Vegan food startup orders contractors to buy their mayo so it looks more popular - Polidicks

[QUOTE=MaximLaHaxim;50839847]And I don't respect him not respecting me and his assuming that I eat meat just for the flavour.[/QUOTE] If the ultimate destiny of a mayonnaise con thread is to argue ethics of meat production, you're not going to have a constructive argument with anyone else willing to go down that road without explaining your viewpoint in more detail.

[QUOTE=bitches;50839820]I can't take this seriously when you make the claim that growing only crops kills just as many animals as mass producing meat. It shows how little you know about the industry, perhaps on purpose to justify your insane claim.[/QUOTE]I never said growing crops kills just as much as [I]mass-producing meat[/I] I believe I explicitly implied that growing crops to feed our population will still require animals and thus will still contribute to "suffering" or "slavery." You don't know what the fuck you're talking about, bitches. Unless we're going to start using up our [url=http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/Pnadw835.PDF]dwindling reserves of phosphate bearing minerals[/url] at an absurd rate you will need animals. Period. There is no way around it, you cannot argue your way out of this because you're either using renewable phosphate from animal husbandry, (i.e. recycling the phosphorus) or you're using a finite mineral reserve. Some more sources for things that I think need them: [url]http://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/Allowed-Prohibited%20Substances.pdf[/url] (allowed and prohibited substances for organic certification) [url]http://www.businessinsider.com/harvard-study-links-pesticides-to-colony-collapse-disorder-2014-5[/url] [url]https://www.epa.gov/pollinator-protection/colony-collapse-disorder[/url] (bees are important) [url]https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/sources/agriculture.html[/url] [url]http://www.nature.com/news/one-third-of-our-greenhouse-gas-emissions-come-from-agriculture-1.11708[/url] (some sources on greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture, the EPA site basically advocates free range grazing for cattle so less suffering there I guess) [url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6394693[/url] (chicken ovulation cycle, no it does not work like cows) [url]http://bexar-tx.tamu.edu/files/2012/07/E-348-Common-Health-Problems-of-Beef-Cattle.pdf[/url] (speaking of cows, some information on [U]beef[/U] cows and their health problems, including hip and joint issues) If I think of more I might edit them in, but these are the ones that stuck out in my head. [editline]6th August 2016[/editline] Please if you want to argue with me about how best to solve the phosphorus question then figure out a way to maintain the existing reserves while removing the most effective method of recycling we have and replacing it with something else. I invite you to do this because right now there's scientists working on this very thing because it is a [B]deadly serious problem to run out of phosphorus[/B] so if you have a better solution please share. [editline]6th August 2016[/editline] No, really. It's extremely serious, like "apocalypse" levels of we have no room to fuck around with this. I'm not even exaggerating, if we hit that wall it's going to hit all levels of agriculture and by then it will be too late to fix. People will starve, billions will die.

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50839888]I never said growing crops kills just as much as [I]mass-producing meat[/I] I believe I explicitly implied that growing crops to feed our population will still require animals and thus will still contribute to "suffering" or "slavery." You don't know what the fuck you're talking about, bitches. Unless we're going to start using up our [url=http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/Pnadw835.PDF]dwindling reserves of phosphate bearing minerals[/url] at an absurd rate you will need animals. Period. There is no way around it, you cannot argue your way out of this because you're either using renewable phosphate from animal husbandry, (i.e. recycling the phosphorus) or you're using a finite mineral reserve. Some more sources for things that I think need them: [url]http://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/Allowed-Prohibited%20Substances.pdf[/url] (allowed and prohibited substances for organic certification) [url]http://www.businessinsider.com/harvard-study-links-pesticides-to-colony-collapse-disorder-2014-5[/url] [url]https://www.epa.gov/pollinator-protection/colony-collapse-disorder[/url] (bees are important) [url]https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/sources/agriculture.html[/url] [url]http://www.nature.com/news/one-third-of-our-greenhouse-gas-emissions-come-from-agriculture-1.11708[/url] (some sources on greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture, the EPA site basically advocates free range grazing for cattle so less suffering there I guess) [url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6394693[/url] (chicken ovulation cycle, no it does not work like cows) [url]http://bexar-tx.tamu.edu/files/2012/07/E-348-Common-Health-Problems-of-Beef-Cattle.pdf[/url] (speaking of cows, some information on [U]beef[/U] cows and their health problems, including hip and joint issues) If I think of more I might edit them in, but these are the ones that stuck out in my head.[/QUOTE] what i'm saying is that you're being ridiculous to think you're undermining vegetarianism/veganism's moral viewpoints by saying animals still suffer for crop growth: the moral argument is to decrease that suffering wherever possible, and does not rely on the 100% eradication of it it isn't a constructive argument that could ever change the moral viewpoint, because you do not understand what the viewpoint is to begin with

