese by eating asparagus (or any other vegetable, for that matter). Just as there are good fats and bad fats, there are also good carbs and bad carbs. The carbohydrates that make people obese and cause type-2 diabetes are the refined carbohydrates like processed sugars, breads and other simple carbs. Of course, just because these diseases are partially caused by consuming unhealthy carbohydrates, it doesn’t mean that they aren’t also caused by other factors as well, such as animal products.

              About the omega-3 thing, one word: flax.

              1. Go to any third-world village. Set up a buffet with lamb, chicken, fish, eggs, cheese, yogurt, and all your favorite Vegan foods.

                Invite the villagers to pick their own foods

                Guess what you’ll be throwing away at the end of the meal?

                1. Starving people are likely to choose foods which fill them up the fastest – meat foods. It says nothing about how nutritious these foods are. If anything a large part of the reason they may gravitate to these foods is because they ARE that much more expensive to produce, which is why they rarely eat it (when they are able to eat). In our country, meat may be inexpensive because of how subsidized animal agriculture is by our government, but in other nations meat is a luxury. And although these foods may fill them up the fastest, they will leave them feeling hungry the fastest as well. The energy we receive from animal products is short-lived, while the energy received from plant materials can sustain us for much longer.

                2. No getting out of here while so much utter misinformation is being propagandized.

                  Vegan Rabbit wrote:

                  “And although these foods may fill them up the fastest, they will leave them feeling hungry the fastest as well. The energy we receive from animal products is short-lived, while the energy received from plant materials can sustain us for much longer.”

                  The opposite of the truth. Animal proteins metabolize the slowest and provide the most satiation. It’s the carbs — like rice — that’s the reason you’re hungry again in an hour after eating Chinese food. Legumes metabolize more slowly but are also less calorie dense so they don’t satisfy — and any child will tell you that vegetables are not natural to the human palate — they’re a developed taste for affluent palates.

                  “The point is that without your greed and gluttony, we would be able to feed those who are starving the food being consumed by livestock.:

                  Dead wrong once again. You manage to combine the fallacies of socialism and fascism into a toxic mix of aristocratic paternalism / also economically ignorant and faux “oh-so-caring” socialist nonsense from an arrogant self-congratulatory food-fetish cultist. No less a thinker than C.S. Lewis identifies your sort of food-pickiness as a form of gluttony, but then again, nobody had heard of OCD when he died in 1963..

                  Feeding human beings sub-nutritional plant-based diets institutionalizes starvation in the third world and obesity in the first world. Producing foods people will freely choose is the path to ending malnutrition worldwide. You want to force people into diets they don’t want, and your conceit that you know better and should choose for them is your aristocratic hubris. You admit that given a free choice humans will choose eating meat. That tells you something about human nature and freedom of choice, both of which you are out to exterminate as not in concordance with your religious and anti-humanist dogma. You don’t care how many billions die as long as the few survivors are of your demented ideology, and that makes your faith as demented as Nazi and Communist dogmas have been, and as annihilating as the Shakers were.

          2. veganelder wrote, “Uh, my thought about not fiddling around with certain sorts of folks is lent quite a bit of credence via the statement (in the comments to your post): “…is the use of deadly force justified against vegetarians….”. Hmmm….”

            When you Vegans stop sickening and killing off billions of human beings with your demands for an agricultural-based diet high in carbs and low in proteins more easily available in animal-derived natural foods, I’ll start talking about deadly use of self-defense.

            You’re self-righteous religious zealots with a lethal anti-life dogma and I won’t pretend you are anything else.

            1. You write: “Vegans … sickening and killing off billions of human beings with your demands for an agricultural-based diet high in carbs and low in proteins more easily available in animal-derived natural foods”

              I must repost a portion of the comment I left to Renard, which you have obviously forgotten:

              “Did you know that the average cow eats around 45 pounds of plant materials per day? The average human eats around 5 pounds of food per day. If you were a vegan, it would stop at that, but since you are a meat-eater, you “kill” that 5 pounds of plants PLUS the additional pounds of plants required to grow that animal on your plate to a size suitable for slaughter (it takes about 16 pounds of grain to get just one pound of beef). It’s very obvious and simple math, and don’t forget, two wrongs don’t make a right. And don’t forget all of the water you are wasting because of your meat-based diet.”

              So does my diet of plant foods REALLY consist of more plants (both directly AND indirectly consumed) than yours does? Are MY agricultural demands what is really killing off people who are dying of starvation? I beg to differ.

              Also, my diet is not deficient in protein in the slightest. I had my annual physical just over a month ago and am in perfect health. In fact, I get more than enough protein. The fact that you can’t think outside of the “meat is the best/only source of protein” box really shows how little nutritional knowledge you actually possess.

              I’m beginning to doubt whether you are not only reading, but actually comprehending my responses. If you were, I wouldn’t have to restate points which I have already made.

              1. And you didn’t take in my first comments here about the relative inferiority of plant-derived proteins compared with far superior animal sources. And only a socialist fails to understand that how much plant-life animals eat is a mere cost of production. But I’m betting your actual agenda is to kill off human “overpopulation” and you well understand that starving humans with foods meant for food is the most efficient way to effect that human holocaust,

                1. “And you didn’t take in my first comments here about the relative inferiority of plant-derived proteins compared with far superior animal sources.”

                  To which plant-derived proteins are you refering? Like I said, quinoa is a complete protein. It is superior to meat in that it does not also contain harmful LDL cholesterol.

                  “And only a socialist fails to understand that how much plant-life animals eat is a mere cost of production.”

                  The point is that without your greed and gluttony, we would be able to feed those who are starving the food being consumed by livestock. The food is there, it’s just being fed to livestock rather than starving humans. Of course, the owners of the plots of land in which this food grows are not simply going to hand it over to hungry humans. (They aren’t very well known for their charitable acts.) And I’m certainly not implying that we take it from them against their will. It is possible, however, that with an increase in demand for plant products, that they will switch their energies to producing what people want to buy. As it stands right now, meat is in demand, but that doesn’t mean that that cannot change. They are a business. They don’t want to sell what no one wants to buy, and they will find a way to survive or go bankrupt in the process. Because they will need far less crops to feed a large amount of people (hypothetically if much of the population was vegan, thus warranting their switch to marketing plant products), they will not need to use as much land to grow crops. The additional land can be sold or donated to organizations which feed the hungry. Of course, this is very hypothetical and it can happen in a number of unforeseeable ways. It’s certainly not an argument to CONTINUE eating meat, which leaves absolutely NO chance for those crops to get to the people who need it most.

                  “But I’m betting your actual agenda is to kill off human “overpopulation” and you well understand that starving humans with foods meant for food is the most efficient way to effect that human holocaust”

                  Umm… overpopulation actually has very little to do with how MANY people there are in the world. It actually has to do with how many resources each person consumes. Like I said, the food is there, it’s just being fed to livestock. It would be able to feed an exponentially larger amount of humans than if we continue to feed it to creatures that eat around ten times more plant materials than humans do. The real ones who are “overpopulating” the planet are meat-eaters like yourself who cannot make that connection.

