What do you hate about vegans/vegetarians?

[Waenara]

@swedishxtheek

As a vegan, I’ve had to deal with many, many people who aren’t accepting of my decision to better myself and the environment and to protect animals and not take advantage of them.

@Richard Parker

But please direct me to the debate over whether veganism is more protecting of animals than a diet and lifestyle involving animal products. I just don’t see it.

Is it right to kill a mouse, rabbit or bird instead of a chicken or a cow? Millions of field animals are killed each year as a direct result of agriculture (tilling, planting, harvesting, storage, transportation).

I read an article a few years ago about this, but I’m having difficulty finding it online now. Link to abstract of article: The Least Harm Principle May Require that Humans Consume a Diet Containing Large Herbivores, Not a Vegan Diet by Steven L. Davis, published in the Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics.

From this link:

Davis’s research focuses on the work of Tom Regan, a philosophy professor from North Carolina State University and founder of the contemporary animal rights movement. Regan argues that the least harm would be done to animals if people were to adopt a vegan diet - that is, a diet based only on plants, with no meat, eggs, or milk products.

What goes unaccounted for in Regan’s vegan conclusion, according to Davis, is the number of animals who are inadvertently killed during crop production and harvest.

“Vegan diets are not bloodless diets,” Davis said. “Millions of animals die every year to provide products used in vegan diets.”

Davis presented his research last fall at a meeting of the European Society for Agriculture and Food Ethics, in Florence, Italy. There he questioned the conclusions of animal rights proponents and offered alternatives using the Least Harm Principle. Central to his argument is the unseen mortality that accompanies the production of row crops and grains, staples of a vegan diet, in agricultural systems large enough to sustain the human population.

“Over the years that I have been studying animal rights theories, I have never found anyone who has considered the deaths of - or, the ‘harm’ to - animals of the field,” Davis said. “This, it seems to me, is a serious omission.”

Consequently, Davis asks what is the morally relevant difference between the field mouse and the cow that makes it okay to kill one but not the other so that humans may eat.

<snip>

Davis proposes a ruminant-pasture model of food production, which would replace all poultry, pig and lamb production with beef and dairy products. According to his calculations, such a model would result in the deaths of 300 million fewer animals annually (counting both field animals and cattle) than would a total vegan model. This difference, according to Davis, is mainly the result of fewer field animals killed in pasture and forage production than in the growing and harvest of grain, beans, and corn.

Applying the Least Harm Principle, Davis argues that people may be morally obliged to consume a diet based on plants and grazing ruminants in order to cause the least harm to animals.

[Richard_Parker]

@Athena

I said that I didn’t necessarily subscribe to those beliefs! But I have talked to people who would argue that animals don’t need to be protected, or that factory farms actually prolong the species, or whatever. Like I said, it’s not a belief that I myself follow. But there’s whackjobs on all sides of the spectrum, and the point I was making is that there’s many sides to a story, and in general people find it annoying when other people present their opinion as fact or the only “right” opinion to have.

But surely you can see how it’s frustrating to declare that there is debate over a given propositions just because some whackjobs don’t believe said proposition.

@Athena

Also, the argument that being a vegan = protecting animals doesn’t necessarily follow. Omnivorous animal rights activists exist. In my opinion, someone who actively promotes animal welfare (working in animal rights, or a job that involves making sure farm animals are treated well, or a really great veterinarian for example) is higher on the “protecting animals” scale than someone who simply doesn’t eat meat. Just deciding to avoid meat is passive & relatively easy compared to going into animal rights as a career.

But the comparison was whether eating vegan is better for animals than not eating vegan. That proposition is subject to no serious debate, AFAICT. It was not a question of whether the vegan lifestyle automatically makes one the greatest champion of animals possible.

[Richard_Parker]

@Waenara

Is it right to kill a mouse, rabbit or bird instead of a chicken or a cow? Millions of field animals are killed each year as a direct result of agriculture (tilling, planting, harvesting, storage, transportation).