[QUOTE=bitches;50839907]what i'm saying is that you're being ridiculous to think you're undermining vegetarianism/veganism's moral viewpoints by saying animals still suffer for crop growth: the moral argument is to decrease that suffering wherever possible, and does not rely on the 100% eradication of it[/QUOTE] Maybe for you, but some vegans legit want to stop all "suffering".

[QUOTE=MaximLaHaxim;50839912]Maybe for you, but some vegans legit want to stop all "suffering".[/QUOTE] wanting to stop it isn't the same thing as throwing your hands up saying "i give up now; going back to meat products because i can't do enough" [editline]6th August 2016[/editline] why did you even quote-mark "suffering" like that if you don't believe nonhuman life forms can experience suffering i don't know what to tell you

[QUOTE=bitches;50839907]what i'm saying is that you're being ridiculous to think you're undermining vegetarianism/veganism's moral viewpoints by saying animals still suffer for crop growth: the moral argument is to decrease that suffering wherever possible, and does not rely on the 100% eradication of it it isn't a constructive argument that could ever change the moral viewpoint, because you do not understand what the viewpoint is to begin with[/QUOTE]Except that was exactly his viewpoint, bitches. He opened up with how any opposing view isn't deserving of respect and [I]really[/I] is that the best way to get your point across? Out of the gate he set it for negativity, but wasn't going to let him bait me into feeling annoyed so I instead had fun typing up that big post. [I]My[/I] point is while it is admirable to reduce suffering claiming the moral highground all for your lonesome self while you do actually contribute in some way shape and form to the wholesale slaughter of animals simply because that's how agriculture works [I]does not fly with me.[/I] You, I, and everyone else are perfectly capable of growing our own foods. Really. Hydroponic technology has gotten to the point where you absolutely can self-sustain your own needs and really I think you ought to do that. I do. I hate fields, farm fields are such a shitty way to grow anything when you compare it to the various hydroponic systems out there and doubly so if you have an [I]aquaponics[/I] system. Fish provide more than enough protein needs and largely recycle plant nutrients back into the system, it's almost self-sustaining if you weren't a walking calorie sink pulling from it.

[QUOTE=MaximLaHaxim;50839912]Maybe for you, but some vegans legit want to stop all "suffering".[/QUOTE] do you chug butter and sugar because there's no point in cutting down on unhealthy foods?

Bottom line, vegans are stark raving mad fanatics because 'hurr-durr, killing animals is bad' End of story

Anyone who's serious about the ethical side of veganism shouldn't buy food from the store that came from a field, there [I]is[/I] blood on it somewhere. Literally. If it wasn't washed in processing it probably has the blood of a groundhog, rabbit, woodchuck or even the odd cat or two. Grow your own food or accept that you've got blood on your hands too, those are the only two options shy of being a goddamn hypocrite. [editline]6th August 2016[/editline] Oh and I am actually self-sustaining with my food production, but I really don't see a major problem with being an omnivore. I have no qualms with fishing, hunting, or trapping.

long term, the human diet will probably have to change to include a lot of entomophagy

oh man i actually really like this stuff, since i'm lactose intolerant and i can't eat dairy. tastes like mayo to me

[QUOTE=maniacykt;50839961]Bottom line, vegans are stark raving mad fanatics because 'hurr-durr, killing animals is bad' End of story[/QUOTE] very intelligent argument, good job [editline]6th August 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50839962]Anyone who's serious about the ethical side of veganism shouldn't buy food from the store that came from a field, there [I]is[/I] blood on it somewhere. Literally. If it wasn't washed in processing it probably has the blood of a groundhog, rabbit, woodchuck or even the odd cat or two. Grow your own food or accept that you've got blood on your hands too, those are the only two options shy of being a goddamn hypocrite. [editline]6th August 2016[/editline] Oh and I am actually self-sustaining with my food production, but I really don't see a major problem with being an omnivore. I have no qualms with fishing, hunting, or trapping.[/QUOTE] you're making the claim that there is no ethical difference between buying industrialized crops versus industrialized meat, without any heed to the [I]proportions[/I] of ethicality it isn't a binary situation where you're either good or evil