  2. I too had a ponder at the original text, and a follow up link 5 yrs later, listing 50 things humans do that animals don’t, QED, etc etc.
    Well. Item 16. Home decoration, am I the only one who has seen those amazing Bowery birds create beautifully arranged and decorated stages for to impress the ladies?
    Ok, well we can all make mistakes and perhaps form imperfect arguments. I do see that the idea of rights is generally bundled with the concept of responsibilities, so I can see the seed of where this person gets a starting point for their anti animal rights stance. What responsibilities would you expect an animal to take on, in exchange for these rights? It’s intellectually interesting, but their later answer chooses not to address the presumably often made assertion that less intelligent humans would be fair game for exploitation under this criteria. A child cannot take on full responsibilites of an adult, but is generally afforded rights and protection from harm, even though sadly the reality is that they are often misused. So rights without responsibilities do exist in this case.
    But ultimately, all the semantics and bravura arguing don’t quite cover up the rather black and white, you’re for us or against us nature of the rest of their over simplified polemic.  Branding of the animal rights movement as anti human – well, I don’t think I know many meat eaters that would feel particularly persuaded by this argument. I’m not convinced this person really cares about either humans, animals or facts, but they are very pleased with their ‘logic’ skills.

  3. My article on animal rights is a single case of a wider argument I’ve been developing over many years on the origin and functioning of natural rights as distinct from legal or political rights.

    The two basic premises are this:

    1. Natural rights exist only within the concept of moral philosophy and apply only to actors capable of moral reflection and accountability — moral actors — and a natural right is that of acting without prior permission of any other moral actor.

    2. If one can not be held accountable for ones acts, one is not a moral actor.and this actor does not have natural rights to act.without prior permission of others.

    3. If one is not a moral actor who can be held accountable for the consequences of one’s acts then some moral actor — a parent, guardian, steward, zookeeper, teacher, owner — must be held accountable for one’s acts.

    We do not hold animals, children, or the mentally infirm morally accountable for their acts. We may offer them legal or political status that protects them, but those are not natural rights.

    My argument is that moral actors make the decisions for what legal and political status non-moral actors have, and those decisions are ethical codes derived from esthetic judgment.

    I have also advocated clear threhhold tests so that non-humans displaying sapience may be given protections due to superior cognitive functioning and ability to suffer which only applies to beings capable of meaningful memory formation. You’d be surprised how demanding I am in my own personal esthetics when it comes to protecting the vulnerable, but I have a revulsion for political activists who use such vulnerabilities as hostage-taking for their own agendas.

    If you don’t want to eat meat, that’s your decision. I also support your right to convert anyone you want to your Vegan faith. But don’t be surprised when others like me conclude that your efforts on behalf of animals are pathetic given the massive human suffering on this planet.

  4. One more point. When the last starving child on this planet of millions of starving children is not denied a meat meal by the well-fed Vegan, I’ll start regarding Vegans as not being part of the Human Holocaust Movement.

    1. I’m so pleased that you found my site and read my post! Unfortunately, it seems you haven’t really learned anything from it.

      FFLG (Food For Life Global) is the largest feed-the-hungry organization. They feed over 2 million vegan and vegetarian meals per day to starving humans around the world. They do this because it is more cost-effective, because it doesn’t contribute to the problems they are trying to erradicate and because they feed 30 times more people with vegan and vegetarian food than they would with meat.

      Instead of spending so much time pushing your films or novels, maybe you should take some time actually practicing what you preach. If you are truly a part of the Anti Human Holocaust Movement then I wonder what it is exacty that you are doing to benefit humans other than yourself (please provide specific examples) in relation to world hunger issues?

      By the WEIGH, how’s your cholesterol?

      1. Vegan Rabbit wrote, “I’m so pleased that you found my site and read my post! Unfortunately, it seems you haven’t really learned anything from it.”

        Thanks for making me feel welcome. Whether you have something to teach me that I have failed to learn, or whether I have something to teach you that you have failed to learn, is unlikely to be something we will soon agree upon. But from my perspective I perceive that you have not grasped my point of view because you have failed to understand that my restriction of natural rights only to moral actors does not imply that actors not capable of being held morally answerable are without value and not worthy of kindness and protection. But Vegans like you are primarily operating on the error in logic called the Pathetic Fallacy:the notion that animals incapable of higher cognition experience suffering the same way human beings do. It’s anthropomorphic projection — something that Disney and Pixar movies use as a way of entertaining infants. Adults who practice this may be delightfully sentimental, but if they’re not careful they are also often morally perverse.

        “FFLG (Food For Life Global) is the largest feed-the-hungry organization. They feed over 2 million vegan and vegetarian meals per day to starving humans around the world. They do this because it is more cost-effective, because it doesn’t contribute to the problems they are trying to erradicate and because they feed 30 times more people with vegan and vegetarian food than they would with meat.”

        Are you aware that people have starved to death by eating only rabbits, because rabbit meat does not contain an enzyme enabling human digestion of its protein?

        Likewise, only a few nuts and beans contain complete digestible proteins. Nuts are expensive; soy beans as a staple is often highly allergenic. Lethal peanut allergies are so common that peanut butter is banned in many school lunchrooms.

        Except for rabbit, meat and dairy products like eggs and cheese are highly digestible. That doesn’t mean that commercial ranching and farming doesn’t need significant improvement; I’ve seen Food, Inc. But eliminating meat and dairy from the human diet — especially for poor people who can’t supplement with expensive vitamin and mineral products — is eliminating foods that can save millions of human lives that a Vegan diet would kill.

        Vegetarianism is a luxury of the rich, and is a form of food fetishism. Vegans try to turn their personal food fetishes into a moral crusade, which is bothlacing a moral basis and personally obnoxious.

        “Instead of spending so much time pushing your films or novels, maybe you should take some time actually practicing what you preach. If you are truly a part of the Anti Human Holocaust Movement then I wonder what it is exacty that you are doing to benefit humans other than yourself (please provide specific examples) in relation to world hunger issues?

        By the WEIGH, how’s your cholesterol?”

        And how obnoxious are you? My novels and movies are works of art. Are you such a single-minded cretin you hate anything that isn’t entirely utilitarian?

        I am also an activist and my literary works do promote activism. So when I give out over 330,000 downloads of one of my novels, and many thousands of copies of other things I’ve written and otherwise produced for free, that’s more charity than most people give in several lifetimes.

        As for your snide comments about my weight and health, I’ll refrain from the answer you deserve — which would involve violent imagery and profanity — and simply say: It’s none of your business.

