HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Environment & Energy » Vegetarian, Vegan and Animal Rights (Group) » Do Vegans Care More About...

Fri Dec 25, 2015, 12:34 PM

 

Do Vegans Care More About Animals Than People?


If you’re vegan, chances are you’ve heard someone say “you care more about animals than people”, but that’s simply not true.

As a way to ignore the issue at hand, some people like to spin things around and accuse animal advocates of being the uncaring ones.

The reality is that you care deeply about humans too, and that’s probably one of the main draws that led you to this compassionate lifestyle in the first place. Perhaps you stopped eating animals for health, maybe you were shocked when you learned about the environmental damage that the agricultural industries cause, or it could be because you discovered the injustice of feeding 40% of the world’s grain to livestock when millions of people are starving to death. Whatever your reasons, being vegan comes hand in hand with caring about people.

Most animal advocates are also extremely passionate about humanitarian and social justice causes. In fact, brain scans show that vegans and vegetarians have more of an empathetic response to both human and animal suffering than omnivores.

FMRI brain scans revealed that the areas of the brain associated with empathy were much more active in vegans and vegetarians in comparison to omnivores when all three groups of people were shown pictures of human and animal suffering. Written questionnaires on the subject also demonstrated higher empathy levels in vegans and vegetarians.




Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/do-vegans-care-more-about-animals-than-people.html#ixzz3vLobaqTE

26 replies, 7546 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 26 replies Author Time Post
Reply Do Vegans Care More About Animals Than People? (Original post)
darkangel218 Dec 2015 OP
Warren Stupidity Dec 2015 #1
darkangel218 Dec 2015 #5
2naSalit Dec 2015 #2
darkangel218 Dec 2015 #4
Binkie The Clown Dec 2015 #3
darkangel218 Dec 2015 #6
chernabog Dec 2015 #10
Binkie The Clown Dec 2015 #11
chernabog Dec 2015 #12
Binkie The Clown Dec 2015 #13
chernabog Dec 2015 #14
Binkie The Clown Dec 2015 #15
LeftyMom Jan 2016 #18
Binkie The Clown Jan 2016 #19
flvegan Jan 2016 #20
Binkie The Clown Jan 2016 #21
flvegan Jan 2016 #22
Binkie The Clown Jan 2016 #23
flvegan Jan 2016 #24
Binkie The Clown Jan 2016 #25
flvegan Jan 2016 #26
PyaarRevolution Dec 2015 #16
Binkie The Clown Dec 2015 #17
LiberalElite Dec 2015 #7
darkangel218 Dec 2015 #8
LiberalElite Dec 2015 #9

Response to darkangel218 (Original post)

Fri Dec 25, 2015, 01:03 PM

1. Humans who eat other mammals are one

 

step away from cannibalism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #1)

Fri Dec 25, 2015, 01:33 PM

5. I wouldn't go that far.

 

I have friends who have tried vegetarian diet, and failed, due to health reasons. I failed twice myself, before I figured out how to balance my diet properly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to darkangel218 (Original post)

Fri Dec 25, 2015, 01:20 PM

2. And what if they do?

I think it's a trait we could all do better with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 2naSalit (Reply #2)

Fri Dec 25, 2015, 01:30 PM

4. I agree.

 



I posted the article mostly for the bolded part.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to darkangel218 (Original post)

Fri Dec 25, 2015, 01:22 PM

3. Frankly, my being a vegan has nothing to do with animal cruelty.

It's all about my health. Any benefit to animals is an incidental side effect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Binkie The Clown (Reply #3)

Fri Dec 25, 2015, 01:36 PM

6. And that's perfectly fine, Binkie.

 

We are a minority still.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Binkie The Clown (Reply #3)

Wed Dec 30, 2015, 05:30 PM

10. Then you are not considered vegan.

 

You eat a plant based diet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chernabog (Reply #10)

Wed Dec 30, 2015, 09:50 PM

11. Ah, the famous "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

No true Scotsman is an informal fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion. When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim ("no Scotsman would do such a thing", rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule ("no true Scotsman would do such a thing".


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

noun veg·an ˈvē-gən also ˈvā- also ˈve-jən or -ˌjan : a person who does not eat any food that comes from animals and who often also does not use animal products (such as leather)


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vegan

Your statement "Then you are not considered vegan." should be modified for the sake of accuracy to read: "Then you are not considered vegan by me." And you are, of course, entitled to your own opinion. But just don't claim that your opinion is a universal truth.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Binkie The Clown (Reply #11)

Thu Dec 31, 2015, 10:48 AM

12. So you're just gonna assume

 

that Merriam-Webster is correct? Any person simply eating a plant based diet for their own benefit is not vegan. Veganism is all about the animals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chernabog (Reply #12)

Thu Dec 31, 2015, 01:43 PM

13. Let me see. Miriam Webster, respected authority vs a complete stranger's own definition...

Yup. I'm going to take the authority's word for it.