[QUOTE=bitches;50839820]I can't take this seriously when you make the claim that growing only crops kills just as many animals as mass producing meat. It shows how little you know about the industry, perhaps on purpose to justify your insane claim. Dramatizing it with descriptions of animal death for the shock value doesn't make the point any less false.[/QUOTE] I can't take you seriously either when you find a slight issue with one of his points, and you use it as an excuse to ignore every single one of his arguments, when he posted sources.

[QUOTE=da space core;50840190]I can't take you seriously either when you find a slight issue with one of his points, and you use it as an excuse to ignore every single one of his arguments, when he posted sources.[/QUOTE] the point of the entire post was to criticize vegetarians/vegans for thinking they're doing something more ethical than a diet of meat would be when that entire point rests on ignoring the respective quantities of the supposed ethical violations, it cannot be taken seriously

[QUOTE=bitches;50840111]you're making the claim that there is no ethical difference between buying industrialized crops versus industrialized meat, without any heed to the [I]proportions[/I] of ethicality it isn't a binary situation where you're either good or evil[/QUOTE]... Isn't that the whole point of, "well eating meat is reprehensible PERIOD, I don't respect it," anyway? Some either or shit? You're either part of the vegan cult or you're some scum beneath the shoes of the vegans who are pure as the driven snow and not at all insufferable cunts who cry and bitch and moan about animal suffering and yet don't lift a finger to help beyond cry and bitch and moan? I realize that last one was a run-on but that's how it feels. Maybe not with your viewpoint that suffering has varying degrees (and personally I think this as well) but it certainly is with the absolutist horseshit that's constantly flung around by vegans. When we're hammered into this dichotomy I can absolutely climb above all of it and say that at least I'm doing my part, I have been for years, because under that regime very few of us have clean hands. Do you? I don't imagine you do, I know Mr. "Layin' Down The Vegan Law" sure as shit doesn't because he used his local vegan food market as an example of how awesome ~the movement~ is and it's continual stride toward a "suffer free" world. Not much progress considering I know what happens on the supply end, it's just outsourcing the misery to animals we haven't domesticated while [I]possibly[/I] taking a sledgehammer to the ecosystem. That's not much of an exaggeration either, agricultural runoff is awful, it's especially bad when you basically dump phosphoric acid all over a field because you don't have manure. Actually that's not entirely accurate. When you get phosphate fertilizer it comes in these bags of little granules that contain calcium nitrate and phosphoric acid, which you mix with potassium nitrate to get compound fertilizer which, if you've ever seen agriculture or gardening labels, is the "N P K" trinity. (Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Potassium) Applying it is tricky because in several states you can get in big fucking trouble if you don't watch the runoff because it turns any, ANY body of slow-moving water into this fucking green soup of nasty shit. Get caught dumping that into a river and it's a [url=http://bwsr.state.mn.us/academy/2011/PowerPoints/Thursday/Technical/Drainage_Law.pdf]criminal, not civil offense[/url] in Minnesota. This kills ecosystems, it strangles the water and it kills the things that need the water and it's [I]already[/I] a problem with our current farm use. Meat production uses a lot of land that's "arable" but wouldn't be if we stopped using grazing animals, so we really can't just