  5. RE: “Animal products are detrimental to our health because our bodies are simply not designed to be consuming them (especially not in the large quantities so many consume today).”
    Not true… Our TEETH, which are for BOTH meat-eating AND vegetables, making us omnivores, clearly prove that human bodies ARE designed to be consuming meat as well as vegetables. To quote from a comment found on answers.Yahoo.com (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071005192208AA4KAmL): “The incisors, cuspids, and bicuspids are used to cut and rip apart meat and that the molars are all used to grind and crush harder items like nuts and vegetables etc. The homosapien species has ALWAYS been omnivorous, eating both vegetables and meat. Human beings cannot survive eating JUST meat or JUST vegetables. We need meat for hemoglobin in our blood and for the protein that helps our neural synapses in our brain. We need vegetables to keep out cellular processes working and our motor and sensory perceptions and coordinations straight. Hence, why we are omnivorous and why our teeth are diversified in both morphology and physiology.”
    Now, I totally agree that many eat much more meat than is healthy, but not eating meat is a choice, not contrary to the way the human body is constructed for us to digest and utilize food for its health.
    I have been a vegetarian, and I absolutely LOVE vegetarian and vegan food, and many times prefer it. However, I also “need”, and I mean “require” meat on occasion. When I stopped eating meat, my body would not heal – i.e. a cut would take over a month to even scab because something in meat relative to my personal body makeup “needs” what’s in meat. Everyone is unique, including what an individual body requires to maintain optimum health.
    This is also dependent on where you live. Try being a vegetarian in the wild in the northern climates in the winter, when there is pretty much no natural vegetation to be had until the winter snows melt and the spring/summer weather comes in. If you don’t eat meat in that climate, and you lived completely off the grid (think Jeremiah Johnson) you wouldn’t survive the winter. It is also better for your body to eat the foods available naturally as close as possible to where you live, as your body better absorbs the nutrition from the local environment. Your body knows where you live even if you don’t consciously pay attention to that.
    The ability to be a pure vegan or vegetarian who can live off the land is dependent on living in a climate that supports the growth of roots, vegetables, and fruits. Unless you have the ability to have a heated greenhouse, or buy vegetables, grains and fruits from a store that imports them from those areas of the world that support their growth during the non-growing season where you live, or have a large enough freezer to freeze everything you gather, buy, or grow during warm months, (i.e. modern society), you won’t have vegetables, grains and fruits during the winter. This is generally not possible for most people living in cities and suburbs and cold climates, or those who cannot afford to and have a large enough living space to have large freezers.
    The natural food where I live in the winter are animals, not vegetables/grains/fruits. Most fruits do not grow where I live, even in summer, nor do many of the vegetables that I eat, none during winter. If I didn’t have the ability to buy my veggies, grains and fruits at a grocery store, I wouldn’t be eating anything but meat during the winter.
    So, I perceive the issue with those who advocate not eating animals at all to choosing to, being willing to, or having to live in parts of the world that support the widespread, natural growth of vegetables, grains and fruits, versus raising animals for their meat, or hunting. You simply can’t use a broad brush and say one size fits all. There are too many variables.
    As for using grains for feeding cattle that would feed humans more directly, free-range cattle eat grass, which the last time I looked, isn’t a major food group for humans. Soybeans, which are a primary grain for feeding cattle, is a very controversial food source these days for humans. Depending on what testing and opinion you believe, it is either the food that will save or poison humankind. Many people are highly allergic to soy and soy products. Women who are at risk for, or have had, breast cancer, must stay away from soy products as it stimulates the production of the estrogen that can encourage the growth of cancer. Soy is one of the main non-meat sources of protein, so it becomes a real problem for those who cannot eat soy instead of meat to get enough protein. Plus, the primary natural source for B12, an essential vitamin for proper red blood cell formation, neurological function, and DNA synthesis, are meat and dairy products. Unless supplementing with vitamin extracts, the only natural plant source of B12 is nutritional yeast, which, let’s face it, isn’t exactly “tasty”, and can take quite a bit to get used to eating, if you ever can. It is also not something generally grown in a garden, and many people have to stay away from yeast due to allergies and other problems with yeast.
    When I eat meat, I thank the animal for sacrificing itself that I may benefit from its life energy. I happen to feel the same way about vegetables and fruits. Do you imply they don’t have life energy, that they can’t feel pain? How do you know when you put that carrot through your juicer that it doesn’t “feel” being torn apart? Do you bother to communicate with that life form or do you just assume because it’s not the level of an animal that it’s less important? What about the minerals you eat in supplement form? Do you not respect all life – organic and inorganic?
    While on some level I’m being facetious (my father actually told me one time when I was juicing carrots that he could hear them screaming – was he joking? WAS HE?), there’s just a lot that we don’t know and take for granted about the life on this planet. Life has a hierarchy, whether we like it or not. All life is worthy of respect and kindness, from the rock, to plants, to insects, to water creatures (mammal and non-mammal), to flying creatures, to land creatures. Each is some kind of food for one of mother earth’s inhabitants. We humans are food for the earth when we die (whether planted or cremated). It’s the cycle of life.
    By the way, PETA also means People Eating Tasty Animals (quoted from the movie “Have You Heard About The Morgans” though I don’t believe it’s originally from this movie). Depends on your point of view, doesn’t it.

  6. First I would like to thank you for reading my post, commenting and voicing your opinion. We are all welcome to our opinions.

    However there are many problems with much of your argument. I could easily spend hours going into detail about each and every issue, but I’m rather sleepy and want to get to bed, so here is the “in a nut-shell” version:

    1. Yahoo Answers is HARDLY a reliable source of information, so the fact that you used it as a reference really speaks volumes about your level of research.

    2. It’s great that you used to be a vegetarian at one point in your life, but you must not have been a very good one otherwise you wouldn’t have failed. Improper nutrition isn’t caused by veganism or vegetarianism, but by the inability or unwillingness to conduct proper research before embarking on any kind of diet. If you had trouble healing wounds it wasn’t because of a lack of MEAT, it was because of a lack of protein, vitamin A, vitamin C, iron and zinc. If you had done your research properly, you would have known exactly which foods would give you these vital nutrients and would never have had that problem arise in the first place. (Because you very likely are still in the dark about this, here is a simple list of some vegan foods which offer the nutrients listed above: quinoa, dark green leafy vegetables, citrus fruits, nuts, legumes, seeds, nori, strawberries, spinach, etc.)

    3. “Try being a vegetarian in the wild in the northern climates in the winter” – Unless YOU live in “off the grid”, I see no relevance in you making this a part of your argument supporting why YOU eat meat. (We’re not talking about Jeremiah Johnson, we’re talking about YOUR reasons for eating meat.) You mention that you do indeed live near a grocery store. True, the fruits and vegetables there may not be local, but that is your choice to live there, isn’t it? If you know that your body needs at least SOME plant materials and that your body “knows where you live even if you don’t consciously pay attention to that” and the area you live in presently yields little to no fruit year-round, then it would seem that you might be better off living in a warmer climate, where you can actually consume the local foods your body needs.