But just in case, let me consult a few other authorities:

Dictionary.com

vegan
[vee-guh n, vey-]

noun
1. a vegetarian who omits all animal products from the diet.
2. a person who does not use any animal products, as leather or wool.

Or this source:

vegan [ve´gan, vej´an]
a vegetarian who excludes from the diet all food of animal origin.
Miller-Keane Encyclopedia and Dictionary of Medicine, Nursing, and Allied Health, Seventh Edition. © 2003 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier, Inc. All rights reserved.
veg·an (veg'ăn),
A strict vegetarian; that is, one who consumes no animal or dairy products of any type. Compare: vegetarian.
Farlex Partner Medical Dictionary © Farlex 2012
vegan /veg·an/ (ve´gan) (vej´an) a vegetarian whose diet excludes all food of animal origin.
Dorland's Medical Dictionary for Health Consumers. © 2007 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier, Inc. All rights reserved.
ve·gan (vē′gən, vĕj′ən)
n.
A vegetarian who eats plant products only, especially one who uses no products derived from animals, as fur or leather.
The American Heritage® Medical Dictionary Copyright © 2007, 2004 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
vegan
See strict vegetarian.
Mosby's Medical Dictionary, 9th edition. © 2009, Elsevier.
vegan A vegetarian who consumes only plant foods (vegetables, fruits, grains, beans and nuts) and no animal products (meat, fish, dairy products, eggs). Vegans are at risk for vitamin B12 deficiency; vegan adolescents may not meet energy requirements during the growth spurt, and become deficient in vitamin B6, riboflavin, vitamin D, omega-3 fatty acids, calcium, zinc, iron, iodine and trace minerals.
Segen's Medical Dictionary. © 2012 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.
vegan Pure vegetarian, strict vegetarian Nutrition A vegetarian who consumes only plant foods–vegetables, fruits, grains, beans, nuts–ie, no animal products, meat, fish, dairy products, and eggs; vegans are at ↑ risk for vitamin B12 deficiency; vegan adolescents may not meet energy requirements during the growth spurt, and become deficient in vitamin B6, riboflavin, calcium, zinc, iron, trace minerals. See Diet, Pareve, Vegetarian diet, Vegetarianism; Cf Lacto-ovo vegetarian.
McGraw-Hill Concise Dictionary of Modern Medicine. © 2002 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
ve·gan (vē'găn)
A strict vegetarian, one who consumes no animal or dairy products of any type.
Compare: vegetarian
Medical Dictionary for the Health Professions and Nursing © Farlex 2012
ve·gan (vē'găn)
Strict vegetarian; i.e., one who consumes no animal or dairy products.
Medical Dictionary for the Dental Professions © Farlex 2012

Oh, look at that. Other authorities agree that a vegan MAY avoid using animal products of any kind, and MIGHT do so for reasons having to do with animal cruelty, but that is not a requirement for being vegan.

So, I guess just to be a difficult contrarian, I'm going to go with the definition most commonly accepted by the lexicographical community for the word "vegan".

As I said before, please feel free to define the word in your own way, but please do not claim that YOUR definition is the one and only correct definition. Again: Your opinion is not a universal fact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Binkie The Clown (Reply #13)

Thu Dec 31, 2015, 01:47 PM

14. Im just saying

 

Veganism is not a diet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chernabog (Reply #14)

Thu Dec 31, 2015, 01:49 PM

15. Websters, and most of the other authorities are just saying: yes it is. n/t end of discussion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Binkie The Clown (Reply #13)

Sun Jan 3, 2016, 02:11 AM

18. As the word was coined in living memory and the first printed usage is available, we know the answer

to this question: A vegan is what Donald Watson said, as he invented the term and founded the first vegan society.

Here's their first newsletter: http://ukveggie.com/vegan_news/

While his argument at first seems to support your case


WANTED - A NAME


We should all consider carefully what our Group, and our magazine, and ourselves, shall be called. 'Non-dairy' has become established as a generally understood colloquialism, but like 'non-lacto' it is too negative. Moreover it does not imply that we are opposed to the use of eggs as food. We need a name that suggests what we do eat, and if possible one that conveys the idea that even with all animal foods taboo, Nature still offers us a bewildering assortment from which to choose. 'Vegetarian' and 'Fruitarian' are already associated with societies that allow the 'fruits'(!) of cows and fowls, therefore it seems we must make a new and appropriate word. As this first issue of our periodical had to be named, I have used the title "The Vegan News". Should we adopt this, our diet will soon become known as a VEGAN diet, and we should aspire to the rank of VEGANS.