magically transition from ranch space to cropland since almost all of it westward of the Mississippi is BLM-owned anyway. We would need to make new space for crops, directly threatening the environment, and if we go hard with compound fertilizer, (remember, no manure) then the runoff problem is going to be astronomically more dangerous. What's more evil, continuing the industrialized production of meat or potentially destroying our ecosystem for decades? That dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico is increasing in size [url=http://science.time.com/2013/06/19/this-years-gulf-of-mexico-dead-zone-could-be-the-biggest-on-record/]year[/url] after [url=http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2015/080415-gulf-of-mexico-dead-zone-above-average.html]year.[/url] These [url=http://www.umces.edu/hpl/release/2010/mar/03/aquatic-%E2%80%9Cdead-zones%E2%80%9D-contributing-climate-change]contribute[/url] to climate change and in turn [url=http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/global-warming-may-boost-dead-zones-in-oceans/]are made worse[/url] by it as well, it's a cycle that may possibly spiral out of control. This could kill us. I'd rather have cow farts and mitigate that than lose our fisheries which we simply cannot fucking replace, mass death in the oceans [url=http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/16/science/earth/study-raises-alarm-for-health-of-ocean-life.html]may precede an extinction event[/url] and we may lose the fishing industry entirely by [url=http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/11/061102-seafood-threat.html]2048.[/url] Obviously that level of death in the ocean would have catastrophic consequences of land, and right now agricultural runoff is [I]directly[/I] contributing to that. I'm certainly not saying veganism as a concept will kill us all but doing what that guy says we should do? Make [B]more[/B] of these toxic, polluting farm fields as we reclaim ranch lands that can't sustain crops efficiently anyway? We don't need that at all. That's setting us up for another Permian extinction event, people like Kaelnukem have [I]no fucking idea of the fire they want us to play with[/I] and he has the fucking gall to call [U]other[/U] people ignorant? Do you see why I have some problems here? I can't explain it any better. [editline]6th August 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=bitches;50840249]the point of the entire post was to criticize vegetarians/vegans for thinking they're doing something more ethical than a diet of meat would be when that entire point rests on ignoring the respective quantities of the supposed ethical violations, it cannot be taken seriously[/QUOTE]I realize I already said this but I'll give a TL;DR reiteration: his whole point was veganism = good, meat = bad, there is no room for respective quantities of anything in that dichotomy because it is a binary state. Under those rules I can absolutely criticize vegetarians/vegans for their supposed ethical superiority because they contribute to suffering so therefore they are bad. Arguably if I just [I]stopped eating meat[/I] I could be completely infallible simply because I know without a doubt my hydroponics farm causes no suffering [I]at all.[/I] I didn't make this stupid game where I was expected to lose, I just flipped the fucking table and pissed on all the pieces. Don't get mad at me for not playing nice with that absolutist bullshit. [editline]6th August 2016[/editline] Oh and this environmentalist angle is Kaelnukem's machination as well, but since it was brought up as evidence for why veganism is [I]just so cool[/I] I've taken to pissing all over that too. Veganism will not save the environment, reforming our agricultural practices will and right along with many other equally important measures.

[QUOTE=Kaelnukem;50839137]When someone calls vegans extremist that don't understand how the real world works, then I can call them ignorant of their knowledge of veganism and plant-based diets. Ignorance is what it is, I can't change the definition. As for being respectful, that's not going to work. I can tolerate it, but I cannot respect someone's decision to consume animal products, it goes against my entire ideology. This is where the ethical side comes in, but I won't discuss that here, since it is off-topic. [/QUOTE] So instead of teaching people why they are wrong to generalize vegans, you method is to just insult them in the hopes of what exactly? It's an attitude like that that drives people away from your ideas, and makes them despise you. You want to fix the problem, then don't become a part of it. [QUOTE] I don't pull those comments about being better for the environment out of my ass, that's why I put the sources on the bottom of my comment. [/QUOTE] I'm sorry, but you really need to get some better sources then. Because so far your sources consist of: 1:) A reddit thread whose sources come from YourVeganFallacyIs.com, a website that provides no citation at all for any of their answers and links to several blogs and websites that do exactly the same. Out of all of sources they listed, I found a Wikipedia article on the "Environmental Impact of Meat Production" and a 2009 study by the American Society of Nutrition labeled "Health Effects of a Vegan Diet", both of which actually cite their sources. I admit that it does give a little insight into Vegans, but I cannot take most of what they have to say as fact. 2:) A 139 page report from the Food an Agricultural Organization of the United Nations that states livestock contribute to 14.5% of total greenhouse gases. 3:) An article from 2009 that states a single study by the World Watch Institute showed that 51% of greenhouse gases are caused by the meat industry, and then doesn't provide any actual links to said study. Luckily I found the study, but the problem is this study states that the FAO study above is incorrect. Which one is it then? Is the FAO one right, or is the study conducted by Worldwatch right? I can't seem to find an actual answer to that question though so we're stuck with two sources that contradict each other. 4:) An article that states a study shows that livestock based food sources will cause deforestation, which I admit, was actually a very interesting read. Can't verify the sources though because the study the article is based off of is locked behind a login because it's more than 3 months old. 5:) Your final source is a power point presentation that has absolutely no citation whatsoever, apart from two graphs that were taken from the same website. [QUOTE] The world won't go plant-based overnight, so it it pointless to wonder about where we will put the animals or how we will feed everyone on plants. You grow with the demand, which has already been happening. Vegetarians and vegans are a growing niche market, the market shows it too. Simply taking a look at the supermarkets in my area shows the rise of diary and meat alternatives. [/QUOTE] You say it's pointless, but I disagree. We have problems feeding people already and that's with the inclusion of livestock, fishing, etc... So can you safely say that we wouldn't have these problems if we switched to a vegan diet and cut out those food sources? [QUOTE] As for your GMO and pesticides, a large number of crops is currently being grown as food for livestock. The burger you eat is made of the cow that eats the crops you are worried about. Also, omnivores eat plants too. So I do not see why GMOs or pesticide is put as a problem for vegans to solve. [/QUOTE] I am aware that GMO crops are being used to feed livestock. My point however is that there are people out there that are either afraid of GMOs or dislike their food not being natural. So what do we do with them? Do we grow genetically modified crops that can withstand diseases and pests and potentially increase our output, or do we grow food the traditional route and go about worrying about pests eating our crops or diseases killing them? And for the record, I never stated that GMOs or pesticides were a problem that vegans have to solve. [QUOTE] Vegetarians tend to stop eating meat because I don't want animal to die for their food. I understand that thought process, but they completely gloss over the conditions the rest of their animal products are produced. The eggs they eat come from chickens, most of them live 1/10 of their actual lifespan. There is also the genetic breeding that happens, which causes all kinds of health problems for the chickens. A lot of rescue chickens need aid to get through their later years safely, because of all the egg laying they had to do. The second part is that male chicks are seen as useless, so they go in the grinder. So you have female chickens that lead a life forced to produce eggs for someone's lunch and male chicks that get ground up. The milk they drink come from cows, most of them live 1/4 of their actual lifespan. Cows are bred to produce the most milk, which leads to plenty of health problems. Cows need to be pregnant to produce milk, so they are forcibly inseminated after they stop producing milk. After pregnancy the calf gets taken away, it becomes calf's meat, a dairy cow or a beef cow. The mother cow probably won't see their calf again, which makes the mother cow act distressed. So you have cows that lead a life forced to give milk and be impregnated for the rest of their life.[/QUOTE] So them limiting themselves to a few products produced by animals means nothing because other animals still suffer? You seriously need to jump off that high horse of yours. You're vegan, congrats and more power to you, but that doesn't give you the right to come in here and shit on everyone else just because they made a different lifestyle choice. You want people to respect your decisions, then you damn well need to start respecting theirs.

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50840414]... Isn't that the whole point of, "well eating meat is reprehensible PERIOD, I don't respect it," anyway? Some either or shit? You're either part of the vegan cult or you're some scum beneath the shoes of the vegans who are pure as the driven snow and not at all insufferable cunts who cry and bitch and moan about animal suffering and yet don't lift a finger to help beyond cry and bitch and moan? I realize that last one was a run-on but that's how it feels. Maybe not with your viewpoint that suffering has varying degrees (and personally I think this as well) but it certainly is with the absolutist horseshit that's constantly flung around by vegans. When we're hammered into this dichotomy I can absolutely climb above all of it and say that at least I'm doing my part, I have been for years, because under that regime very few of us have clean hands. Do you? I don't imagine you do, I know Mr. "Layin' Down The Vegan Law" sure as shit doesn't because he used his local vegan food market as an example of how awesome ~the movement~ is and it's continual stride toward a "suffer free" world. Not much progress considering I know what happens on the supply end, it's just outsourcing the misery to animals we haven't domesticated while [I]possibly[/I] taking a sledgehammer to the ecosystem. That's not much of an exaggeration either, agricultural runoff is awful, it's especially bad when you basically dump phosphoric acid all over a field because you don't have manure. Actually that's not entirely accurate. When you get phosphate fertilizer it comes in these bags of little granules that contain calcium nitrate and phosphoric acid, which you mix with potassium nitrate to get compound fertilizer which, if you've ever seen agriculture or gardening labels, is the "N P K" trinity. (Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Potassium) Applying it is tricky because in several states you can get in big fucking trouble if you don't watch the runoff because it turns any, ANY body of slow-moving water into this fucking green soup of nasty shit. Get caught dumping that into a river and it's a [url=http://bwsr.state.mn.us/academy/2011/PowerPoints/Thursday/Technical/Drainage_Law.pdf]criminal, not civil offense[/url] in Minnesota. This kills ecosystems, it strangles the water and it kills the things that need the water and it's [I]already[/I] a problem with our current farm use. Meat production uses a lot of land that's "arable" but wouldn't be if we stopped using grazing animals, so we really can't just magically transition from ranch space to cropland since almost all of it westward of the Mississippi is BLM-owned anyway. We would need to make new space for crops, directly threatening the environment, and if we go hard with compound fertilizer, (remember, no manure) then the runoff problem is going to be astronomically more dangerous. What's more evil, continuing the industrialized production of meat or potentially destroying our ecosystem for decades? That dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico is increasing in size [url=http://science.time.com/2013/06/19/this-years-gulf-of-mexico-dead-zone-could-be-the-biggest-on-record/]year[/url] after [url=http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2015/080415-gulf-of-mexico-dead-zone-above-average.html]year.[/url] These [url=http://www.umces.edu/hpl/release/2010/mar/03/aquatic-%E2%80%9Cdead-zones%E2%80%9D-contributing-climate-change]contribute[/url] to climate change and in turn [url=http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/global-warming-may-boost-dead-zones-in-oceans/]are made worse[/url] by it as well, it's a cycle that may possibly spiral out of control. This could kill us. I'd rather have cow farts and mitigate that than lose our fisheries which we simply cannot fucking replace, mass death in the oceans [url=http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/16/science/earth/study-raises-alarm-for-health-of-ocean-life.html]may precede an extinction event[/url] and we may lose the fishing industry entirely by [url=http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/11/061102-seafood-threat.html]2048.[/url] Obviously that level of death in the ocean would have catastrophic consequences of land, and right now agricultural runoff is [I]directly[/I] contributing to that. I'm certainly not saying veganism as a concept will kill us all but doing what that guy says we should do? Make [B]more[/B] of these toxic, polluting farm fields as we reclaim ranch lands that can't sustain crops efficiently anyway? We don't need that at all. That's setting us up for another Permian extinction event, people like Kaelnukem have [I]no fucking idea of the fire they want us to play with[/I] and he has the fucking gall to call [U]other[/U] people ignorant? Do you see why I have some problems here? I can't explain it any better. [editline]6th August 2016[/editline] I realize I already said this but I'll give a TL;DR reiteration: his whole point was veganism = good, meat = bad, there is no room for respective quantities of anything in that dichotomy because it is a binary state. Under those rules I can absolutely criticize vegetarians/vegans for their supposed ethical superiority because they contribute to suffering so therefore they are bad. Arguably if I just [I]stopped eating meat[/I] I could be completely infallible simply because I know without a doubt my hydroponics farm causes no suffering [I]at all.[/I] I didn't make this stupid game where I was expected to lose, I just flipped the fucking table and pissed on all the pieces. Don't get mad at me for not playing nice with that absolutist bullshit. [editline]6th August 2016[/editline] Oh and this environmentalist angle is Kaelnukem's machination as well, but since it was brought up as evidence for why veganism is [I]just so cool[/I] I've taken to pissing all over that too. Veganism will not save the environment, reforming our agricultural practices will and right along with many other equally important measures.[/QUOTE] I don't think that anyone was advocating hypocrisy. I believe Kael's point was that he doesn't respect taking [I]no[/I] efforts towards the reduction of animal suffering, under the basis that the average person consuming meat products has no applied interest towards that reduction. In this way he's saying above all else that he doesn't respect the [I]complete[/I] lack of empathy for animals. It's different than saying you don't respect anyone indirectly causing [I]any[/I] sort of harm. Unless I've misunderstood his overall point.

i hold as much empathy for the animals as they would hold for us given they were the top dog.

[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;50840550]i hold as much empathy for the animals as they would hold for us given they were the top dog.[/QUOTE] so you're saying that you actively hold yourself to do no more thinking than animals are capable of

[QUOTE=bitches;50840518]I don't think that anyone was advocating hypocrisy. I believe Kael's point was that he doesn't respect taking [I]no[/I] efforts towards the reduction of animal suffering, under the basis that the average person consuming meat products has no applied interest towards that reduction. In this way he's saying above all else that he doesn't respect the [I]complete[/I] lack of empathy for animals. It's different than saying you don't respect anyone indirectly causing [I]any[/I] sort of harm. Unless I've misunderstood his overall point.[/QUOTE]I don't know, I could have entirely misunderstood him for several posts too. As long as you get what I'm saying I think we can agree that hypocrisy is probably bad.

[QUOTE=June;50840068]oh man i actually really like this stuff, since i'm lactose intolerant and i can't eat dairy. tastes like mayo to me[/QUOTE] Egg and oil have always been and will always be dairy free though?

[QUOTE=Kaelnukem;50836628][/QUOTE] Although yes, we should eat more plants, thats simply not an option for most places on the world... or are you going to personally be the one telling the African farmer with 3 cows and a sharp stick instead of a tractor that he should only eat his plant crops? In the western world even, there are just some people who would not be able to survive a plant only diet... people with dietary problems or illnesses, or just with a very fast metabolism. Brushing all these people aside for no reason other then they don't follow the same life code you do is just plain wrong and stupid. Also mayo is made with eggs, claiming this is mayo is deceptive advertisement... having an egg on the jarr as the central logo pretty much solidifies that... This product would not be able to be sold as is on the European market for long for those reasons, and rightly so.

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50840777]Although yes, we should eat more plants, thats simply not an option for most places on the world... or are you going to personally be the one telling the African farmer with 3 cows and a sharp stick instead of a tractor that he should only eat his plant crops? In the western world even, there are just some people who would not be able to survive a plant only diet... people with dietary problems or illnesses, or just with a very fast metabolism. Brushing all these people aside for no reason other then they don't follow the same life code you do is just plain wrong and stupid. Also mayo is made with eggs, claiming this is mayo is deceptive advertisement... having an egg on the jarr as the central logo pretty much solidifies that... This product would not be able to be sold as is on the European market for long for those reasons, and rightly so.[/QUOTE] I know you're just jumping in on page 3, but I believe the immediate thread agreement between participants was not to claim ethical arguments over individuals who lack a choice to survive by. Someone made this point verbatim on probably page 1 that most people don't have the luxury of having an ethical decision to make in the first place.

My problem with a vegan diet is the amount of effort it requires. If you have a well-balanced diet of vegetables, fruits, fish, dairy, and meat, usually it's pretty damn easy to get a complete balance of vitamins and minerals and amino acids and everything. If you're vegetarian, it's a little tougher, but the missing amino acids can be attained through dairy. With Veganism, while I agree that it's not impossible, it requires a very large amount of effort to get a complete, healthy, nutritional balance. You need to know exactly what you're doing, and you practically need to be a goddamn nutritionist. This being so easy to screw up if you don't know what you're doing means I cannot in good faith recommend a vegan lifestyle to an average person. Especially if you take care of children. I have nothing against vegetarianism or veganism even if I [url=http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=grill]fundamentally disagree[/url] with arguments made on a moral basis, but every now and then you see a dumbass vegan starving their pet or their child with a vegan diet when they need real nutrition, not well-wishing nonsense.

[QUOTE=J!NX;50832797]I like how they call it "Just mayo" and have a picture of an egg on it as if to imply it's not imitation mayo [t]https://i5.walmartimages.com/asr/1baa5e59-1014-4f66-8f85-3dbde9077306_1.d455b24fca561bc90f0622c6419a9153.jpeg[/t] If you had bad eyes it'd be hard to see the finer print this kind of 'indirectly' deceptive labeling is really shitty to do[/QUOTE] Wow, I went vegan for lent (due to a bet, not as hard as I thought it would be :v:) and I saw this brand, I thought it was actual mayo, went with a different brand for sandwiches and such.

It even has a picture of a fuckin' egg on the label!

[QUOTE=Dwarfy77;50841093]Wow, I went vegan for lent (due to a bet, not as hard as I thought it would be :v:) and I saw this brand, I thought it was actual mayo, went with a different brand for sandwiches and such.[/QUOTE] truly amazing even vegans can't tell if its vegan!