I have read that article also. It makes an interesting and often ignored point. Nevertheless, many vegans make an effort to avoid row crops and grains in favor of rice, legumes, etc. precisely because of this. More to the point at issue, the question isn’t whether veganism is the most protective, just whether it is more protective than omnivorism. I don’t think this article raises any serious doubt about that.

[Autumn_Almanac]

I don’t like vegetarians who get overly defensive when the subject comes up.

“Oh, you’re vegetarian? Is it for health reasons, or are you opposed to killing animals, or what?”

“I don’t have to justify my beliefs to YOU! How rude! Stop OPPRESSING me!” (exaggerated for effect, not an actual quote )

I try to cut people slack-- after all, chances are they probably have been subject to bullying and ridicule because of their vegetarianism, so maybe it’s natural to be a little defensive. What’s more, one person’s good-natured ribbing is another person’s bullying, especially when it comes to heartfelt beliefs, so there’s definite potential for misunderstandings. Still-- some folks seem to respond with guns blazing every time, even to genuine non-hostile curiosity.

[Max_Torque]

@Napier

And those domesticated animals that we get practically all our meat from wouldn’t have been born at all if it weren’t for the meat industry. Were their lives worth living?

Now there is an interesting question. Because of the meat industry, their lives are short, but without the meat industry, they would never have been born at all. So, which is worse: a short life, or no life whatsoever?

[Waenara]

@Richard Parker

I have read that article also. It makes an interesting and often ignored point. Nevertheless, many vegans make an effort to avoid row crops and grains in favor of rice, legumes, etc. precisely because of this. More to the point at issue, the question isn’t whether veganism is the most protective, just whether it is more protective than omnivorism. I don’t think this article raises any serious doubt about that.

No, I don’t think so either in general. The article does make a case that certain types of omnivorism may be more protective of animals (pasture ruminant model), but certainly that system is very different from what is currently used.

I just responded because (in response to the question in the thread title) what I hate about (some) vegans/vegetarians is that they really come off holier-than-thou about loving all the fuzzy animals and that anyone who eats meat is just barbaric and doesn’t care about animal suffering. I’ve asked a couple of them about this argument (killing of field animals), and they both just waved it off by saying it was “unintentional” killing. Sorry, but I think that if you know agriculture will result in killing animals, then it may not be strictly-speaking “intentional” in that you didn’t personally club them to death, but you did know that the combine was going to kill many of them and vegans should at least admit that honestly. If they feel veganism is more healthy/better for the environmental overall then that’s perfectly fine, but they should at least understand that they’re not perfect and can’t guarantee that their diet doesn’t harm some animals.

I’ve been googling and still haven’t found a full text version of the article, but I did find this link that contains some of the calculations from the article. (I don’t know enough to comment on the validity of the numbers, but it’s interesting).

Accurate numbers of mortality aren’t available, but Tew and Macdonald (1993) reported that wood mouse population density in cereal fields dropped from 25/ha preharvest to less than 5/ha postharvest. This decrease was attributed to migration out of the field and to mortality. Therefore, it may be reasonable to estimate mortality of 10 animals/ha in conventional corn and soybean production.

There are 120 million ha of harvested cropland in the US (USDA, 2000). If all of that land was used to produce a plant-based diet, and if 10 animals of the field are killed per ha per year, then 10 x 120 million = 1200 million or 1.2 billion would be killed to produce a vegan diet. If half of that land (60 million) was converted to forage production and if forage production systems decreased the number of animals of the field killed per year by 50% (5 per year per ha), the number of animals killed would be:

1. 60 million ha of traditional agriculture x 10 animals per ha = 0.6 billion animals killed.
2. 60 million ha of forage production x 5 animals of the field = 0.3 billion.

Therefore, in this hypothetical example, the change to include some forage-based animal agriculture would result in the loss of only 0.9 billion animals of the field instead of 1.2 billion to support a vegan diet. As a result, the LHP would suggest that we are morally obligated to consume a diet of ruminant products, not a vegan diet, because it would result in the death of fewer animals of the field.

But what of the ruminant animals that would need to die to feed people? According to the USDA numbers quoted by Francione (2000), of the 8.4 billion animals killed each year for food in the US, 8 billion of those are poultry and only 41 million are ruminants (cows, calves, sheep, lambs). Even if the numbers of ruminants killed for food each year doubled to replace the 8 billion poultry, the total number of animals that would need to be killed under this alternative would still be fewer (0.9 billion + 82 million = 0.982 billion) than in the vegan alternative (1.2 billion).

[Duke_of_Rat]

She has this to say

@swedishxtheek

I gave up meat, dairy, and eggs for the environment, for my health, and for the animals. Now I don’t understand how people can say they “love animals,” and then go ahead and eat them. Or how people can recycle, get hybrids, and eat animals. Or how they can work out, take multivitamins, and eat animals. It doesn’t make sense. If you don’t know what I’m talking about, do a little research. Become informed. Don’t just be another ignorant idiot.

I went vegetarian first, aiming towards being vegan, then permitted myself one non-vegan thing daily, and then just obliterated the destructive lifestyle I had been leading. It was an amazing choice. I’m so proud of it, even though I remember how, as a meat-eater, I scorned vegetarians/vegans and even made fun of them. Yeah, well. I love myself for doing it. I’ve been losing weight (and as a teenage girl, that’s ever-important).

So this is awesome.

Sounds like a normal crusader. Then this (in response to kids throwing a clay pot at a duck)

@swedishxtheek

Right, so I just looked at the title and started laughing. No offense. But I’m vegan and everything, so I totally support you in any action you take against the bastards, including lynching.

Note: Humans are animals. You can’t condemn the attempted killing of a duck and advocate the killing of humans in the same sentence without coming across as a wacko.

Or to paraphrase, “I don’t understand how somebody could call themselves vegan and support the death penalty” (not that that has any more to do with it than being an omnivorous hybrid driver).

[Richard_Parker]

@Waenara

No, I don’t think so either in general. The article does make a case that certain types of omnivorism may be more protective of animals (pasture ruminant model), but certainly that system is very different from what is currently used.

I just responded because (in response to the question in the thread title) what I hate about (some) vegans/vegetarians is that they really come off holier-than-thou about loving all the fuzzy animals and that anyone who eats meat is just barbaric and doesn’t care about animal suffering. I’ve asked a couple of them about this argument (killing of field animals), and they both just waved it off by saying it was “unintentional” killing. Sorry, but I think that if you know agriculture will result in killing animals, then it may not be strictly-speaking “intentional” in that you didn’t personally club them to death, but you did know that the combine was going to kill many of them and vegans should at least admit that honestly. If they feel veganism is more healthy/better for the environmental overall then that’s perfectly fine, but they should at least understand that they’re not perfect and can’t guarantee that their diet doesn’t harm some animals.

Fully agreed. This raises another valid point, which is that these categories are generalizations. Two vegans may have very different diets, just as to omnivores might.

[cher3]

The only thing I dislike is the significant correlation between being a vegan/vegetarian and acceptance of any amount of woo-woo New Age crap. Ear-candling, “toxin” purging, healing crystals, homeopathic remedies, etc. It’s not a perfect cause and effect thing, but it’s there.

[Antinor01]

Or you get people like my boyfriend who doesn’t eat beef of any kind. He gets asked over and over if it comes up…why, is he vegetarian? Hindu? Some bizarre disorder that will lead to his imminent death should it cross his lips? No, he simply doesn’t like the taste of beef. He eats every other kind of meat there is and has a ‘typical’ american diet other than no beef.

People are far too concerned with what other people eat.

[VinylTurnip]

@Kalhoun

Come to think of it, most of the vegans I know could stand to lose a couple pounds. Too much pasta maybe?

Funny— one my longtime friends is a vegan, and last time I saw him he looked like Riff Raff from Rocky Horror Picture Show.

I have some lacto-ovo-fisho (or whatever the term is) vegetarian friends that look considerably haler, though.

–VT, Proud Omnivore
“You can have my churrasco when you pull the skewer from my cold, greasy fingers!”

[mlerose]

I was going to write a pit thread about this, but at this point I’m just too tired of being pissed off. The Superhero and I have some friends (they’re actually his best friends) who are a couple and getting married this fall. We’re both in the wedding party. Until February, they were meat-n-potatoes folks, who rarely ate vegetables and never ate things like tofu or meat substitutes, always opting for meat. In February they watched some sort of PETA-propaganda movie and decided to become vegan. They didn’t do any research beforehand to see whether the claims of the movie were actually true, nor did they find out what sorts of things would be important for them to get in their new diet in order to stay healthy. They just started buying fake chicken and fake cheese and eating a ton of soy frankenfood, proseletyzing to us every time we spent time together. It has gotten to the point that nearly every time we exchange email or hang out, they do everything they can to push their vegan agenda. They’ve said to us more than once that “you’re the friends that we thought would become vegan with us!”

The funny thing about it is that I know a lot more about being vegan than they do. I was the one who told them about Vitamin B12 deficiency, and about how to get a complete protein by eating a mixture of certain foods, and that they can’t eat marshmallows anymore. The Superhero and I buy organic free-range eggs and milk and chicken, are very aware of what sorts of fish are being overfished and don’t eat those, and eat vegetarian (not vegan, though I guess sometimes) meals a few times a week. We’re comfortable with the way we eat and the choices we’ve made, and we never once tried to push organic stuff or beans and rice on them in the entire time we’ve known them. Yet here they make what they consider to be a moral decision (“we don’t want to hurt the poor aminals” and yes, they said aminals) and then decide that it’s what we need to do as well. They still don’t eat beans and rice, instead opting for vegan meat and dairy substitutes most of the time (they did eat falafel and hummus once that I know of).

They’ve had a lot of problems with both of their families in dealing with their wedding planning, which is normal. But I’m pretty sure that the extent of the problems would not be happening if they had not suddenly and without warning decided to become vegan, decided that everyone they invited to the wedding would be spending three days at the site, and (of course!) decided that the wedding dinner would be vegan. NObody else coming to the wedding will be vegan or even vegetarian. Most of their familes will be coming from out of state and will be wondering where the meat and butter are when they’re presented with their plate of turnips or whatever they happy couple decide to serve that fits into their vegan, Renaissance-esque wedding. They’ve been looking for months and have still yet to find a caterer willing to travel to the wedding location and prepare said meal for the price that the couple is willing to pay. At this point, I’m pretty sure they’re completely delusional that they’re even going to find someone since they have less than 3 months to go.

I really liked these people, and I never had cause to complain about their friendship until they turned vegan and decided to push their beliefs and agenda and opinions on everyone around them. Their families are totally bewildered and the number of friends who are willing to spend time with them is diminishing. I’ve had vegan friends in the past, and I’ve been vegetarian at times in my life, but I’ve never had to withstand the kind of onslaught that they’ve undertaken since February to make sure the whole world knows what moral upstanding people they are now that they’ve decided that because they’re vegan, and everyone they know should be too.

Do I hate vegans? No. But I do wish they’d respect other people’s eating habits just as they want others to respect theirs. And I think it’s morally reprehensible to use one’s wedding to make all of one’s friends and family uncomfortable for the sake of one’s beliefs about animal products eight months after one decides to stop eating them oneself. In my opinion, the host of a party should provide food for everyone that everyone’s comfortable eating. If they want a vegan meal, it shouldn’t be too hard for the caterer to make two.

[guppy]

I was a vegetarian for 10 years for various reasons. After about 3 years or so I would no longer discuss my diet with anyone outside of saying I like or dislike a certain food. People would ask me why I was a vegetarian and then try to argue with me about it so I refused to talk about it at all. Half the time the question “why are you a vegetarian?” was a preface to an insult (usually questioning my manhood or something equally stupid). I realize there were some sincere people asking questions but I wasn’t out to make converts, it was just my damn choice.

The flip side of this is that when I started to eat meat I had friends that were genuinely mad at me. I had to break contact with one friend for a brief time until they would just shut the hell up about it. So it goes both ways.

By the way, if you really want to appreciate how good meat is, take a break for a number of years. I guarantee I appreciate my steaks more than most long term meat eaters!

[overlyverbose]

Where’s the OP? I haven’t seen her respond or make additional comments - I’d be interested to hear what her response is.

For what it’s worth, I don’t hate vegetarians/vegans. My husband and I don’t eatmeat very often and at one point we didn’t eat meat at all, but we started missing it, so we started eating it again. But at no point did we tell others that we were great and they weren’t because of their food choices.

Like most others on this thread, it irritates me to no end when anybody gets holier than thou with me over anything, including food. Also, the subject of whether veganism/vegetarianism is better for the environment, as noted before, is on the fence at the moment. There are excellent arguments for and against. Either way, it’s a personal choice. Which means that it should be kept personal and others don’t need to be “saved” from their meat-eating ways.

[Mosier]

@swedishxtheek

As a vegan, I’ve had to deal with many, many people who aren’t accepting of my decision to better myself and the environment and to protect animals and not take advantage of them. Wow. Long sentence.

“I don’t understand why everyone hates me, JUST because I’m healthier and smarter and kinder and a better human being than they are!”

A pitting is in order for that self righteous “don’t hate me for being beautiful” outburst, but I don’t have the time to make a new thread. In the meantime, just read the first line of your post, over and over, until the hypocrisy sinks in.

[Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus]

I don’t hate you, I respect your choices.

But I won’t be joining you in them.

[Richard_Parker]

Well, as long as we’re getting offended, I’m offended by people who are offended by people who state the reasons they are doing something and inquire about other people’s reasons/practices. So there.

Saying, “I give money to charity because it helps people, do you?” or “Charity X is better than Charity Y” or “I recycle because it’s good for the environment, do you?” should be no different from saying “I vote for Republicans because they are good for government, do you?” or “Policy X is better than Policy Y.” Why should some of those statements be holier-than-thou speech about personal decisions and the other valid political advocacy? These decisions all affect more people than just oneself. And more importantly, all of those are the sort of social issues about which we’re supposed to have engaged, vigilant discussion. You can’t have those discussions that without stating the reasons you believe make one action better than some alternative.

[Chimera]

@oft wears hats

“I’m better than you because I choose not to kill poor, helpless animals for food.”

This is pretty much the attitude that I despise, and my answer is;

“How many animals live in the vast soybean field that feeds you?”

Because if you really know anything about food production, which is something Vegans like to hammer meat eaters on (ie, the dark side of meat production (hmmmm… dark meat!)), then you would be aware of the environmental downside of farming in general. Herbicides and Pesticides, loss of species, soil erosion, etc.

The animal and insect holocaust continues unabated if you really want to take a hard look at how your food is produced. Just because you aren’t eating them doesn’t mean that they’re not being poisoned, killed by farm equipment or having their habitat destroyed.

Pretending that you are doing less harm by not eating animals is simply covering your ears and eyes to the larger situation and playing ‘holier than thou’.

Life requires Death. Every breath we take is at the expense of another living thing.

That’s just the way it is.

[Who_me_1]

I don’t hate vegetarians or vegans. I don’t usually discuss food choices with people. If no one tells me that my veal parmesean is horrible, then I have no reason to tell anyone that their tofu is bad.

[Incubus]

fat vegans.

Maybe they were having a really unhealthy diet and had some sort of ephiphany, but I’ve known a few that had been practicing vegans for 10+ years.

How the hell do you get morbidly obese eating nothing but lentils and stuff?!