    4. The issues surrounding soy mainly have to do with the estrogen present in soy and its link to certain cancers. I would reason that the estrogen present in dairy is much more harmful to human health than the estrogen from plant-based products. In fact, the phytoestrogens present in soy products are present in many products you may already consume. One that comes to mind is beer. Hops contain lots of phytoestrogens. (I’m not trying to assume that you drink beer, it’s just the first example that came to mind.) Of course, if you are still afraid of soy, or are just plain allergic to it, you don’t HAVE to eat it to be vegan. Instead of tofu or tempeh try seitan. Instead of soymilk try rice milk, almond milk, coconut milk, hemp milk, hazelnut milk or any other milk alternative. There are even soy-free vegan margarines. Soy may have been one of YOUR main sources of protein during your stint with vegetarianism, but there are plenty of other protein sources out there. Quinoa, for example, is a complete protein and is a perfectly healthy alternative to other less healthy protein sources.

    5. B12 does not come from meat, but from bacteria. This is where the animals you consume get THEIR B12 from. Rather than getting my nutrition via someone else’s digestive system, I cut out the middle man and take a supplement. An eye-dropper full under the tongue for 30 seconds every now and then and I’m good to go. (Lozenges are great as well.) The great thing about B12 is that unlike protein, our bodies store it for years. We have large reserves of the stuff in our bodies already, and only need to supplement every so often. Nutritional yeast is a great source of B12 as well, but like you said, it doesn’t taste very good. When I do use it, I choose to mix it in with my morning seitan scramble.

    6. How unbelievably KIND of you to thank the animal you are eating! Just to let you know, the animal didn’t “sacrifice” itself for your gustatory pleasure, but was KILLED. It’s life wasn’t GIVEN, it was TAKEN. Have you seen the documentary Earthlings? http://www.earthlings.com. Please visit that site. The film is available for you to watch for free. Afterwards, tell me again how willing those animals are to “sacrifice” their lives for you.

    7. Comparing plants to animals? I’m sorry, I didn’t realize I was talking to the president of PETP (People for the Ethical Treatment of Plants). If you really feel so sorry for the plants you should seriously reconsider your meat consumption. Did you know that the average cow eats around 45 pounds of plant materials per day? The average human eats around 5 pounds of food per day. If you were a vegan, it would stop at that, but since you are a meat-eater, you “kill” that 5 pounds of plants PLUS the additional pounds of plants required to grow that animal on your plate to a size suitable for slaughter (it takes about 16 pounds of grain to get just one pound of beef). It’s very obvious and simple math, and don’t forget, two wrongs don’t make a right. And don’t forget all of the water you are wasting because of your meat-based diet. I must say, I have to doubt the validity of your argument when you are using points which incriminate yourself.

    8. Please read my above comment to veganelder with a brief mention of my position on PETA.

    Again, thanks for commenting. G’nighty.

  7. Vegan Rabbit, look up “Kwashiorkor.” That’s protein starvation. There’s plenty on the Food for Life web site about the spirituality of feeding people plants, but nothing about killing children by depriving them of sufficient protein. In fact, there’s more on that website about the Witchy Woo Wellness Retreat (and photos of the well-fed women who retreat there) than there is about the protein content of the “God given quota” this organization is collecting money for to feed protein-energy starved third-world children with distended bellies.

    1. I doubt their bellies are quite as distended as yours. Maybe you should go over there and bring them some of YOUR food – you clearly have more than enough of it to go around. Then you can educate them about the importance of protein in the human diet, which you say you know so much about. I mean, surely you MUST know what you’re talking about – look at that physique! But seriously, how exactly are YOU doing more to combat world hunger than FFLG is? I would really like to read your response.

      1. Vegan Rabbit wrote, “But seriously, how exactly are YOU doing more to combat world hunger than FFLG is? I would really like to read your response.”

        I don’t owe you an accounting for my ongoing contributions to disaster relief around the world. Once again that’s none of your business.

        But my main contribution to combating human starvation is a lifelong commitment expressed in writing and activisim to fight the criminal gangs who kill off growing economies by socialist and fascist economic policies, preventing poor societies from becoming rich societies. Upward mobility is the only cure for poverty and advocates of command economies have killed off more people in human history than natural disasters and plagues.

        1. “I don’t owe you an accounting for my ongoing contributions to disaster relief around the world. Once again that’s none of your business.”

          I will take that as a “not so much”.

          As for your writings and activism about gangs and such, good job. At least you are doing SOMETHING. Too bad trying to over-throw a government (from thousands of miles away) isn’t quite as easy as simply changing ones eating habits.

  8. Vegan Rabbit wrote Renard Blanc,

    “1. Yahoo Answers is HARDLY a reliable source of information, so the fact that you used it as a reference really speaks volumes about your level of research.”

    That’s an ad hominem attack and a magician’s trick of distraction from the point. You do not prove the resource is incorrect and you can’t because it isn’t.

    “2. It’s great that you used to be a vegetarian at one point in your life, but you must not have been a very good one otherwise you wouldn’t have failed.”

    Another snotty ad hominem attack, and another proof of your self-congratulatory sanctimonious reproach of anyone who shares with you with a personal experience that doesn’t support your religious agenda.

    By your standards there are only successful vegetarians (those whose bodies cooperate with your food fetishes) and failed vegetarians (those whose bodies need meat and dairy products in order to be properly nourished and fight the diseases that attack them. You have a one-size-fits-all mentality typical of the fanatic and allow for no biodiversity. And it sounds like to have to have Mr. Wizard’s laboratory to compensate for all the missing nutrition that meat and dairy eaters can get from eating natural animal products.

    “Rather than getting my nutrition via someone else’s digestive system, I cut out the middle man and take a supplement.”

    Yeah. Try getting those supplements in the typical third-world village, One Percenter.

    1. 1. I think you’ve missed my main point on the subject of yahoo answers: “the fact that you used it as a reference really speaks volumes about your level of research”.

      As for whether humans are meant to eat meat, here’s a link to a great article on just that: http://www.vegsource.com/news/2009/11/the-comparative-anatomy-of-eating.html If you still choose not to believe it, that’s perfectly fine. You’re welcome to your opinion. Of course, it doesn’t mean you are correct, but you can think what you want.

