Philosophical Vegan Forum

No, I don't believe in conspiracies any more, I am just asking questions.
So, how to respond if someone says "How the hell would you make hundreds of thousands of people work together to make a rocket?" I would respond with "Well, it also takes many people to make a pencil.", but I guess you have a better answer.

teo123 wrote: So, how to respond if someone says "How the hell would you make hundreds of thousands of people work together to make a rocket?" I would respond with "Well, it also takes many people to make a pencil.", but I guess you have a better answer.

Pay them 50-100 thousand dollars a year. The better question is "where does this money come from?", to which the answer is taxes (the IRS). NASA's budget is around 1% of the U.S. federal budget: a ridiculous sum of money.

Much more impressive is how hundreds of people work together for FREE to make open source software. That is baffling.

I still don't know how was I different from everyone else to believe that the Earth was flat. It's not a lack of education, I can safely say I am the best student in my school when it comes to natural sciences. Yet I was the only one believing the Earth was flat. And I believed all kinds of crazy things. I believed it was good for me to live with a mentally ill mother. I believed in massive conspiracies, involving even most of the people who claim to have been in airplanes (though that didn't actually ruin my friendships). I guess it is a lack of imagination. I didn't imagine that if the sun appears to set from an airplane, it's not actually a sunset. I didn't imagine that if the horizon always appears to be at your eye level, it could, well, just appear that way. I didn't imagine that the illuminated side of the moon sometimes not appearing to align with the sun could be an illusion caused by the sun being much farther away than the moon (Vsauce even made a video on this that I watched, but I couldn't believe that until I saw a diagram clearly explaining that). I didn't imagine that the apparently vertical sun rays appear vertical only because of the clouds (actually I did, but it took me very long). I didn't imagine that the image plane isn't actually a plane, and even when I was told that, I couldn't imagine how we might not notice that. Then I assumed that if I can't think of a solution to some problem, that nobody can, which really makes no sense. I didn't think of some logical questions about the Flat Earth Theory, like, if the ships disappear bottom first because the visual angle of a bottom is smaller than the visual angle of a top, how come do the bottoms of the ships reappear when you move higher, when the visual angle of the bottom is even smaller, until it was way too late. And in strive not to just trust what I have been told, I was doing exactly that. I was trusting people who were claiming that the converging shadows prove that the artificial light has been used, which really makes no sense at all. And I was even trying to defend their position. And I can't imagine now what happened in my head for me to think that these were the right reasons to believe that the Earth was flat:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=58309.msg1756140#msg1756140
Obviously, to convince a Flat Earther, you don't have to show him the evidence of the Earth being round, because every single evidence can be dismissed with an ad-hoc hypothesis. What you have to do is to ask him to explain his reasons for believing the Earth is flat, and then explain in details why they are wrong. Thank you for doing that.
TFES raises a number of questions regarding atheism. Most of the atheists say that theology should be rejected as pseudoscience because the existence of god isn't backed up with solid evidence. Well, TFES makes it appear that astronomy is also based on a conjecture, that the Earth is round. What are the evidence? Ships disappearing bottom first? Of course they disappear bottom first, there are waves in from of their bottom. And there are so many other possible explanations for that effect. Shifting constellations? Well, why would the Earth have to be round then? Why couldn't the stars be just a few thousand miles up in the sky? The shadow of the Earth on the Moon during the lunar eclipse being round? Well, why would it have to be caused by the Earth? Why couldn't the Sun just always be above the Earth, and there be some semi-transparent body sometimes getting between the Sun and the Moon?
Of course, none of those alternative explanations make sense if you analyze them, but if you are ignorant of it, astronomy seems like pseudo-science.
And I've never before heard of some atheists saying that senses and reason are not the way of knowing, but that science, what you have been told in school, is.
So, thank you, people!
Anyway, on TFES forum, a few posts after I rejected Flat Earth Theory, I also rejected veganism. The only arguments I was using were what's probably pseudoscience and straw-mans, and I didn't want to continue giving you a bad name. I was a vegetarian, and I still am, planning to go vegan, but, if I don't believe the Flat Earth Theory, what justification could I have for accepting the pseudoscience I was spreading? If you try to read the actual science, you see that veganism, unlike vegetarianism, causes Vitamin B12 deficiency, Vitamin D deficiency, phosphorus deficiency, calcium deficiency, iron deficiency, anaemia, osteoporosis, protein deficiency (during pregnancy), and so on. There are even some studies that suggest that the mortality rate of vegans is even 44% higher than the mortality rate of meat-eaters. I was shocked when I found that out! As for the supplements, how would I talk my, even now concerned, parents to get me those supplements? Where can I get them? And where would I buy all those egg and milk substitutes in a village where I live? As for the ethics, well, if we don't drink their milk, those cows are going to be slaughtered, which is even worse, right? And the same goes for the eggs, right? And how does those animals merely being sentient and feeling pain, which is still debated, imply that they feel bad when you take their children away? I am not saying there are no good reasons to go vegan rather than vegetarian, there probably are, I am just saying I don't know them.