However much of the rest of the document makes it clear that Watson's entire argument for veganism is a moral one:


So far as we are aware, every Member of our Group has discarded the use of dairy produce for humanitarian reasons.



We can see quite plainly that our present civilisation is built on the exploitation of animals, just as past civilisations were built on the exploitation of slaves, and we believe the spiritual destiny of man is such that in time he will view with abhorrence the idea that men once fed on the products of animals' bodies.



A common criticism is that the time in not yet ripe for our reform. Can time ever be ripe for any reform unless it is ripened by human determination? Did Wilberforce wait for the 'ripening' of time before he commenced his fight against slavery?


and that he has no real idea about the health effects of vegan diets, except that he feels his own health is excellent.

Apart from saying that we are 'Quite well, thanks', we consider the time perhaps premature to make any great claims for the physiological superiority of our diet.


So the best answer is that the definition of veganism was tied up in ethics from the moment the word appeared in print, and that veganism was considered an ethical system from the moment the word was suggested. Thus Watson's call for advice on integrating veganism into one's entire life and worldview:


Could we have a series of articles (of about 600 words) on "My Spiritual Philosophy"? Articles, letters, recipes, diet charts, health records, press cuttings, gardening hints, advice on baby culture, advertisements (free to Members), all will be welcome.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeftyMom (Reply #18)

Sun Jan 3, 2016, 02:56 AM

19. Terrific is horrible!

Terrific: 1667, "frightening," from L. terrificus "causing terror or fear," from terrere "fill with fear" (see terrible) + root of facere "to make" (see factitious). Weakened sensed of "very great, severe" (e.g. terrific headache) appeared 1809; colloquial sense of "excellent" began 1888.

First use is not the permanent meaning. Language is fluid.

Fortunately English does not have a ruling body that declares ex cathedra what a word must mean. And because of this, words shift and change as time goes on. It doesn't much matter what the originator of a coinage had in mind as the definition, but in this case the author clearly wanted a word to define a diet:

We should all consider carefully what our Group, and our magazine, and ourselves, shall be called. 'Non-dairy' has become established as a generally understood colloquialism, but like 'non-lacto' it is too negative. Moreover it does not imply that we are opposed to the use of eggs as food. We need a name that suggests what we do eat, and if possible one that conveys the idea that even with all animal foods taboo, Nature still offers us a bewildering assortment from which to choose. 'Vegetarian' and 'Fruitarian' are already associated with societies that allow the 'fruits'(!) of cows and fowls, therefore it seems we must make a new and appropriate word. As this first issue of our periodical had to be named, I have used the title "The Vegan News". Should we adopt this, our diet will soon become known as a VEGAN diet, and we should aspire to the rank of VEGANS.


So I'm glad we finally settled that. "Vegan" refers to diet, and many vegans ALSO base their diet on moral grounds and exclude all animal products. However, that aspect of veganism was not expressly mentioned in the "Wanted - A Name" paragraph quoted above, and is not a necessary feature of "veganism".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Binkie The Clown (Reply #19)

Mon Jan 4, 2016, 01:53 AM

20. God bless, but doesn't know shit all what he/she/it is talking about.

Vegan isn't just diet.

veganism. As defined by the Vegan Society, the founders of which coined the term: "a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude�as far as is possible and practical�all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of humans, animals and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals." Vegans do not consume meat, dairy, eggs, or other animal byproducts; do not wear clothing derived from animals, such as leather, fur, and wool; and do not use products containing animal ingredients.

So, I'm glad we finally settled that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flvegan (Reply #20)

Mon Jan 4, 2016, 02:12 AM

21. Consult a textbook on linguistics.

Words mean what they are generally agreed upon to mean. You prefer a narrow, less generally accepted definition. Fine. Your choice. But your religion isn't the one and only true religion, and your definition isn't the one and only sanctified true definition. Many dictionaries, online and print, have already established that the generally accepted definition is far less narrow than your preferred definition. That's fine. You are entitled to your own idiolect, just as I am entitled to prefer the generally accepted meaning. Your mistake is in trying to force me to conform to your idiolect. That's all I'm saying. Either you accept the generally accepted meaning of a word, or you define that word differently in your idiolect for ideological reasons. That makes you akin to a fundamentalist, adhering to the narrowest of interpretations as handed down by some "authority" and rejecting the generally agreed upon meaning.

I'm glad we did finally settle that.

