Comments on: The Conscious Case Against Veganism: A Reader Rebuttal

By: Mark Robison

Mark Robison — Tue, 29 Mar 2011 20:27:00 +0000

Eating bacteria is vegan because bacteria aren’t members of the animal kingdom. Good post, though.

By: Nicki

Nicki — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 00:28:00 +0000

HAH! You’re too good, darling. I read The Conscious Case Against Veganism and felt overwhelmed by her poor reasoning, I came over here, read this, and calmed myself right down. Thanks!

By: Gabrielle Green

Gabrielle Green — Sun, 27 Mar 2011 15:34:00 +0000

A lot of the people posting on these two articles seem to fall into that category. They are so stuck in this way of thinking that eating meat is cruel. It’s friggin not people! What’s cruel is the torture and abuse of living animals. Vegans and vegetarians seem to think eating a veggie burger is helping animals. It’s not.

Y’all have your energy focused on the wrong thing. Imagine if all that vegan “love and compassion” energy were focused on getting animals the rights they deserve during their LIVES – like the right to a life free of pain and torture. Then we might actually be getting somewhere. And I hate to break it to you, but all of those animals that you aren’t eating are going to die someday anyways, because guess what, WE ALL DIE.

But don’t kid yourself by thinking you are helping animals by not eating meat. You’re not.

One could argue that by relying on harvested grains and other vegan products you are contributing to more deaths since wheat threshers kill more voles, mice and other field animals every year than slaughter houses. I say be humane, eat a cow!

http://web.archive.org/web/20041107084521/http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html

By: Tierney_art

Tierney_art — Sun, 27 Mar 2011 06:18:00 +0000

It’s easy to claim oneself as an ex-vegan, former vegetarian, etc., which is convenient for people seeking to appeal to readers and editors looking to validate conventional eating (IOW, whatever one wants, regardless of the pain and other costs to other beings). The people I’ve met who’ve made such claims gave ample reason to doubt them. In addition, as one admitted, the vegan trial could be “a couple of days.” Those who claimed they got sick or felt weak during their supposed veg period don’t tend to be paragons of vitality.

By: Melissa

Melissa — Sat, 26 Mar 2011 17:00:00 +0000

1. Oyster cultivation has not been correlated with destruction of wild oyster populations. And it wouldn’t be cultivation if you destroyed the oysters- you harvest part of the population, not all of it and you encourage further growth, thus increasing the services that oysters provide to the oean.
2. Hmm, great unbiased source for that “wool fact sheet.”
3. You can raise poultry without buying from a hatchery if you breed animals yourself. Hatcheries are a modern development and people got along quite well without them for a long time..it’s called animal sex.
4. Scientists have developed technologies so that dairy farmers will be able to chose the sex of the offspring. There is also work being done on perennial dairy, which means that the goat/cow only needs to produce one kid/calve for lifetime production to be ensured. But just admit it, even if science made this better, you wouldn’t be for it, because this issues are tangential to your believe that using animals is wrong.

Both articles are pretty ignorant of agriculture, economics, science, and pretty much just ignorant. It’s clear the axes to grind are more important than the truth.

By: Ed

Ed — Sat, 26 Mar 2011 04:44:00 +0000

actually animals won’t die “no matter what” if they haven’t been purposely bred to be slaughtered in the first place.

as for humans doing “what comes to them naturally and biologically”…consider this, if you give a child a bunny and an apple, he’ll eat the latter and pet the former, NOT the other way around. I will bet my house on that!

By: RdCrestdBreegull

RdCrestdBreegull — Sat, 26 Mar 2011 02:22:00 +0000

THANK YOU for this. That other article was extremely ignorant.

By: kirsten

kirsten — Sat, 26 Mar 2011 01:25:00 +0000

You know, I agree it’s not good to be militant, but a large amount of vegans and vegetarians are kind open minded people. You only think of “vegan nazis” as you call them because the crazy vegans are the ones you hear about. I certainly don’t think I’m better than meat eaters and lots of other vegans are the same way. Don’t be so quick to judge.

On your comment about animals eating other animals and not us, yes we DO have options because we are a highly evolved species who make choices everyday that non human animals do not and we have opinions and values. Plus we’re omnivores, we can eat meat and vegetables, we don’t depend solely on meat.

I respect someone disagreeing with veganism but I don’t understand people attacking it. Simply put, it’s just people who try to minimize animal suffering as much as possible, I don’t see how that’s a bad thing.

By: Marji

Marji — Sat, 26 Mar 2011 01:05:00 +0000

Godwin’s law in action. Nothing sells an argument like telling someone they’re a genocidal Nazi! I’m sold – let’s slit the throats of some baby sheep and pigs and go to town!

By: Venks

Venks — Fri, 25 Mar 2011 20:09:00 +0000

It’s immaterial whether I’m a vegan (or trying to be one) or not, but I have to agree with the balanced view that the author presents here. That the author of “The Conscious Case…” Mr Wick calls self an evangelist and fundamentalist, hints at an attempt to follow something of a doctrine than understanding the concept.

I do agree with him when he says “veganism stopped being synonymous with ethical treatment of animals and people.” I do feel the same when I pass the Vegan food section of Whole Foods or other stores. Eating stuff supposedly harmless to animals, that was grown a few thousand miles away and shipped via the usually environmentally unfriendly means of transport, isn’t vegan in spirit. Sustainability/eco-consciousness and Vegetarian/Veganism have a lots in common. In the end, unsustainable and eco-unfriendly practices would result in reduction/destruction of habitat for animals at the origin of production. And a degrading environment will first affect the animals and then be a concern for humans. Thus it would indirectly beat the spirit of being animal-friendly.

But where Mr Wick failed, I thought, was what followed afterwards. Nothing seemed relevant to the topic ‘Why Not to be Vegan’ – but only stresses ‘why certain vegan practices need to be scrutinized’. And then there’s the mention of why Oysters are better to eat than other bivalves and this line – “with oysters, go ahead and shuck ‘em and suck ‘em.” doesn’t seem to be words of someone who ever took the spirit of not hurting animals seriously.

I believe Laura succeeded in highlighting what Abigail Wick failed to, and it’s that: “It’s impossible to be 100% absolute purist vegan (the bacteria we inhale, the animals killed during the farming of even organic plant foods, the tires we bike or drive on)”.

I feel, there should be no guides or testaments to be a Vegan. Until people understand the spirit of being one, the -ism will fail like other ‘religious’ -isms.