vegan youtube drama

For those questions and discussions on the McDougall program that don’t seem to fit in any other forum.

Moderators: JeffN, f1jim, John McDougall, carolve, Heather McDougall

Re: vegan youtube drama

Postby OneLeggedPig » Wed Jul 20, 2016 2:55 am

Chikiwing wrote:
petero wrote:
Chikiwing wrote:making their decisions based upon a dogma, veganism in this case, they're in a mentally unhealthy place.


In any case, people who do not make an effort to reduce or eliminate their use of non-food animal products like leather and down are not vegans. They may be following a plant-based diet but they are not vegan.


That's me.

I don't want to be a vegan. I have some fundamental problems with the dogma of veganism. I eat a plant based diet for reasons of health and leave the religious aspects behind.


I find it (genuinely) interesting that you view veganism as religious. I’ve always thought of it as just a rational decision based on rational reasons. I think religion is based on faith (which is fine), veganism on rational thought.

My choices are along the lines of "I don't have to be part of harming sentient beings, so why would I?"
User avatar
OneLeggedPig
 
Posts: 103
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2016 2:12 am

Re: vegan youtube drama

Postby Spiral » Wed Jul 20, 2016 5:22 am

So, is the consensus opinion among vegans that it is wrong to have pets?

I think my cats are likely to live longer being my pets than they are if they lived in the wild. Isn't that an argument that having cats as pets, providing them health care and a safe place to sleep, isn't unethical?

It seems that the argument against having pets could be based on an appeal to nature.

As for the idea that to be a pure vegan one must commit suicide, I think the same goes for climate change. The way to minimize ones global footprint would be to commit suicide, since human beings, simply by being alive, damage the environment.

So, while I think the ethics of not harming animals make sense, I think they should be applied in a practical way. This means that since consuming animal based food actually harms our health, we should not eat animal based food, unless we are in a desperate situation such as being on the brink of starvation.

I think hunting animals should only be done in a situation where one species is growing in population to the point where it is damaging the ecosystem. For example, when they reintroduced wolves into Yellowstone National Park, it solved the problem of deer overpopulation and this helped the ecosystem. In a State Park near where I live, twice per year they close the park and have people shoot the excess deer population in the park so that the vegetation in the park is not overeaten.

I suppose when I drive to my local supermarket to buy lentils and rice, I am taking the risk that I might run into a deer. But I don't think, from a practical perspective, this makes my less vegan. However, I could ride a bicycle to the grocery store. I choose not to do so because there is no bike path and I don't want to get run over by car drivers, which is a serious possibility given that there is no bike path and lots of blind corners.

I think we should balance our ethics with practical considerations. Is this allowed among vegans?
User avatar
Spiral
 
Posts: 3005
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2010 8:18 pm
Location: Indianapolis, Indiana

Re: vegan youtube drama

Postby OneLeggedPig » Wed Jul 20, 2016 7:05 am

Spiral I agree with what you’ve written. I can’t speak for all vegans but I definitely think that things have to be weighed against practicality- as with everything in life. For example I don’t go into great lengths trying to research if every flavouring or added vitamins in the few processed foods I occasionally eat are entirely from plant sources. Actually I don’t even ask if the wine is technically vegan on the few occasions I drink. I could "do better" but I don't really see that I need to. I don't knowingly eat or use animal products and I think that's enough. If I could afford to, I would buy the completely organic and guaranteed no-animal products toiletries and whatnot from the independent shop in my town. I would love to do that- but our household income is low. But I believe I generally do well and for me that's enough.

I think anyone going for “purity” would go mad and not get anything done- and they’d hardly be a good advert for veganism. That’s one of the many many things I love about the McDougall way of eating- it’s cheap, accessible, and satisfying and comforting, so it’s a great way for people who are new to ethical veganism to start without having difficulty about what to eat and how to afford it and how to be full.

On pets- I personally don’t think there’s anything wrong with it as long as they are treated properly. I don’t think it’s exploitation in the case of dogs and cats, at all. Dogs and cats love having a nice home to live in and living with humans. It’s not a cruel or exploitative relationship. They are companions. Not everything would fit this rule for me- such as pets kept in small cages and whatnot. I don’t think many vegans (very very very few) are totally against having pets. I have before and hope to have a cat again soon. Vegans can do even better if they wish to and if it is practical and possible for them, by taking on a rescued animal from a shelter.
User avatar
OneLeggedPig
 
Posts: 103
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2016 2:12 am

Re: vegan youtube drama

Postby Chikiwing » Wed Jul 20, 2016 7:18 am

OneLeggedPig wrote:
I find it (genuinely) interesting that you view veganism as religious. I’ve always thought of it as just a rational decision based on rational reasons. I think religion is based on faith (which is fine), veganism on rational thought.

My choices are along the lines of "I don't have to be part of harming sentient beings, so why would I?"


I'm not seeing Veganism being based on rational thought. It's members seem really, really, culty. Brainwashed. Irrational.

I'm thinking of people like Alexandra Jamieson. She was a Vegan for over a decade but eventually gave it up. For two years she secretly bought and consumed meat in her home because of shame and fear from backlash of other Vegans. That's culty. Very culty.

I'm thinking of websites that try to publicly shame-ex vegans. That's culty.

I'm thinking of Ellen Degeneres and the Vegan hate directed against her when she revealed she ate some eggs. That's culty.

I could go on and on but I think you get the point.

I respect your position on not being a part of harming sentient beings but the world is not black and white. Do we support the vital use of animals in research to develope treatments and cures for children with cancer? Do we allow hunters to go out and keep the deer population under control? If we don't they're going to destroy their enviroment, many people are going to be hurt and killed with deers through their vehicle's windshields. Is it unethical to "own" a house cat when he will live 15 years happy or allow him to be "free," to struggle for survival and die at 4 years old. My position is, humans come first and always will. That's why I'll never be a vegan and reject the ideology.

So, is the consensus opinion among vegans that it is wrong to have pets?

Among the real hardcore, deep into it Vegans it is. Animal liberation brother! What gives you the right to own another sentient being you wicked slave master! :shock:

I have another Vegan ethics example for you.

I heard a Vegan say if a female polar bear died and left her cub alone, that cub should be left to die. But what if some biologist wanted to rescue it and keep it alive. No, was the vegan responce. It should die and not be "enslaved" by humans.

Cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs.
“Americanism, not Globalism, will be our credo!”― Donald J. Trump
User avatar
Chikiwing
 
Posts: 312
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2016 11:15 pm
Location: South of you.

Re: vegan youtube drama

Postby bbq » Wed Jul 20, 2016 10:19 am

Lots of copyright claims and counterclaims thanks to the YouTube copyright infringement loophole:

https://plus.google.com/115988790074042640232/posts/FA5w5EKnkGu
http://youtu.be/UIxw02JZr4I
Image

IS THIS THE END OF FREELEE THE BANANA GIRL?
http://youtu.be/jqtRUyuqCIE

Another one is a goner right now after three strikes:

https://socialblade.com/youtube/user/bustingliarsinc
https://socialblade.com/youtube/channel/UCkCkZ66vmTHD1MB-9EiEjsA
https://www.facebook.com/Freelee-Exposed-1570291819882550/
Leanne Ratcliffe continues to break the law and has filed multiple illegal copyright takedown complaints on my videos which are covered by Fair Use Law (17 U.S. Code § 107). I have contacted Google and am requesting that my channel be reinstated and to terminate all of Leanne Ratcliffe's accounts for committing a crime. Freelee the Banana Girl has no conscious which proves to me that she is not human. While I'm waiting for Google to get back to me I will commence uploading all my videos to FreeleeExposed.co.uk and post a link when I'm done so others can download my videos and re-upload with my full permission.
bbq
 
Posts: 2168
Joined: Tue May 29, 2012 10:23 am

Re: vegan youtube drama

Postby OneLeggedPig » Wed Jul 20, 2016 1:55 pm

Chikiwing wrote:My choices are along the lines of "I don't have to be part of harming sentient beings, so why would I?"
I'm not seeing Veganism being based on rational thought. It's members seem really, really, culty. Brainwashed. Irrational.


I think your position is a bit of a fallacy because you are justifying disagreeing with veganism using arguments that are actually just based on the behaviour of some people who are vegan- nothing to do with veganism as an idea or lifestyle.


I respect your position on not being a part of harming sentient beings but the world is not black and white. Do we support the vital use of animals in research to develope treatments and cures for children with cancer? Do we allow hunters to go out and keep the deer population under control? If we don't they're going to destroy their enviroment, many people are going to be hurt and killed with deers through their vehicle's windshields. Is it unethical to "own" a house cat when he will live 15 years happy or allow him to be "free," to struggle for survival and die at 4 years old. My position is, humans come first and always will. That's why I'll never be a vegan and reject the ideology.


I think humans first too. But I don't see a contradiction. I don't think there is solid evidence to believe that research using animals is really necessary and without alternatives. I don't think owning a cat is unethical and I think that actually most vegans have pets- they are companions so it's not an exploitative relationship.



I have another Vegan ethics example for you.

I heard a Vegan say if a female polar bear died and left her cub alone, that cub should be left to die. But what if some biologist wanted to rescue it and keep it alive. No, was the vegan responce. It should die and not be "enslaved" by humans.

Cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs.


I've never heard anyone say anything like that and don't know anyone who would. I think 99% of vegans would want the animal to be rescued. I think the vegans you know seem to be highly atypical.

I think you have a problem with some people you know/have read about, rather than veganism itself.
User avatar
OneLeggedPig
 
Posts: 103
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2016 2:12 am

Re: vegan youtube drama

Postby Chikiwing » Wed Jul 20, 2016 4:00 pm

OneLeggedPig wrote:I don't think there is solid evidence to believe that research using animals is really necessary and without alternatives.

And is your opinion an expert one? Do you have a background in medical reasearch? What are your qualifications to make that statement? How did you come to that conclusion?

A 2011 poll of nearly 1,000 biomedical scientists conducted by the science journal Nature found that more than 90% "agreed that the use of animals in research is essential." The American Cancer Society, American Physiological Society, National Association for Biomedical Research, American Heart Association, and the Society of Toxicology all advocate the use of animals in scientific research.

That should be enough expert opinion on this issue to convince any rational and unbiased person that this type of research is necessary to save lives. I don't like it anymore than you do. But I rather see lab mice die than little kids.
“Americanism, not Globalism, will be our credo!”― Donald J. Trump
User avatar
Chikiwing
 
Posts: 312
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2016 11:15 pm
Location: South of you.

Re: vegan youtube drama

Postby lilypad » Wed Jul 20, 2016 4:55 pm

Chikiwing, the book Eternal Treblinka: Our Treatment of Animals and the Holocaust is an excellent book about why animals should have rights.

http://www.powerfulbook.com/overview.html

https://www.amazon.com/Eternal-Treblink ... B005AHOZ7W

Also, with regards to animal testing, the Dr Hadwen Trust is an anti-vivisection medical organisation.
http://www.drhadwentrust.org/
http://www.drhadwentrust.org/about-us/whats-the-problem

Also, with regards to 'owning' pets. Vegans are against breeding, but are not against having rescued animals as part of the family.
lilypad
 
Posts: 294
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 4:29 am
Location: UK

Re: vegan youtube drama

Postby bbq » Wed Jul 20, 2016 8:16 pm

(1hr+) The Vegan Lass on The Permanent Vacation Podcast.
Image
http://youtu.be/q6ff_3vuv7Y wrote:Yep. Inevitably, some discussion of Durianrider, Freelee and the Vegan Cheetah are in the mix. But we also do manage to discuss veganism, I promise.
Direct downloads below:

http://www.saveitoffline.com/#https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6ff_3vuv7Y
bbq
 
Posts: 2168
Joined: Tue May 29, 2012 10:23 am

Re: vegan youtube drama

Postby OneLeggedPig » Thu Jul 21, 2016 2:12 am

Chikiwing wrote:
OneLeggedPig wrote:I don't think there is solid evidence to believe that research using animals is really necessary and without alternatives.

And is your opinion an expert one? Do you have a background in medical reasearch? What are your qualifications to make that statement? How did you come to that conclusion?

A 2011 poll of nearly 1,000 biomedical scientists conducted by the science journal Nature found that more than 90% "agreed that the use of animals in research is essential." The American Cancer Society, American Physiological Society, National Association for Biomedical Research, American Heart Association, and the Society of Toxicology all advocate the use of animals in scientific research.

That should be enough expert opinion on this issue to convince any rational and unbiased person that this type of research is necessary to save lives. I don't like it anymore than you do. But I rather see lab mice die than little kids.


And other experts, like PCRM, disagree:
"If animal tests are ineffective and unnecessary, why do scientists still do them?

Answer: Chemical safety testing has been conducted on animals for decades, and scientists and regulators have little incentive to move away from the status quo.

In the United States, no laws ban animal testing or even require that alternatives be considered, so companies can choose to test their products however they wish.

Companies may view animal testing as the easiest route to having their products approved, and many scientists have based their careers on the practice. In addition, there are countless vested interests that support the profitable animal testing industry, from animal breeders to lab equipment manufacturers."


Probably a large majority of doctors would say if surveyed that meat should be eaten for a healthy diet. But that isn't born up by the evidence.

I agree that things have to be taken rationally, and maybe animal testing could be slightly more effective than other methods (not definitely) - but we have to be careful not to get too calculating on this, because otherwise the logic you are using can be extended to “I’d rather see things tested on prisoners than see little kids suffer” and then we’re in difficult territory. I don’t think it can all come down to utilitarianism, I think we need to have (as we do with other things) morally-based decisions.

Interested to see what you thought of the other points I made, you didn’t mention them.
User avatar
OneLeggedPig
 
Posts: 103
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2016 2:12 am

Re: vegan youtube drama

Postby Thrasymachus » Thu Jul 21, 2016 6:54 am

Chikiwing wrote:
A 2011 poll of nearly 1,000 biomedical scientists conducted by the science journal Nature found that more than 90% "agreed that the use of animals in research is essential." The American Cancer Society, American Physiological Society, National Association for Biomedical Research, American Heart Association, and the Society of Toxicology all advocate the use of animals in scientific research.


Why didn't you give a source? The source for that is here along with what is written below what you copied without attribution:
http://7thgradehumanities.weebly.com/up ... sting.docx.
Some cosmetics and health care products must be tested on animals to ensure their safety. American women use an average of 12 personal care products per day, so product safety is very important. The US Food and Drug Administration endorses [approves] the use of animal tests on cosmetics to "assure the safety of a product or ingredient." Mosquito repellent, which helps protect people from malaria and other dangerous illnesses, must undergo toxicological testing (which involves animal testing) in order to be sold in the United States and Europe. 




I think a majority of animal experiments are actually to test consumer products. But why is it necessary? Why do disgusting corporations have to keep inventing new formulations of household cleaners, cosmetics, soaps, shampoos, bodycare products, etc.? Is it really making society better that corporations which exist only out of profit motive keep wanting to create new patents by creating products with new ingredients which due to current backward thinking, is usually animal tested?

http://www.hsi.org/issues/becrueltyfree ... sting.html

If companies simply stuck to using the many thousands of existing cosmetic ingredients available, they would never have to animal test. That’s how cruelty-free companies work!


Also most health care professionals today are full of dogma and ideology which you claim vegans are. The whole of society is, and you are certainly not someone who bases your action and lifestyle on what "SCIENCE" says. The more educated someone is in conventional schooling the more indoctrinated they are, that is what modern schooling is, people are subjected to an elaborate top-down agenda of what they should learn and evaluated and graded on it. Deviation will be and is punished. Even in his talks Dr. McDougall has lamented how hard it was for his son in his medical schooling, because unlike him he believed in lifestyle medicine before even starting off and the power of diet and not really the pills and surgery as a first resort or approach. Which in modern medical schooling meaning he would have had to act alot like an undercover agent in a foreign enemy nation, pretending he believed in what he didn't believe. Infact you do have an ideology and from how you carry yourself in this forum it is that of a chankid in a futaba chanboard railing against "social justice warriors" and ethics and writing laughable, facile positions to create lulz for yourself.

The independent journalist John Corbett of the Corbett Report has done some excellent work on certain industrial interests, especially oil interests like the Rockefeller that have totally recreated modern society in their own image by shaping modern allopathic medicine as it is now practiced, and mass compulsion schooling as we now know it, etc.:
Corbett Report Episode 286 – Rockefeller Medicine
Corbett Report Episode 310 – How Big Oil Conquered The World

Are we really better off today as individuals because instead of using olive derived castile soap to clean ourselves, we now have modern petrochemical based soaps that are constantly reformulated ingredient wise to continue product differentiation and keep patents fresh and used to horribly deform and torture rabbits?
Thrasymachus
 
Posts: 944
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2012 8:16 pm
Location: Dover, NJ

Re: vegan youtube drama

Postby Chikiwing » Thu Jul 21, 2016 7:26 am

OneLeggedPig wrote:And other experts, like PCRM, disagree:

I went to wikipedia and looked up the PCRM, Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. These are some of the highlights,

"The National Council Against Health Fraud has criticized PCRM as being "a propaganda machine" and the American Medical Association has called PCRM a "pseudo-physicians group" promoting possibly dangerous nutritional advice."

"Barnard has co-signed letters, on PCRM letterhead, with the leader of Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty, an animal-rights group the Department of Justice calls a "domestic terrorist threat." PCRM also has ties to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. An agency called the Foundation to Support Animal Protection has distributed money from PETA to PCRM in the past and, until very recently, did both groups' books. Barnard and PETA head Ingrid Newkirk are both on the foundation's board."

This is a group obviously being driven by animal rights zealotry and not human welfare. I hope you can understand my dismissal of the PCRM as a reputable source for information on this issue. Do you have anyone else? My mind still looks like this billboard,

Image
“Americanism, not Globalism, will be our credo!”― Donald J. Trump
User avatar
Chikiwing
 
Posts: 312
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2016 11:15 pm
Location: South of you.

Re: vegan youtube drama

Postby Thrasymachus » Thu Jul 21, 2016 7:29 am

Maybe in your chankid world PCRM and Neal Barnard, have no credibility since you did a lazy Wikipedia search, but in this forum among the members and according to Dr. McDougall, PCRM is the most reputable health organization and lobby group. The fact that you are blithe to this makes me wonder what you are up to, besides crap stirring. Well at least now you admitted you copy and pasted from Wikipedia, so that is some progress...

Btw the "The National Council Against Health Fraud" is run by Stephen Barret a failed psychiatrist who did not even get his license, who is thus not even a medical professional but who in the name of "SCIENCE" and "MEDICINE", but actually for money instead spun a successful career as an attack dog for allopathic medicine. His reputation has been destroyed in court cases:
http://www.quackpotwatch.org/quackpots/ ... arrett.htm

It seems recently the interests behind Barrett have preferred to use Orac better known as Dr. David Gorski to be their pre-eminent internet attack dog of the gospel of "SCIENCE" and "MEDICINE" according to the lots of pills and then surgery when the pills fail, methodology. So the cycle continues.
Thrasymachus
 
Posts: 944
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2012 8:16 pm
Location: Dover, NJ

Re: vegan youtube drama

Postby Thrasymachus » Thu Jul 21, 2016 8:03 am

Talk about the pot accusing the kettle! You have been doing nothing but trying to create reactions from people.

Are you really that ignorant about how people perceive Neal Barnard and his PCRM on this forum or are you once again trying to stir the pot and get reactions to entertain yourself? Numerous times the namesake of this forum has invited Barnard to his Advanced Study weekends and he has appeared in his Youtube channel several times and is mentioned frequently in his talks:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7RrAYN0Tkw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoR1MM5UPys

Restricted search for site:www.drmcdougall.com pcrm:
https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3A ... com%20pcrm

Do you really think you are gonna jump in here and everyone will join in you piling on the impeccable PCRM because you did an "innocent" Google search? I think you are better off not engaging me because I am young enough to be very familiar with chankid culture where bored entertainment industry addicted young people write things they don't believe in online, to get reactions to distract themselves from their miserable lives predicated around staring at screens way too much. They call this "lulz". For the older folks who are not aware that digitally distracted youth do this to get rises out of people:
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/i-did-it-for-the-lulz
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=lulz
Last edited by Thrasymachus on Thu Jul 21, 2016 8:14 am, edited 2 times in total.
Thrasymachus
 
Posts: 944
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2012 8:16 pm
Location: Dover, NJ

Re: vegan youtube drama

Postby OneLeggedPig » Thu Jul 21, 2016 8:09 am

I don’t think googling to find a quote is really enough to discredit PCRM, who have such well qualified doctors as Dr McDougall and Dr Barnard at the helm, with all of their experience and knowledge. If you look at their site and the recommendations they give I don’t think you will find much to argue with. They are promoting a WFPB diet as we do on this forum and they back it up with research. Yes they do run some very direct campaigns but I don’t see anything wrong with that.

I think if you dismiss an organisation based on a couple of things you have found people say on google, then that’s not really good enough. Have you had a look at what some people say about Dr McDougall? On some sites they think he’s a quack. And you could easily find an organisation with a reputable sounding name to say that basing your diet on starch is madness. Doesn’t make it true. I think you wanted to be able to dismiss what PCRM said without having to engage with it, and you found a justification to do so.
I think you are dismissing them and their arguments in the same way as you have dismissed vegans as cultish- you seem to have made your mind up and justify it by suggesting that vegans are crazy.

Regarding the billboard- please see my earlier point. The problem with that argument is that the logical extension is to accept experiments on prisoners, because “who would you rather die? A small child or a criminal?” Do you follow my point there?

It’s fine not to agree with ethical veganism but I’m taking issue with the way you are trying to portray ethical vegans- as loons and hypocrites, or veganism as religion, which I think is inaccurate.
User avatar
OneLeggedPig
 
Posts: 103
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2016 2:12 am

PreviousNext

Return to The Lounge

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests



Welcome!

Sign up to receive our regular articles, recipes, and news about upcoming events.