      Also, you don’t need elaborate studies to show you that humans do not thrive on a meat and animal product based diet. The two biggest killers of men in the United States are 1. Heart disease and 2. Cancer (specifically prostate, colorectal and testicular cancers – all linked to animal product consumption). The two biggest killers of women in the united states are 1. Heart disease and 2. Cancer (specifically breast cancer, but ovarian cancer is a big one as well). Although cancer is also very subject to heredity, heart disease – not so much. If one doesn’t consume bad cholesterol (LDL – Low Density Lipoprotein), which is ONLY found in animal products, one has virtually no risk of ever having a heart attack or stroke. We make the good cholesterol (HDL – High Density Lipoprotein) naturally within our own bodies. Also, erectile dysfunction is generally an early sign of heart disease. If you go to your doctor complaining about erectile dysfuntion the first thing they will usually do is ask you about your diet. They will then do a blood test (called a lipoprotein profile) to check out your cholesterol. If you don’t believe me, just look it up. There’s nothing to really PROVE – the facts are staring you right in the face every single day.

      2. I think I did a pretty good job of explaining why Renard Blanc may have failed at vegetarianism. Of course, I’ve got to applaud him for trying, but how hard did he REALLY try? I suppose that’s something only he will know for sure. (Although his lack of research does lead one to wonder…)

      Meat is abundant in protein, iron and fat (bad cholesterol). You can get protein and iron from plant sources, as I have already mentioned. Also, please look up quinoa. It is a complete protein.

      3. “Try getting those supplements in the typical third-world village, One Percenter.” Unless YOU live in a third world village, I see no relevance in you bringing this up as to why YOU continue to consume animal products. Also, supplements are not necessary. As Renard mentioned, nutritional yeast is another option.

  9. Vegan Rabbit wrote, “I doubt their bellies are quite as distended as yours.”

    Yeah, well that’s because as a child I was fed too many carbs derived from agricultural products instead of a diet based on animal-derived proteins. Those fat cells have stayed with me my entire life despite constant dieting.

    So take your snide insults and shove them. Diet cranks like you are the reason I spend my life fighting a losing battle against morbid obesity.

  10. veganelder wrote, “Uh, my thought about not fiddling around with certain sorts of folks is lent quite a bit of credence via the statement (in the comments to your post): “…is the use of deadly force justified against vegetarians….”. Hmmm….”

    When you Vegans stop sickening and killing off billions of human beings with your demands for an agricultural-based diet high in carbs and low in proteins more easily available in animal-derived natural foods, I’ll stop talking about deadly use of self-defense.

    You’re self-righteous religious zealots with a lethal anti-life dogma and I won’t pretend you are anything else.

  11. It is unfortunate that those of us who have made a rational choice, based on reason as well as compassion, to be vegan and support Animal Rights are subjected to the likes of Schulman, Lierre Keith, et al. who misrepresent all of us as uninformed and naive just ready to be bowled over by the might of their logic. Thank you, Vegan Rabbit for an excellent exegesis/argument/reply.

    I wonder if Schulman has ever read Tom Regan? He could learn something from The Case for Animal Rights.

  12. Had to respond over here as there were too many nested comments.

    “Animal proteins metabolize the slowest and provide the most satiation. It’s the carbs — like rice — that’s the reason you’re hungry again in an hour after eating Chinese food. Legumes metabolize more slowly but are also less calorie dense so they don’t satisfy — and any child will tell you that vegetables are not natural to the human palate — they’re a developed taste for affluent palates.”

    I wasn’t talking about which foods keep you fuller longer, I was talking about which foods give you the most energy for the longest period of time. Meat gives a quick energy boost, but after a couple hours one is left feeling lethargic – still moderately full – but not as energized. Plus, for people who eat a lot of meat, their stomachs are used to having heavy things weighing them down. Plant materials are not enough to give that “heaviness” feeling in the stomach meat eaters are so comforted by. When I first went vegan, this used to be an issue. But this was only an issue because my body had not become accustomed to having less heavy foods in my stomach. Now, when I am done eating a meal, I am quite full – content. I never feel like humpty-dumpty after a meal like I used to while still consuming animal products. I’m full, never stuffed.

    “You manage to combine the fallacies of socialism and fascism into a toxic mix of aristocratic paternalism / also economically ignorant and faux “oh-so-caring” socialist nonsense from an arrogant self-congratulatory food-fetish cultist. ”

    Like I said, it could play out in a number of ways, and my example was hypothetical. You still have not responded to how CONTINUING to consume animal products gets those crops to hungry people faster than what I hypothesized.

    “You admit that given a free choice humans will choose eating meat. That tells you something about human nature and freedom of choice, both of which you are out to exterminate as not in concordance with your religious and anti-humanist dogma. ”

    Here goes the “freedom of choice” thing again. Typical meat-eater. Given a free choice humans will choose to do a lot of things and consume a lot of things that are detrimental to their health, so this comment proves absolutely nothing in regards to that. Also, no one really has absolute freedom of choice. There are laws that exist so people cannot go around murdering, raping, abusing, robbing, vandalizing, etc. This is because the choices to do these crimes affect those other than the person making the decision. They are no longer “personal choices”. Because eating animal products violate’s the animals freedom of choice to choose NOT to be killed, hacked up and eaten when it is absolutely not necessary (for humans survival at least), it is not a violation of freedom of choice to propose that animal product consumption (by humans) be regarded as exactly what it is: a violation of the choices of others.

    1. Carbs provide the quickest energy; proteins provide the most nutritional density, and fats are both energy dense and high energy. It’s cars that have the quickest burn-off.

      And meats have their own scale of heaviness, with bovines the heaviest, porcines less heavy, avians still less heavy, and fish the lightest. All of these are high-value nutrition for which human beings are adapted by evolution to thrive on.

      I grew up Jewish. I know about nonsensical dietary restrictions from long experience. Your Vegan Kosherism is just more of the same authoritarian cult nonsense, with many of the same dogmatic rationalizations.

      1. Hmmm… then why on earth is it that I’m STILL healthier than you are?

        Proteins providing the most nutritional density? Do I really need to explain that the nutrients present in meat are protein, iron, zinc, b12, b6, selenium, phosphorus, niacin, riboflavin and choline. All but b12 are present in plants (back to the supplement or nutritional yeast thing for b12).

        Plants also contain many other nutrients that are not only present in meat, but also nutrients which ones which are NOT FOUND IN MEAT AT ALL. The nutrients present in plants are: vitamin A, thiamine, riboflavin, niacin, vitamin B6, biotin, folic acid, vitamin C, vitamin D, vitamin E, vitamin K, choline, potassium, sodium, calcium, phosphorus, magnesium, zinc, iron, manganese, copper, iodine, selenium and molybdenum, as well as ALL of the essential amino acids. While all of these nutrients may not be present in large quantities in each and every type of plant, they certainly are available in large quantities in certain plants. For instance, one cup of chopped raw kale gives you 206% DV of vitamin A.

        Put quite simply: Vegans can thrive on exclusively plant based foods, provided they eat a varied diet. Would you be able to thrive on an exclusively MEAT-based diet? I challenge you to eat nothing but meat, eggs and milk for a month and see what happens to your health. If you’re still alive afterward, come back to me and let me know how much more nutritious animal products are compared to plants.

  13. Proof that the Animal Rights movement prefers animal rights to human rights:

    From Levine Breaking News (http://www.LBNElert.com/) Thursday • December 22, 2011

    HOLY CRAP! DOG BEATS HUMAN IN LBN DROWNING QUESTION!: By a ratio of nearly 2 to 1, LBN E-Lert readers from all 50 of the United States and 25 foreign countries in 11 separate time zones voted to save their dog over a human stranger. Since the LBN Question was posted less than 72 hours ago, over 3,000 LBN E-Lert voted and the dog won by a margin of near two to one.

    1. I’m just wondering how in the world this is proof that the Animal Rights movement prefers animal rights to human rights?? Was the question posed only to those who identify with the AR movement? Or are you implying that the Animal Rights movement has had such an effect on the LBN E-Lert readers in “all 50 of the United States and 25 foreign countries in 11 separate time zones” that they voted the way they did. Or could it just be that human beings in general have strong emotional ties to their dogs/companion animals? Try this question: If your child were drowning and a stranger’s child were drowning, which would you save? Does answering in favor of the former mean that you don’t give a damn about children? No, it means in considering that HYPOTHETICAL situation your answer would be weighted in favor of the being with whom you have a connection.

    2. I have a few hypothetical scenarios for you:

      If two beings (or groups of beings) were drowning and you only had enough time to save one (or one group) which would you choose to save?

      1. Your child or someone else’s child?
      2. Your child or 10 children you have no relation to?
      3. Your mother or someone else’s mother?
      4. Your best friend or someone whom you have never met?
      5. A man or a woman?
      6. A white man or a black man?
      7. A protestant or a catholic?
      8. A christian or a jew?
      9. A blonde or a brunette?

      Do you see where I’m going with this?

      If, for example, you were to choose a man over a woman (#5), would that mean that you are sexist? If you were to choose a white man over a black man (#6) would that make you racist? These questions are silly and serve no purpose – and most certainly reflect absolutely nothing on animal rights as a whole.

      I strongly recommend you read the book “Introduction to Animal Rights: Your Child or Your Dog” by Gary Francione. He goes into great detail on this subject.

      Btw, I would like to see the statistics of how many of the voters polled are “animal rights activists”. You are going to need a heck of a lot more proof than that to back up a claim like “animal rights movement prefers animal rights to human rights”. In all honesty, your above comment is quite silly. It took me a moment to realize you were being serious.

  14. By the way, J. Neil, didn’t you say that you were done here? What keeps drawing you back? Could it be that you are seeking answers to some nagging personal questions about animal rights and veganism?
    That you are struggling within yourself and it comes out as belligerence?
    That you are perhaps tantalized by veganism and yet also tormented by it?
    It’s okay, pal, don’t hold back. Anytime you are ready to make the switch, we’re here to help you along.

    1. Vegan Rabbit and R.C. Curtis:

      You’re correct. The Levine Poll wasn’t of Animal Rights advocates. So I’m delighted that you confirmed the Animal Rights equivalency with human life by putting dogs you’d “have a connection to” in the same category with humans you’d have a connection to. That you are not horrified by choosing to rescue YOUR drowning dog to someone else’s drowning human child, mother, friend, stranger, male, female, Christian, Jew, blonde, or brunette is an epic fail for anyone claiming to have a functional moral code. Neither of you can be trusted as a teacher, babysitter, caregiver, lifeguard, firefighter, or any other position to which human life is trusted because when push comes to shove you just might put a pet’s life above a human’s.

      Why did I come back here? I thought that because you have the power to read and write, you are human. Instead, you are some sort of non-human inhabiting a human body — perhaps an extraterrestrial or a robot. I won’t make that mistake about you again.

      1. “That you are not horrified by choosing to rescue YOUR drowning dog to someone else’s drowning human child, mother, friend, … is an epic fail for anyone claiming to have a functional moral code.”

        Okay, did you even READ what R.C. Curtis and I commented? First of all, NIETHER of us ever said whether we would choose the human or the dog in that scenario. Your hypothetical scenarios prove absolutely nothing. The fact is, THERE IS *NO* DROWNING HUMAN AND DOG waiting for me to rescue one of them. This sort of hypothetical situation exists in fairy-tale land. We are dealing with real-world issues here that actually matter.

        As R.C. Curtis said: “Even if in that crucial moment I chose to sacrifice a dog to save a fellow (yes, fellow) human being, that does not mean that I do not believe that animals have the right to live their lives free from human caused suffering, that they don’t have a right to their own interests and that they should have their lives cut short to satisfy your taste for their flesh.”

        Giving animals the right to not be regarded as property has absolutely nothing to do with who we would choose in any sort of hypothetical situation you could conceive.

        By the way, in my scenarios I wasn’t asking you to choose between saving a dog and your mother, or a dog and a christian, or a dog and a brunette. I was asking you to choose between the subjects listed. There was no mention of a dog in my scenarios, so I don’t know where that came from.

        And there’s no need to be embarrassed. I know the reason why you came back to my blog. It’s because you missed me so much and couldn’t stand to be away for even a day. Aww, how sweet. I’m flattered.

  15. So you resort to de-humanizing and name calling when you are challenged intellectually? I was trying to explain why all those LBN E-Lert readers might have voted the way they did in a hypothetical situation. How would I respond if “push came to shove?” I hope I never have to find out. Even if in that crucial moment I chose to sacrifice a dog to save a fellow (yes, fellow) human being, that does not mean that I do not believe that animals have the right to live their lives free from human caused suffering, that they don’t have a right to their own interests and that they should have their lives cut short to satisfy your taste for their flesh.

    Here’s how philosopher John Lawrence Hill in The Case for Vegetarianism weighs in on this very subject:
    “While a dog may be sacrificed so that a person may live, should a hundred dogs die so that the same person may live? A million dogs? What if the person is a ninety-year-old terminally ill patient who is comatose and has no possibility of regaining consciousness?”

    Mr. Schulman, you are wont to make wild generalizations about people who support animal rights and to paint all of us with a very broad brush. You are also fond of constructing straw men (and women) that you can easily knock down. The statements you make are just not true for the compassionate vegan animal advocates I know who care just as much for their fellow human animals as they do for the non-human ones.

  16. J. Neil, you claim that Animal Rights are illogical and yet your arguments and tirades are anything but logical. If you truly wished to refute the arguments for Animal Rights you would do some research, read what has already been written that refutes every argument you have raised.

    Realize there are different approaches to the subject. For the utilitarian argument, read Peter Singer, Animal Liberation; for the deontological Rights position read Tom Regan, The Case for Animal Rights or the Gary Francione book mentioned; or read professor Hill’s book for an overview of both approaches and more. And read the miriad of books out there that make a strong case for the benefits (ethically and in terms of human health)of a vegan diet.

    Do not make assumptions before you have thoroughly versed yourself in the subject as you are apt to look foolish.

  17. Vegan Rabbit wrote, “Here’s how philosopher John Lawrence Hill in The Case for Vegetarianism weighs in on this very subject: ‘While a dog may be sacrificed so that a person may live, should a hundred dogs die so that the same person may live? A million dogs? What if the person is a ninety-year-old terminally ill patient who is comatose and has no possibility of regaining consciousness?’”

    There’s John Lawrence Hill using the words “What is” — which makes it a hypothetical. You have no problem with your own side using hypotheticals. Further, all your reasoning is anthropomorphic projection of human characteristics onto animals. Argument by fantasy, ignoring the reality.

    Epic fail again.

  18. “Here’s how philosopher John Lawrence Hill in The Case for Vegetarianism weighs in on this very subject:
    “While a dog may be sacrificed so that a person may live, should a hundred dogs die so that the same person may live? A million dogs? What if the person is a ninety-year-old terminally ill patient who is comatose and has no possibility of regaining consciousness?””

    That was a quote from R.C. Curtis. And yes, they were also criticizing you for using hypothetical scenarios. The reason we used them was to show you how those kinds of hypothetical scenarios serve no purpose in the real world. I can’t believe I have to explain this to you – it’s incredibly obvious.

    1. You still have not responded with any actual FACTS. Hypothetical scenarios are not facts. Perhaps you’ve realized that you have been defeated on the reality front, and are now switching your energies to debating on the imaginary front? It seems the facts are on our side, otherwise you wouldn’t be forced to argue such silly improbabilities.

        1. I have refuted many of your statements. You, on the other hand, have done a marvelous job of avoiding challenges and questions you know you will not be able to win or answer correctly. For example:

          1. “You still have not responded to how CONTINUING to consume animal products gets those crops to hungry people faster than what I hypothesized.””

          2.””Carbs provide the quickest energy; proteins provide the most nutritional density, and fats are both energy dense and high energy. It’s cars that have the quickest burn-off.”

          “Hmmm… then why on earth is it that I’m STILL healthier than you are?””

          3. “Vegans can thrive on exclusively plant based foods, provided they eat a varied diet. Would you be able to thrive on an exclusively MEAT-based diet? I challenge you to eat nothing but meat, eggs and milk for a month and see what happens to your health. If you’re still alive afterward, come back to me and let me know how much more nutritious animal products are compared to plants.”

          According to what you seem to believe is “healthy”, if you adopted this meat, milk and egg diet for a month (or even longer, if you REALLY believe in it), you would probably become healthier, yes?

          “Yeah, well that’s because as a child I was fed too many carbs derived from agricultural products instead of a diet based on animal-derived proteins. Those fat cells have stayed with me my entire life despite constant dieting.”

          Aww poor you. It’s everyone’s fault but your own, isn’t it? It seems you might benefit from the above “diet”. On one hand I would really like to see you accept this challenge, as it is the only real way to ever possibly try prove me wrong, but on the other hand, if you were to accept this challenge you and I both know that you would suffer very serious health consequences, and niether of us wants that. Of course, conceding that you were in fact WRONG that animal products are more nutritious than plant foods would be against everything you stand for. You are so stubborn that you are willing to go down with your proverbial ship, even after being proven wrong time and time again. You are fighting a losing battle. It’s not too hard to simply admit defeat. Everyone is wrong once in a while, and this time it’s you.

          I should also let you know that fat cells generally have a life of about 7 years, so those “agricultural products” you were fed as a child have no influence over your present girth. Accepting responsibility for your actions is clearly something you are not very good at.

  19. Perhaps Mr Schulman has ‘mommy’ (weight, egocentricity, research, debating etc) issues, having been fed all those nasty carbs in his younger years. I hope he takes up your meat and dairy challenge for a month and reports back (if he’s still alive).

      1. So nice of you to stop by again, mister Schulman! How is that diet of yours coming? (The meat, dairy and egg diet, that is.) I would really like an update. Down from four chins to three? Remember, if you would really like a chance to possibly prove me wrong, that diet is the way to do it. Or are you afraid that I might actually be right…?

          1. In your last session you talked about when you were a kid, Mr. Schulman. Would you care to elaborate on your childhood? Just what was your relationship with your mother and with food? Just make yourself comfortable on that couch . . .

  20. Really, Mr Schulman, dropping the f-bomb could get you banned from this site and I somehow think you would miss this group (I’m not so sure I’d miss you, but then again, you do make me laugh…), It’s not like anyone is taking you seriously; it’s hard to imagine that you take yourself seriously, so carry on, you strange little (or not so little) person…

  21. Lots of good points on this forum, thank you ever so much Vegan Rabbit and all those who have contributed with replies.

    I have to add that flesh is only made to taste ” nice ” (not to me anyway), to meat eaters, thanks to VEGAN ingredients! I mean, a menu in a restaurant would never read ” Raw Steak ”, excuse me for stating the obvious, but rather ” Steak with peppercorns ” or ” chicken, still skinned with feathers on ” as opposed to something like ” chicken in a chili marinade ”. My point is, meat is being DISGUISED. We vegans don’t need to fool ourselves and disguise a diet that is natural to us as well as being delicious. I can combine any vegan ingredients I wish and enjoy a satisfying meal. Meat on its own would just be a pound of flesh from a dead animal who once felt pain and emotions. So why lie to yourselves, meat eaters? Either eat like your fellow lions and tigers, or don’t. Oh, and lions and tigers don’t need forks and butcher knives. They have claws. Your nails would never rip through meat. And you would have a very hard time ripping through raw flesh and muscle with your teeth, so the teeth argument is yet another excuse that is being fed.

    We’ve been blessed with superior intelligence, by that I mean ” intelligence to reason in a superior way”, for a purpose. That includes compassion and sparing the lives of those who are vulnerable. Instead of using that intelligence, meat eaters resort to the savage behaviour of other animals such as lions and wolves (justified for these animals as they lack in CHOICE).

    Vegans are pro life. That alone is good enough for me. A life is a life, no matter the size of the animal’s body, no matter whether it can speak, laugh, cry or squeal. Animals like us reproduce, they share that same most important purpose in this world, that is to bring LIFE into this world. Not human or animal life, but just LIFE. And language is another matter. Animals communicate too. Yes they do. They squeal, struggle and run away when they sense danger. We human beings invented our own language, that is, making sounds with our muscles, jaw and tongue to form audible words. Let’s not expect animals to do the same in order for us to spare their lives. After all, actions speak louder than words.

    If this isn’t enough, or if the meat eaters coming on this forum to patronise the rest of us, before patronising us, get your facts right. If you think we’re like a cult or something, how about reading what some of the world’s greatest men in science and philosophy have said. If you are religious, say, a Christian, read genesis in the bible. Meat was never God’s initial plan for us, meat was in fact later allowed as a TEMPORARY last resort solution until vegan sources were available again. A jewish friend of mine tells me the same about the torah, they are taught to satisfy their hunger with bread before RESORTING to meat. Same idea! I can’t comment on other religions because I don’t know. In today’s world though, vegetarian foods have sadly become the ” alternative option ”. Even in restaurant menus. Please don’t let the multi billion pound meat industry fool you into believing that eating meat is natural, it may have been thousands of years ago when more efficient sources were scarce, but today, meat production is VERY inefficient and is the underlying cause of starvation and disease as Vegan rabbit has already properly clarified. Lastly, please read Vegan rabbit’s posts carefully before commenting. Sorry I’ve rambled on, I had so much to say! I’ll enjoy reading the rest of your forum and will pass it on to my friends here in Scotland 🙂 I’m off to enjoy my lentil soup now. Oh, one last point, your skin and body will thank you. We HAPPILY double and triple and quadruple our intake of those good foods government practically beg nations to consume more of 😀

  22. Schulman could live on his ego alone, I’m sure. The misinformation he is spreading shows how irresponsible he is and how unable he is to look up factual articles whether or not they agree with his narrow stance. I guess he is the lesser of our species. You know what that means (by his own words).

  23. Thanks to Vegan Rabbit for helping us to open our eyes to the greed and corruption that endures and seemingly grows in our society. Recently, my fiancé and I have made a very wise decision to greatly reduce the consumption of animal products, both for ethical and health purposes.
    The meat industry is a powerful one, and is very heavily subsidized, which unfortunately society’s perceptions about nutrition, particularly proteins, iron and B12.
    Back when I was almost-vegetarian (due to financial constraints that didn’t allow for the purchase of free-range meat), I was lean, fit and vibrant. My bloodwork was about as close to perfect as you could ask for. Then, due to some major life changes, I was introduced to a diet high animal products. My energy and good health plummeted and after a recommendation from our doctor to reduce or eliminate meat, I’m going for it, and so far so good! I think that vegetarianism or near-vegetarianism is much more natural, healthy and ethical in general. After watching documentaries about deforestation in Brazil for cattle ranches (resulting in habitat loss for already-endangered species such as jaguars), I feel that beef consumption is irresponsible, destructive and gratuitous. The immoral practices used by humans to raise and slaughter animals is disgusting. Perhaps small-scale free-range farms that ethically raise animals is a step up, but the real solution is to reduce or eliminate meat from our diets.
    As for Schulman, I’m amazed at your ability to respond so diplomatically to his ridiculous comments. He is one deluded individual, and his hateful nature is so apparent in every statement he makes. And really, who are we going to take seriously – the one who can realistically critique and back her points with logical facts – or the insecure egomaniac who uses a whole lot of fancy words to say absolutely nothing?
    I suppose we should take dietary advice from a man who is “fighting a losing battle against morbid obesity” by stuffing his face with more steak. Yarrp! Obviously, what he’s doing is clearly wrong. What’s particularly amusing is that he accuses vegans of being anti-human, yet if he were to feed a meat-based crap diet to all the starving kids he supposedly cares so much for, they would likely develop the same problems he has and die prematurely – so I dare to ask him – who’s the one with the anti-population agenda here? I don’t think I’ve met a person with such a superiority complex about humans – after all, isn’t the whole idea to share the planet with our fellow species? Coming from someone who doesn’t allow comments on his own blog, I find it even more amusing that he finds another one to troll on. Apparently constructive criticism is too much for his sensitive ego.
    Anyway, just wanted to say thanks again. This article and all it’s comments just further confirm that my partner and I are making the right decision 🙂

    1. Sorry for my poorly-edited comment! I meant to put “skews” in there between unfortunately and perceptions, and my auto-incorrect added a few things that I failed to notice before it was too late – it’s late 😉

    2. Thank you so much, Kathryn! I love your critique on Schulman’s debate skills (or lack thereof), especially what you write here: “And really, who are we going to take seriously – the one who can realistically critique and back her points with logical facts – or the insecure egomaniac who uses a whole lot of fancy words to say absolutely nothing?” — LOL!

      I am so overjoyed that I had any role in your decision to reduce your meat consumption. This is why I write this blog! My fiancé and I decided to go vegan together as well. Doing it as a team makes it so much easier because each of you has someone to lean on and share different things you’ve learned with each other.

      Yes, animal agriculture is a huge problem for our planet’s forests. This is not just true for beef, but also for dairy. Have you and your fiancé considered a vegan lifestyle? It’s not only better than ovo-lacto (eggs and milk) vegetarianism for your health, but also for the health of the planet and (of course) animals. The truth is, all animal products are unnecessary and unnatural on top of being extremely cruel and exploitative. If you haven’t already, I highly recommend taking a look at the posts I have written about eggs, dairy and vivisection.

      There are more issues than just meat, dairy, eggs and animal testing (and honey). Animals used in entertainment (ex: horse/dog racing, circuses, zoos, rodeos, hunting) and clothing/other items (ex: leather, fur, wool, silk, ivory, pearls, down) are also exploited.

      A great resource to learn all the different basic aspects of veganism is Vegan Kit.

      As for “humane” animal exploitation, Humane Myth is a great resource for information.

      I also highly recommend you read my post on The 1 Reason Your Vegan Diet Will Fail Every Time. I feel there is a lot in that post you would connect with.

      I see that you are a very bright, free-thinking individual. Your comment makes this quite clear. I would be honored to have you among our vegan ranks and look forward to future comments from you! 🙂

  24. Hi!

    I am learning a lot from reading the above post. I am currently serving in the Peace Corps living in a village in outer Mongolia. I was a vegetarian before serving, and decided to eat meat again to fully submerge myself in the culture. Mongolia’s meals revolve around meat for breakfast, meat for lunch, and meat for dinner. Now being here a year and a half and seeing how much of my friend’s worlds revolve around meat- and the lack of any vegetables (other than lettuce, carrots, garlic, potatoes and occasional peppers and tomatoes come through) I am trying to collect my thoughts on if vegetarianism would be possible in my village. For the health of the people, I don’t know where they could get some of the necessary nutrients in order to survive without the meat. Many of my friends are herders for a living here. What do you think? I am going to be a vegetarian on return back to the United States, but I would be interested in hearing some thoughts on the possibility of vegetarianism in a village that reaches -40 degrees in the winter.

    Thanks again for all the information and insight in this post.

  25. it’s been so incredibly challenging seeing the slaughtering of so many animals in front of my yard. all the animal abuse here is a struggle to get through. chained dogs, frozen puppies getting stoned. one of my best mongolian friends and i have recently started up an animal club to encourage some of the children and adults to see animals in a new light! I am trying to find a culturally-sensitive way of introducing vegetarianism but i continue of find myself getting stuck- that’s why i could really use some of your advice! Or if you have any resources about introducing vegan-ism/vegetarianism in a culturally sensitive light that would be wonderful. thanks!!!

Leave a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s