There are a few more arguments against the entire world going vegan that I don't know how to respond. How would a compost be efficiently and ecologically produced without the domesticated animals? And if entire world went vegan, then there would be no domesticated animals fed, so the farmers would be able to sell less plant food, and they would have to do it in about two times higher price (since around 50% of plant food today is given to the domesticated animals). Like I've said, I don't think they are valid, I just don't know how to respond to them.

Teo, you're falling for pseudoscience again.

teo123 wrote: Anyway, on TFES forum, a few posts after I rejected Flat Earth Theory, I also rejected veganism.

We already talked about how veganism is different in this very thread.

teo123 wrote: The only arguments I was using were what's probably pseudoscience and straw-mans, and I didn't want to continue giving you a bad name.

I understand that, but you should personally still not eat animal products. If you're worried about reputation, just don't advertise it.
Now that you understand why conspiracies are wrong and accept science, you're a much better example of a vegan than most.

teo123 wrote:If you try to read the actual science, you see that veganism, unlike vegetarianism, causes Vitamin B12 deficiency, Vitamin D deficiency, phosphorus deficiency, calcium deficiency, iron deficiency, anaemia, osteoporosis, protein deficiency (during pregnancy), and so on.

None of these things are true if you eat properly. It's not caused by veganism, but a bad vegan diet (junk food), and a lack of B-12 supplementation (the only supplement you have to take).

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19562864

ADA wrote:It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes.

This is scientific consensus. Nothing else proves otherwise unless or until consensus changes on the topic.
Similar sentiments are echoed by other NGO and government organizations.

You can use a site like cronometer.com (which is free) to track your diet and make sure you're getting all of the nutrients you need. If you're short on anything, we'll give you suggestions on how to get enough.

teo123 wrote:There are even some studies that suggest that the mortality rate of vegans is even 44% higher than the mortality rate of meat-eaters.

There are some studies saying homeopathy works too (it obviously does not and can not, it's impossible and violates basic physics), that doesn't mean anything when there are many more studies showing the opposite. Scientific consensus is not based on one study, which can be poorly conducted, or the researchers dishonest, or using a small sample size or have confounding variables. It's when many studies agree with each other and are repeated that you rise above bias and it becomes scientific consensus.

teo123 wrote:As for the supplements, how would I talk my, even now concerned, parents to get me those supplements? Where can I get them?

Get them yourself. You just need B-12. Go to any pharmacy, they should have it. It's not expensive.

If the only B-12 they have has traces of animal products in it (like gelatin or lactose), go ahead and get it anyway. It's much better to eat traces of animal products than the large amounts to get it from animals.

http://www.peta.org/living/food/making- ... ucts-food/

What matters is the 99.99%, not the 0.01%

For vitamin D, if you can not buy a supplement, you can spend a few minutes outside each day (in the winter it may take longer). You can get calcium from a proper diet, or from calcium based antacids if there is no fortified soy or other plant milk available to you.

teo123 wrote:And where would I buy all those egg and milk substitutes in a village where I live?

You do not need those things to be vegan.

You need beans, mainly.

teo123 wrote:As for the ethics, well, if we don't drink their milk, those cows are going to be slaughtered, which is even worse, right?

This is a false claim. The cows are both raised and slaughtered because people are drinking their milk. As soon as their production drops, they are killed because it's no longer cost effective to feed them. If we don't drink it, farmers will no longer artificially inseminate cows and breed them.

teo123 wrote:And the same goes for the eggs, right?

People eating eggs are why chickens are hatched, kept in cages, and then killed as soon as egg production drops. If you don't eat them, lower demand will mean the farmers will artificially inseminate fewer hens and hatch fewer chickens.

teo123 wrote:And how does those animals merely being sentient and feeling pain, which is still debated,

Whether the Earth is round or flat is still debated. Why? Because some people are morons.
Scientists aren't debating the shape of the Earth or whether animals feel pain: this is scientific consensus.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/an ... ous-beings

The only people who doubt that broad swaths of non-human animals (other mammals and birds especially) have interests, feel, and have awareness of the world (crudely, "consciousness") are going against the overwhelming scientific consensus and in so doubting might as well be doubting the shape of the Earth: the doubters destroy their credibility in doing so.

teo123 wrote:imply that they feel bad when you take their children away?

Mammalian instincts are demonstrable. But taking their children isn't the worst of it. Those calves are kept in small crates then killed for veal. And if they aren't, as the rest of the cows and chickens they are also raised in typically miserable conditions, and then killed as soon as they stop producing enough milk or enough eggs to make it worth feeding them.

teo123 wrote:I am not saying there are no good reasons to go vegan rather than vegetarian, there probably are, I am just saying I don't know them.

If you don't know which way is right, you should stay vegan until you learn more. Eating animal products is taking a risk of harming animals and doing something wrong. Not eating them is harmless.

teo123 wrote:How would a compost be efficiently and ecologically produced without the domesticated animals?

Plants are composted all the time. But we can (and should) also use synthetic fertilizer. There's no good reason to be against synthetic fertilizer.
We can also use crop rotation, nightsoil, and veganic agricultural methods.

teo123 wrote:And if entire world went vegan, then there would be no domesticated animals fed, so the farmers would be able to sell less plant food, and they would have to do it in about two times higher price (since around 50% of plant food today is given to the domesticated animals).

In the developed world, farms are mostly mechanical. Very few people actually work in farming.
This isn't really an issue, it's a benefit: it means more land to grow more food, which means the growing population (approaching 8 billion people) will have food security for a long time to come.

teo123 wrote:Like I've said, I don't think they are valid, I just don't know how to respond to them.

It's fine to not know how to answer a question, but if you start eating animal products because of an unknown, that means you are assuming the answer by default to be against veganism. Why not assume the opposite: that these questions aren't a problem from veganism, and keep being vegan until it's proved otherwise?

If you really can not find B-12 supplements anywhere right now, it's not urgent: you likely have a couple years to find them before you become deficient, since your body stores B-12 for a pretty long time. We'll help you find them before that. Worst case, somebody will mail you some.

Your vegan movement growing among flat earth people

This man is a Vegan and also Flat Earth:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_YFrXfexnM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jq57c80Qh7M

teo123 wrote:I believed it was good for me to live with a mentally ill mother.

Speaking of that, what's the situation with that now? Are you doing ok?

teo123 wrote:If you try to read the actual science, you see that veganism, unlike vegetarianism, causes Vitamin B12 deficiency, Vitamin D deficiency, phosphorus deficiency, calcium deficiency, iron deficiency, anaemia, osteoporosis, protein deficiency (during pregnancy), and so on.

Actually, those are a lot of misconceptions.

See: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19562864

It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes. A vegetarian diet is defined as one that does not include meat (including fowl) or seafood, or products containing those foods. This article reviews the current data related to key nutrients for vegetarians including protein, n-3 fatty acids, iron, zinc, iodine, calcium, and vitamins D and B-12. A vegetarian diet can meet current recommendations for all of these nutrients. In some cases, supplements or fortified foods can provide useful amounts of important nutrients.

teo123 wrote:There are even some studies that suggest that the mortality rate of vegans is even 44% higher than the mortality rate of meat-eaters. I was shocked when I found that out!

I doubt that those are credible studies. Links?

teo123 wrote:As for the supplements, how would I talk my, even now concerned, parents to get me those supplements? Where can I get them?

If your parents are concerned you aren't getting enough nutrients, they should be delighted to get you supplements.
You can definitely purchase them online. I'm not sure if they're available in local stores in your country (Croatia, right?).

teo123 wrote:And where would I buy all those egg and milk substitutes in a village where I live?

You don't need egg substitutes. I don't think I've ever used them except in baking, and I just replace eggs with common ingredients (ie baking soda and apple sauce- it depends on the recipe).
As for milk substitutes, do they not have soymilk at your store? You don't need milk substitutes, but they can be really great in getting you protein and extra vitamins (you should still supplement anyway though, because the vitamins aren't always reliable).

teo123 wrote:As for the ethics, well, if we don't drink their milk, those cows are going to be slaughtered, which is even worse, right?

Well, it's not like we have these cows for no reason. We breed them to be milked. If we didn't breed them, then we wouldn't have to slaughter them.
Also, cows are slaughtered because of the dairy industry. Male cows aren't profitable to the dairy industry, so they are sold to veal farmers as babies and killed. When female cows don't produce enough milk to be profitable to companies, they are slaughtered as well.

teo123 wrote:And the same goes for the eggs, right?

Again, we wouldn't have them if we didn't breed them. Similarly to male cows in the dairy industry, male chicks are killed because they don't produce eggs, and females are killed after not being profitable anymore.

teo123 wrote:And how does those animals merely being sentient and feeling pain, which is still debated, imply that they feel bad when you take their children away?

They have an emotional bond with their babies just like humans do.

teo123 wrote:How would a compost be efficiently and ecologically produced without the domesticated animals?

I don't get this question, because I don't really know about composting. Maybe someone else could explain it.

teo123 wrote:And if entire world went vegan, then there would be no domesticated animals fed, so the farmers would be able to sell less plant food, and they would have to do it in about two times higher price (since around 50% of plant food today is given to the domesticated animals).

I'm not sure if this is correct, but I guess that, yes, a lot of farmers would struggle because we produce and consume food more efficiently. That's the price we have to pay to save the planet.
I put the future of the planet over temporary profits... No more profits if we're all dead because of climate change.

Speaking of that, what's the situation with that now? Are you doing ok?

Well, she is in jail right now. I live with my father whom I haven't seen in about seven years.

Actually, those are a lot of misconceptions.

I don't know now. Why aren't those credible sources?
http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/veganism
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/89/5/1627S.full.pdf

See: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19562864

Why do you think that's reliable?

A vegetarian diet can meet current recommendations for all of these nutrients.

Does the same go for the vegan diets?

I doubt that those are credible studies. Links?

I was referring to the metastudy mentioned on Wikipedia.
A 1999 metastudy combined data from five studies from western countries. The metastudy reported mortality ratios, where lower numbers indicated fewer deaths, for fish eaters to be 0.82, vegetarians to be 0.84, occasional meat eaters (eat meat less than once per week) to be 0.84. Regular meat eaters had the base mortality rate of 1.0, while the number for vegans was very uncertain (anywhere between 0.7 and 1.44) due to too few data points. The study reported the numbers of deaths in each category, and expected error ranges for each ratio, and adjustments made to the data. However, the "lower mortality was due largely to the relatively low prevalence of smoking in these [vegetarian] cohorts". Out of the major causes of death studied, only one difference in mortality rate was attributed to the difference in diet, as the conclusion states: "...vegetarians had a 24% lower mortality from ischaemic heart disease than non-vegetarians, but no associations of a vegetarian diet with other major causes of death were established".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism#Longevity

If your parents are concerned you aren't getting enough nutrients, they should be delighted to get you supplements.

Probably not. They think that natural equals better.

Croatia, right?

Yes.

do they not have soymilk at your store?

No.

Also, cows are slaughtered because of the dairy industry. Male cows aren't profitable to the dairy industry, so they are sold to veal farmers as babies and killed. When female cows don't produce enough milk to be profitable to companies, they are slaughtered as well.

And why would they slaughter them if nobody ate meat?

Similarly to male cows in the dairy industry, male chicks are killed because they don't produce eggs, and females are killed after not being profitable anymore.

Well, yes, but that's mainly because they get more money by selling their meat than by keeping them alive, right?

They have an emotional bond with their babies just like humans do.

How do we know that?

I'm not sure if this is correct, but I guess that, yes, a lot of farmers would struggle because we produce and consume food more efficiently.

I meant, the food itself would be more expensive because there would be less customers. If we stop eating meat but don't stop eating eggs and milk, cows and chickens will continue being customers of food. If we stop eating eggs and milk, they won't be customers of food any more, so the price of food is going to go higher, for the same reason as the price of gold or oil is high.

It's fine to not know how to answer a question, but if you start eating animal products because of an unknown, that means you are assuming the answer by default to be against veganism. Why not assume the opposite: that these questions aren't a problem from veganism, and keep being vegan until it's proved otherwise?

I don't know. Veganism is quite contrary to what we are told in school in biology classes about healthy diets. And we are bombarded from the media with the statements about milk, eggs and honey being healthy. If they weren't, wouldn't that have to be a conspiracy? And while vegetarianism is accepted in the culture, veganism isn't. If I go vegan, I will be the only vegan I know, just like I was the only flat-earther I knew, but I do know a few other vegetarians. And, to be honest, I may just like my cheese too much to go vegan.

By the way, we don't buy milk and eggs from factory farms, but from the people in our and nearby villages, so we can be pretty certain that the animals aren't debeaked, kept in the small cages and abused in the way you say they are (except, of course, sent to the slaughterhouses when they are older).

brimstoneSalad wrote:Scientific consensus is not based on one study, which can be poorly conducted, or the researchers dishonest, or using a small sample size or have confounding variables. It's when many studies agree with each other and are repeated that you rise above bias and it becomes scientific consensus.

How many studies is "enough" studies for something become scientific consensus?