So we both conform to some norm. It's just that your norm and mine are different subsets of the English speaking world. You define it the way your in-group defines it and I will define it the way the rest of the world defines it. And that truly does settle it. And, to be honest, I have nothing more to say on the subject. Either you believe in dictionaries or you don't. If you don't, I can't convince you they are real.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Binkie The Clown (Reply #21)

Mon Jan 4, 2016, 02:29 AM

22. Settled nothing. You're wrong.

And, you're an idiot. You use a lot of words, LOL. Most of them mean nothing. Congrats!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flvegan (Reply #22)

Mon Jan 4, 2016, 02:57 AM

23. I'm not wrong and you're not wrong. You are a prescripitivist and and I am a descriptivist.

I understand that distinction and you , apparently, do not. That does not make you an idiot, it makes you uniformed on matters of lexicography. And if calling me an idiot is your only defense, then you truly do not understand the distinction.

You define the word they way you insist it must be used by others, (prescriptive) and I define the word they way it is actually used by others (descriptive).

For either of us to call the other wrong is to confess ignorance of the overarching domain. And since you seem intimidated by my use of "many words" let me just quote wikipedia:

Linguistic prescription (or prescriptivism) is the practice of elevating one variety or manner of language use over another. (your preferred approach)


VS

In the study of language, description or descriptive linguistics is the work of objectively analyzing and describing how language is actually used (or how it was used in the past) by a group of people in a speech community.

All scholarly research in linguistics is descriptive; like all other sciences, its aim is to observe the linguistic world as it is, without the bias of preconceived ideas about how it ought to be. (my preferred approach)


Do you now understand my point? If you do, I am happy that I could help you. If you do not, then you're just being deliberately obtuse. Either way, I will not waste any more time on this pointless discussion since it was settled decades ago by the linguistic community, and there's no need for me to "settle" it again. It's settled science.

On edit: And why did I bother to respond at all? Because you said I "don't know shit" and that I'm "an idiot". You don't even know me, yet you feel comfortable hurling hurtful insults at me for no other reason than that you didn't understand my point. That, frankly, hurt my feelings (and if that makes you happy, well then congratulations on that marvelous accomplishment, You may be a vegan because you don't want to treat animals with cruelty, but you apparently have no difficulty treat fellow human beings with cruelty.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Binkie The Clown (Reply #23)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 01:17 AM

24. So, are we done here?

And you couldn't intimidate me on your best day. You made a brash mistake. Own it and walk away.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flvegan (Reply #24)

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 02:40 AM

25. Yes. Done. You still don't get it, and I'm through trying to explain it to you. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Binkie The Clown (Reply #25)

Wed Jan 20, 2016, 01:49 AM

26. Awesome! *wipes hands*

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Binkie The Clown (Reply #3)

Thu Dec 31, 2015, 06:02 PM

16. Health Vegan.

I am a Health Vegan as well and not a Moral one. I would like to get to being a Lifestyle if not a Chemical Vegan.

For those who don't know a Chemical Vegan is a Vegan who only eats products that are chemically Vegan. This includes not eating from products that are certified Vegan but use synthetic animal based versions of some vitamins/substances that have a plant based alternative. I don't know if anyone else has used this term or not.
Sadly a lot of places that are certified Vegan are not chemically Vegan.

I admit though, as a Vegan I don't oppose people hunting as long as they don't waste the animal. Some people here may hate me saying that but some people have a problem eating beans and other plant products. Someone related to me has this issue. I don't think you can hate someone hunting as long as they respect the animal enough not to waste it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PyaarRevolution (Reply #16)

Thu Dec 31, 2015, 09:53 PM

17. I'm a vegan and I happily roasted a turkey for the Family Christmas gathering.

It's what most everybody else wanted, and since I was hosting and doing the cooking, along with my (also vegan) sister, we made both vegan dishes and non-vegan so that everyone present could eat what they most enjoy for Christmas dinner.

And nobody lectured anybody else on what is or is not the right or wrong thing to eat. And everybody left the table happy and well stuffed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to darkangel218 (Original post)

Fri Dec 25, 2015, 02:37 PM

7. The first time those words were

directed at me, I a meat eater and wasn't even in animal rights. I was a volunteer dog walker for the NY Humane Society. I was standing outside the NYHS building with a small dog (leashed) deciding which way I wanted to go. Some woman passing by and apparently looking for an argument said "you think animals are more important than people?" and kept walking for a short distance then turned around at me (I was still standing there shocked) and said "you heard me" I responded, "Yes I did and I feel sorry for you." She walked away. Later on the walk our paths crossed again and she said nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalElite (Reply #7)

Fri Dec 25, 2015, 02:57 PM

8. Im glad you made the right decision, LE!

 



Animals only have us to fight for them, against all the haters.

Thank you!! Xxx

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to darkangel218 (Reply #8)

Fri Dec 25, 2015, 03:45 PM

9. I was leaning that way then

I read Peter SInger's book.

I also had been playing around with vegetarianism for many years - ever since I read Diet for a Small Planet in the '70s. When I finally took that plunge a good friend of mine's reaction was "WHAT!! What will they do with all the chickens?" That's a whole other story...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread