Vegan healty diet, no protein deficiency

Don’t worry about protein:

“The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends that men and women obtain 5% of their calories as protein.  This would mean 38 grams of protein for a man burning 3000 calories a day and 29 grams for a woman using 2300 calories a day.  This quantity of protein is impossible to avoid when daily calorie needs are met by unrefined starches and vegetables. For example, rice alone would provide 71 grams of highly usable protein and white potatoes would provide 64 grams of protein.” John A. McDougall, MD

Milk products is bad for your health: http://www.drmcdougall.com/med_hot_calcium.html
So is eggs: http://drmcdougall.com/misc/2005nl/march/050300pueastereggs.htm

A vegan diet is good for your health: “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.”

Quote: http://www.eatright.org/About/Content.aspx?id=8357

Some more information about nutrition you can find on this website: http://www.drmcdougall.com/medical_nutrition.html
and these lectures:
http://www.youtube.com/user/drmcdougallmd
Getting all nutrition as a vegan is very easy.

You will notice that you will have a good appetite and can eat lots of food. As long as you eat a healthy vegan diet without oils [1] and refined foods, this is nothing to worry about.

Why Jewish 'kosher slaughter' is inflicting unnecessary suffering upon animals

 If you watch some video footage of kosher slaughter, you will see that there is a lot of suffering involved there also, see e.g.: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzaeHfh65hs ; and animals killed ‘kosher’ are also raised up in factory farm-facilities, involving lots of suffering. However “humanely” we treat and kill these animals, the amount of animal suffering we cause is staggering. The animals raised up and slaughtered in ‘kosher’-facitilities don’t want to become killed and exploited by humans. Can’t we respect their desire to live, can’t we show them love and compassion. I became a vegan this autumn, since I don’t think it is ethical to inflict unnecessary suffering and death upon sentient beings who all value their life, friends and family as much as we value our life, friends and family.

----
This is a reply to a person writing: Am already eating kosher, sparing 99% of animal species from torture

------
I also wrote:
Great that you agree Michael!
"Organic", "free range" and so on. They all end up at the same slaughterhouse. They all go through great amount of suffering. Some more about the hens in the “free range”-industry: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/no-they-dont-dig-cage-free-eggs/

The question is, is it right to inflict unnecessary suffering upon sentient animals, who don’t want to be killed by us? All killing of animals involve suffering. We can easily live a vegan lifestyle. There are delicious vegan recipes. But most importantly, it is our moral obligation toward the innocent, defenseless animals not to hurt and exploit them for “taste”/convenience.

----

Did you know how much suffering that is involved in the production of eggs? In the egg industry all male chicks are ground up alive to death, hens are usually confined, suffer all their life, and eventually they are killed. You can cook a vegan tasty poopy seed lime cake without the suffering of eggs and animal products.

We all claim to care about animals and to regard them as having at least some moral value. We all claim to agree that it’s wrong to inflict “unnecessary” suffering and death on animals and--whatever disagreement we may have about when animal use is necessary—we all agree that the suffering and death of animals cannot be justified by human pleasure, amusement, or convenience. However “humanely” we treat and kill these animals, the amount of animal suffering we cause is staggering. Yet no one maintains that animal foods are necessary for optimal health.

It is wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering and death upon animals, and this we do when we consume animal products.
I recommend this article: http://articles.philly.com/2009-08-14/news/24986151_1_atlanta-falcons-quarterback-vick-illegal-dog-dog-fights and www.vegankit.com

What do you think?

Don't eat animal foods if you love and care for animals

No one maintains that animal foods are necessary for optimal health. Indeed, mounting empirical evidence points to animal foods being detrimental for human health. But however you evaluate that evidence, there can be no serious doubt that we can have excellent health with a vegan diet. There is also broad consensus that animal agriculture is an ecological disaster. Animal agriculture is responsible for water pollution, air pollution, deforestation, soil erosion, inefficient use of plant protein and water, and all sorts of other environmental harms.

So do you live a lifestyle of love and compassion to all animals?

We all claim to care about animals and to regard them as having at least some moral value. We all claim to agree that it’s wrong to inflict “unnecessary” suffering and death on animals and--whatever disagreement we may have about when animal use is necessary—we all agree that the suffering and death of animals cannot be justified by human pleasure, amusement, or convenience.

So do you live a lifestyle that doesn't inflict unnecessary suffering upon animals?
I became a vegan this autumn when I realized it is wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering towards animals this autumn. All animal foods are harming animals, e.g. cows and male calves are killed in the milk industry. So, we should all act upon our love and compassion, and stop hurting animals. I recommend: http://www.eatlikeyoucarebook.com/

Vegansk diet/helvegetarisk diet botar hjärt- och kärlsjukdomar; djurprodukter orsakar hjärtattack

Om man äter en helt plantbaserad kost utan oljor och raffinerad mat så behöver man ingen hjärtmedicin. Mjölkprodukter och andra djurprodukter höjer kolestorol-värden.

Rekommenderar följande föreläsning av Dr. Esselstyn, som har erfarenhet av att reversera hjärt- och kärl-sjukdomar med en vegansk nyttig kost utan oljor och raffinerad mat: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6pLRdawBw0

Mjölkprodukter skadar och dödar djur: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/06/varfor-alskar-vi-hundar-men-dodar-och.html


Annan studie som visar att en vegansk diet är hälsosammare:
http://www.foodnavigator.com/Science-Nutrition/Vegetarians-have-significantly-lower-mortality-rates-reveals-new-study/

The animal cruelty involved in eating a Big mac from Mc Donalds

My comment to a friend who wrote about eating a 'Big mac':
You can all easily Google ‘cruelty in Mc Donalds’ to find out what cruelty the animals go through to become a ‘Big Mac’. And there is no “humane way” to produce animal products, the animals involve always go through suffering – there are just different degrees to the unnecessary suffering involved.

I think the core of the issue is that people don’t see an animal and what suffering they are causing when they are eating a Big mac or any other animal foods. But it is our moral obligation to the animals to not inflict unnecessary suffering, we all agree with this, so thus we all should study what the animals are going through, so that we stop seeing dead animals and their secretions as ‘food’, but see suffering and death each time we look upon an animal product.
I don’t see anything good when I see an animal product, I don’t miss the taste that I enjoyed for almost 28 years as a non-vegan, I only see dead animals that were inflicted unnecessary suffering and death to satisfy someone’s palate pleasure /convenience of animal foods.

I think it is time that we all act upon our moral intuition, and start to eat as we care of the animals. They are defenseless against us, and we must live up to our moral obligation of stopping exploiting them and inflicting them unnecessary suffering for food. We must start acting like we care, and like they matter more than a frivolous taste experience'/convenience!!

Kött eller en vegansk/helvegetarisk diet - vad är bäst för djuren, vår hälsa och miljön?

Johan Nyberg,
” 30 bananer om dagen tycker jag inte är rätt, men visst går det att lyckas som vegan.”
Jag tror inte heller det är bra med 30 bananer per dag. En vegansk välplanerad diet mår man väldigt bra på, t.o.m. väldigt konservativa organisationer som världens största hälso- och nutritionist-organisation American Dietic Association erkänner detta: http://www.eatright.org/About/Content.aspx?id=8357 ; och protein är inga problem som vegan: http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/105/25/e197.full

Eftersom att vi med enkelhet kan må väldigt bra på en vegansk diet, så borde den etiska frågan vara väldigt viktigt när vi avgör vilken kost som är bäst för oss, för våra medmänniskor, djuren och miljön: Vi anser att djurplågeri är etiskt fel eftersom att vi står för devisen att det är etiskt fel att utsätta djur för onödigt lidande och död. Vi hävdar att det är fel att vålla djur lidande och död för att det roar och underhåller oss, eller för att det är bekvämt att göra så, eller för att vi gör det av ren vana.

Men de allra flesta i vårt samhälle utsätter dessa medvetande djur för lidande och död för att de gillar smaken av djurprodukter, eller utav bekvämlighet, vana eller tradition. Alltså, de allra flesta i vårt samhälle lever inte som de predikar. Man fördömer djurplågeri, men utsätter djur för ett liv fyllt av onödigt lidande och en brutal död utan att man har någon som helst nödvändighet för detta. Jag förstår att de flesta inte tänker på detta, dömer ingens intentioner, men vill upplysa om den etiska problematiken.
Jag skriver mer om detta här: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/06/varfor-alskar-vi-hundar-men-dodar-och.html
Hur tänker du om detta?

Vegan reply to 'Vegans avoid the real problems of society - and the much more significant atrocities'

My reply to Kenneth, covering also the issue 'I am not a vegan/strict vegetarian because that human rights are more important than animal rights'

I think that everyone understand the moral difference between uprooting a plant and killing an animal. If we saw someone abusing an animal we would step in and protect the animal, if someone is stepping on, or cutting grass, or cutting down a tree, we don’t believe this is harming any sentient being.

Learn more in this article: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/a-frequently-asked-question-what-about-plants/#.UciBjJxW6nk
The people who still believe that plants are sentient, can eat of the seeds and the fruits without uprooting any plant.
You will find further reading here: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/a-frequently-asked-question-what-about-plants/

Eating animals is morally wrong, because it inflicts unnecessary suffering and death upon sentient beings. You already agree with the premise that it is morally wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering and death upon animals. The only reason that you don’t apply this to eating is because of cultural indoctrination.
“You can sit in a coffeehouse and avoid the real problems of society - and the much more significant atrocities that are ongoing”
I do certainly not ignore other problems of our society. Since I became a vegan I have actually become more aware of all the violence and discrimination in our society and I do more to fight against it compared to before.
There is no contradiction between fighting for human rights and fighting for animal rights. You go vegan and you choose not to inflict unnecessary suffering and death upon animals, you substitute your animal products with a vegan diet, etc. It is very easy. You can continue to fight for human rights. A vegan lifestyle is not limiting, and it is a necessity for an ethical lifestyle, and it is our moral obligation to the nonhuman animals.

Furthermore, there is a big interconnection between all the violence and discrimination in our society: The enslavement of animals, the domestication, also has resulted in human slavery, oppression against women, and other forms of oppression that is rampant in our society. It is covered in this book that I want to read: http://cup.columbia.edu/book/978-0-231-15188-7/animal-oppression-and-human-violence#.UZAIageHrdk.facebook

Furthermore, while I believe that it is immoral to consume animal products, I do not judge peoples intentions and their character. For me it took almost 28 years to realize that the necessity and our moral obligation to be a vegan, and that consuming is unethical.

I don’t need a biological degree to understand that it is unethical to inflict unnecessary suffering and death upon animals; and I will certainly not accept justifications such as ‘other animals eats animals and we are at the top of the food chain’, since both those arguments are easily refutable.
Cheers and best wishes
-------------
This is a reply to:
"Anders, aside from photosynthesizing plants and bacteria, all life exists by consuming other life - has this ever occurred to you? A vegan also is extinguishing life in order to survive. I am sure you are a nice fellow but do you even have an operational definition of the word 'moral'? And then once you have that you decide to focus on carnivores and omnivores as entire groups as being 'immoral'? That must feel very good and certainly is convenient! You can sit in a coffeehouse and avoid the real problems of society - and the much more significant atrocities that are ongoing - all the while feeling comfortable in your moral superiority! Hooray for you! While you're sitting there feeling so good, maybe take the time and get a biology degree, which is literally the study of life itself, and see how the chain of life works. Cheers and best wishes."

Djurens rätt att inte bli jagade och dödade i skyddsjakt

När vi medger att det är moraliskt fel att utsätta djur för onödigt lidande, inklusive djurplågeri, så medger vi att djuren har ett moraliskt värde. Att de har ett moraliskt värde innebär att vi inte har någon som helst rätt att utnyttja och behandla dessa individer som en resurs. Man kan inte både säga att djur har ett moraliskt värde, vilket man gör när man vidkänner att djurplågeri är etiskt fel, och att de inte har ett moraliskt värde, vilket man predikar med sina gärningar när man deltar i ’skyddsjakt’.

Människan orsakar en massutrotning, bl.a. orsakat av massiv skövling av skog för djurjordbruksindustrin, som gör att arter utrotas i en takt mellan 100 till 1000 gånger jämfört med den takt innan människan började med djurjordbruk. Men detta rättfärdigar INTE att vi dödar människor för att beskydda de andra arterna på jorden. Vi erkänner att eftersom människan har ett moraliskt värde, så har vi ingen rätt att se enskilda individer som ’resurser’ och att döda dessa individer. På samma sätt har vi ingen rätt att döda enskilda individer av arter eftersom att vi har ett mål att ’skydda andra arter’. Vi kan inte rättfärdiga en orättfärdig gärning, att döda en oskyldig och försvarslös individ, för att nå ett mål som vi anser vara nobelt. Vi kan inte göra det med människor, och vi kan inte göra det med andra djur. Att djur är individer innebär att vi måste sluta föreviga deras status som resurs/egendom genom att äta kött och djurprodukter, även om dessa kommer från djur som har självdött, och att sluta föda upp djur: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/05/vegansk-syn-pa-aveluppfodning-av.html

Till sist, det är lika mycket död och lidande i mjölk- och äggindustrin, som det är i köttindustrin: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/06/fraga-fran-vegetarian-varfr-dricker.html
Att bli vegan är den enda livsstil som behandlar djur enligt deras moraliska värde, och således erkänner deras rättigheter att inte bli skadade och dödade utan att det finns någon nödvändighet.



--------

Detta är ett svar på en person som skrev:
Jag har hund och har haft gutefår, de är livdjur och har hos mig haft ett mycket fritt liv i naturlig miljö. Det är djurhållning och så långt ifrån djurplågeri man kan komma. Jag jagar inte för kött utan mest skyddsjakt till förmån för djur som annars skulle dö ut. Jag jagar inte älg eftersom skövling av älg pågår och jag äter helst grönsaker -utan att för den delen vara vegetarian.

Djurförtryck i Sverige jämfört med djurförtryck i Kina, USA och andra kulturer

Jag tror inte det finns någon generell skillnad mellan grymheten mot djur i olika länder i dagens samhälle. Anledningen till att en del får det intrycket är för den snedvridna exponeringen som vissa kulturer grymhet får, medan grymhet t.ex. i vår kultur göms in i bl.a. slakthusen, djurfabrikerna och många hem.

Jag skrev bl.a. detta som en kommentar: "Some people say that Chinese people in general are more cruel to animals compared to people in e.g. USA. This is not true. US enslaves, kills and hurts many more animals per person compared to China. There are more individuals killed in China, but the China population is 4 times the population of US.
 Fler tankar här: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/04/there-is-not-more-animal-cruelty-in.html"

Tyvärr späder t.ex. alla petitions som cirkulerar och som kritiserar vissa förhållanden i t.ex. Kina på speciecism och rasism, vilket man också ser på de rastistiska kommentarer som brukar finnas på ett sådant inlägg (nu säger jag inte att alla kommentarer är av detta slag), eftersom de sänder ett väldigt förvirrat budskap om att det är skillnad mellan olika sorters förtryck mot olika arter, och skillnad mellan av t.ex. icke-veganska svenskars grymhet mot djur och icke-veganska kinesers grymhet mot djur: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/03/single-issue-campaigns-such-as-anti-fur.html

I Sverige har vi ingen tjurfäktning, men icke-veganska svenskar sitter  och njuter framför grillen på dödade djur, som levt ett liv i slaveri, mycket lidande och blivit brutalt dödade; och många njuter av att vara ute och jaga vilda djur, fiska ,spela på hästar som blir utnyttjade i travindustrin, besöka förslavade och utnyttjade djur på cirkus och zoo, etc....

Rekommenderar denna bok: http://www.eatlikeyoucarebook.com/

Why eating meat, milk and other animal products is causing animals unnecessary suffering and death

You wrote: “ I feel with a small amount of meat, eggs, vegetables, grains and fruits i still have a wide variety in food, and a balanced diet. “

I recommend you to watch: http://www.adelicatebalance.com.au/ ; Eggs are unhealthy: http://drmcdougall.com/misc/2005nl/march/050300pueastereggs.htm

A starch-based diet without animal products is very healthy: http://www.drmcdougall.com/video/starch_solution.html

“So let’s apply the analysis that we all agreed was uncontroversial to using animals for food: have we got a good reason? Is there any necessity involved? The short answer: no. But wait! Don’t we need to eat animals and animal products to be healthy? No. No one maintains that it’s medically necessary to eat animal foods. The extremely conservative Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, formerly the American Dietetic Association, has stated: 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. [1] And mainstream physicians are, with increasing frequency, pointing out that animal products are actually detrimental to human health. We could now embark on a long discussion of the many studies that show that animal products are harming our health but we don’t need to because whether or not you agree that consuming animal foods is detrimental, there is certainly no argument that animal foods are necessary for optimal health. That is , even if we do not believe that we will be more healthy if we eat a sensible vegan diet, we cannot reasonably believe we will be less healthy.”

Quote from: Francione, Gary; Charlton, Anna (2013-06-24). Eat Like You Care: An Examination of the Morality of Eating Animals (Kindle Location 195). Exempla Press. Kindle Edition.

You are claiming that you have a necessity for eating animal products, that it doesn't constitute 'unnecessary suffering' as dog fighting does, if I understand you correctly. This isn't correct. You don’t have any necessity. You will be even healthier eating a vegan diet. So if you continue to consume animal products you do it despite that you have any necessity for it. And hurting and killing animals despite the lack of necessity is unethical.

What do you say?

Slavery of 'battery chickens”. ' and "free-range" chickens

This concept of “free range hens” is a myth actually. They can be as crammed as “battery chickens”. And there is are in almost all cases a huge difference between a human and an animal bred up for food in terms of the exploitation that they go through throughout their life.  There is no welfare in the animal exploitation industry for food.

And the animals are slave because that 99% of the citizens are paying for it. Buying animal products is putting animals into a life of slavery, exploitation, unnecessary suffering and death. We should stop paying for slavery, we should stop being slave-owners.

 

 We all claim to care about animals and to regard them as having at least some moral value. We all claim to agree that it’s wrong to inflict “unnecessary” suffering and death on animals and--whatever disagreement we may have about when animal use is necessary—we all agree that the suffering and death of animals cannot be justified by human pleasure, amusement, or convenience. We condemn Michael Vick for dog fighting precisely because we feel strongly that any pleasure that Vick got from this activity could not possibly justify what he did.

 So how can we justify the fact that we kill many billions of land animals and fish every year for food? The best justification we have for the unimaginable amount of suffering and death that we impose on animals is that they taste good. We enjoy the taste of animal foods. But how is this any different from Michal Vick claiming that his dog fighting operation was justifiable because he enjoyed watching dogs fight? Vick liked sitting around a pit watching animals fight. We enjoy sitting around the summer barbecue pit roasting the corpses of animals who have had lives and deaths that are as bad, if not worse than, Vick’s dogs. What is the difference between Michael Vick and those of us who eat animal foods?

I recommend: http://www.eatlikeyoucarebook.com/


This was a reply to Peter's post:
Peter Edwards There are battery chickens and free range chickens. Battery chickens produce more meat and eggs for lower financial outlay, but at the cost of the welfare of the animals and the quality of the food produced. Free range hens take more upkeep and you can't cram them in, but they're meat and eggs can be sold for so much better prices.

But battery or free range, all chickens end up on the table one way or another. I'm a battery human, struggling and scrabbling, living on nothing cheek by jowl with hundreds of my kind. Some of you reading this are free range humans, with space to roam, plenty to eat and all the comforts of modern 'civilisation,' but you're no less a captive than I...the only difference is you're going to be made into a marks and spencers ready meal, and I'm going for chicken nuggets.

We're meat for the table whichever way you cut it.

Vegan/strict vegetarian reply: Does animal intelligence matter for their moral value?

A Note on Animal Intelligence

A question I received: "What do you think of the interest in animals who are perceived to be like humans in terms of intelligence. I am thinking about the idea that great apes or dolphins or elephants have greater moral value because they exhibit human type intelligence."

My reply:

A good question.

Let's assume we have two humans: Mary is a math whiz; John is mentally disabled and cannot do math at all. Is the difference in cognitive ability relevant?

It depends on why we are asking the question.

If we are trying to determine who we should hire as a math teacher, the difference in cognitive abilities matters. We should hire Mary.

If we are trying to determine who we should use in a painful biomedical experiment or whose organs we should take to save the lives of others or who we should enslave, the difference in cognitive abilities is completely irrelevant. We should not use either Mary or John exclusively as a resource for others. Mary and John are completely equal as far as their not being used as a resource for others is concerned. If anything, we may have special heightened obligations to those who are more vulnerable.

The same thing goes for nonhuman animals. If an animal is sentient--that is, subjectively aware and able to experience pain, suffering, distress, etc.--we should not use that animal as a human resource. Period. The degree of humanlike intelligence an animal has is completely irrelevant. And we should not accord greater weight to animals who are more "like us" in having humanlike intelligence. For purposes of being used exclusively as a human resource, a mouse has as much moral weight as an elephant.

" I think animal abuse is wrong, because it hurts animals" --- If you follow your beliefs you should become a vegan

" I think animal abuse is wrong, because it hurts animals, i do not like people nor animals being tortured...."

Most people would agree with the proposition that it’s wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering and death on animals. We could have an interesting philosophical discussion about what 'necessity' means but the reality is if it means anything, if it means anything at all, it means we can’t justify suffering and death for reasons of pleasure, amusement or convenience.

"The problem is that eating animals and animal products is, as a matter of moral analysis, no different from dog fighting. We kill and eat more than 57 billion animals a year, not counting fish and other aquatic animals, which involves probably another trillion animals at the least. A billion is one thousand million. A trillion is one million million. So every year, we are responsible for a staggering number of deaths. No one doubts that using animals for food results in significant suffering under the best of circumstances and, as a necessary matter, the killing of the animals. Although many of us think that the dairy and egg industries do not involve killing animals, that is, as we will see in more detail later, incorrect. So let’s apply the analysis that we all agreed was uncontroversial to using animals for food: have we got a good reason? Is there any necessity involved? The short answer: no."

Quote: Francione, Gary; Charlton, Anna (2013-06-24). Eat Like You Care: An Examination of the Morality of Eating Animals (Kindle Locations 173-181). Exempla Press. Kindle Edition.

You are trying to justify human behaviour by looking at nature when you apply the food chain-argument. In nature you will also find cannibalism, rape and plenty of behaviours that we humans are considering are unethical. I write some more about this argument here: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/04/vegan-answer-to-humans-are-at-top-of.html
My comment will be too length if I should address everything that you wrote, so lets start with this.

------

 "A lot of other people, or even animals if they had the chance, would not be as compationate. "

Not strange at all since we live in in a completely extreme world, a world in which we sacrifice our love and compassion for animals on our plates for palatable pleasure/convenience.

What is extreme is thinking that it is morally acceptable to inflict suffering and death on other sentient creatures simply because we enjoy the taste of animal products.

What is extreme is that we say we care about animals and we believe that they are members of the moral community, but we sponsor, support, encourage and promote “happy” meat/ dairy labeling schemes.

What is extreme what we encourage our children to love animals at the same time that we teach them those whom they love can also be those whom they harm. We teach our children that loving others is consistent with hurting them. That is truly extreme— and very sad.

Some quotes from:
Francione, Gary; Charlton, Anna (2013-06-24). Eat Like You Care: An Examination of the Morality of Eating Animals (Kindle Locations 1565-1567). Exempla Press. Kindle Edition.

Does vegans love or hate people consuming meat, diary and other animal products?

Some person claimed that we shouldn't feel sad if a person exploiting animals on a regularly basis die. All non-vegans are exploiting animals on a regularly basis for palatable pleasure/convenience.

Despite that I for a long time have tried to live a moral life, it took me almost 28 years to realize that it is wrong to kill animals for food, and that veganism is a necessity for an ethical lifestyle. If I would have encountered arguments like this, I think I would have become a vegan much quicker: http://articles.philly.com/2009-08-14/news/24986151_1_atlanta-falcons-quarterback-vick-illegal-dog-dog-fights

I think that the death of a sentient being always is sad, including the death of humans. I think that we can love someone despite the violence that that person is causing to others, and causing to himself or herself. I would e.g. mourn if someone died of my non-vegan family or friends. I don’t think it attracts our non-vegan friends to claim we shouldn't feel sad if they would die. I really hope it isn’t true that we wouldn’t be sad.

For me veganism has led me to feel more love and empathy to animals, including humans, on this planet. Of course I am deeply saddened by the exploitation my non-vegan friends are inflicting upon the animals, and their inability to demonstrate love and empathy toward the animals that they choose to exploit for animal products, but I can still love them.

Vegan/hel-vegetarian: Är det rätt att befria minkar och släppa ut dem i det vilda??

Att släppa minkar fria kommer aldrig att minska på efterfrågan, utan nya minkar kommer bli förslavade, skadade och dödade för att tillfredställa den kraftiga efterfrågan det finns efter djurprodukter. Och vi ska inte släppa tamdjur fria i naturen, eftersom att de inte kan överleva. Det är fint att lagligt adoptera djur som annars skulle bli dödade (men inte att stödja uppfödare), men att bryta sig in i en minkfarm hjälper inte djuren utav många anledningar. Se artikeln i not 1.

Det enda rätta är att sluta utsätta djur för onödigt lidande och död, inklusive att köpa päls, läder, osv, och att sluta att konsumera djurprodukter. Rekommenderar:
http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/06/varfor-alskar-vi-hundar-men-dodar-och.html

Not 1: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/05/are-vegans-justified-to-use-violence-to.html

Vegan reply to 'humans have killed and eating meat for hundreds of thousands of years"

And there has been human slavery for at least several thousand years, as well as animal abuse and oppression of women. How many thousands of year does it take for an unethical tradition to become ethical do you mean?

That people are eating meat, only means that sometime some humans started to eat meat, and it became a well-established tradition.

In no way, does a well-established tradition in any way create a moral justification for a behavior. My point is that a well-established tradition of an unethical behavior does not justify an unethical behavior.

There are 2 separate moral issues that you discuss:
1. Killing for survival; 2. Killing despite the complete lack of any necessity.
Regardless of whether one thinks it is morally excusable to kill human and nonhuman animals for survival e.g. if stranded on a desert island and if that is the only possible way to survive; people’s moral intuition is that is morally wrong to hurt and kill any individual despite the complete lack of necessity.

The argument that I brought up is discussing killing animals despite the complete lack of necessity. You brought up arguments that don’t refute my arguments.

I recommend you to read this article: 'Francione: We're all Michael Vick

'
http://articles.philly.com/2009-08-14/news/24986151_1_atlanta-falcons-quarterback-vick-illegal-dog-dog-fights

Mår hundar bra på en helvegetarisk/vegansk diet?

Om det kan visas att hundar kan må bra, få i sig all näring och ha jättebra hälsa på en diet utan djurprodukter, kan det då rättfärdigas att vi utsätta djur för onödigt lidande och död på en diet av djurprodukter? Är det rätt att t.ex. föda en hund med grisöron, som kommer från grisar som levt i slaveri på en yta av 1m^2 var, fick leva ett halvår i misär och sedan blev brutalt slaktade? Mer information om hundar och diet finns i not 1.

Och för alla som läser detta och konsumerar djurprodukter: Vi anser att djurplågeri är etiskt fel eftersom att vi står för devisen att det är etiskt fel att utsätta djur för onödigt lidande och död. Vi hävdar att det är fel att vålla djur lidande och död för att det roar och underhåller oss, eller för att det är bekvämt att göra så, eller för att vi gör det av ren vana. Vi har inget som helst näringsmässigt behov av att äta kött, mjölk, ägg och andra djurprodukter.

Men de allra flesta i vårt samhälle utsätter dessa medvetande djur för lidande och död för att de gillar smaken av djurprodukter, eller utav bekvämlighet, vana eller tradition. Alltså, de allra flesta i vårt samhälle lever inte som de predikar. Man fördömer djurplågeri, men utsätter djur för ett liv fyllt av onödigt lidande och en brutal död utan att man har någon som helst nödvändighet för detta.  Rekommenderar: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/06/varfor-alskar-vi-hundar-men-dodar-och.html

Not 1: Veterinär som rekommenderar en vegansk diet för hundar, och det finns tusentals hälsosamma hundar på denna diet: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2012/12/vegan-pets-vegan-cats-and-vegan-dogs.html
Ha en trevlig kväll till alla som läser detta!!

--------

Att föda en hund på näringsrikt veganskt foder till en hund måste vara bättre än att betala för att andra djur ska förslavas, skadas och dödas.

Och hundarna som jag tar hand om mår jättebra på en vegansk diet. Jag tycker inte vi har någon rätt att föda upp djur överhuvudtaget, p.g.a. följande anledningar: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/05/vegansk-syn-pa-aveluppfodning-av.html
Men jag tycker definitivt att det är en god gärning att ta hand om de hundar som har blivit övergivna på djurhem.

Being vegan is not a personal choice, it is our moral obligation

Being vegan, i.e. not treating animals as resources and refusing to participate in the exploitation of animals, including the exploitation of animals for “palatable pleasure”/convenience (i.e. animal products), is not a matter of ‘personal choice’. I will explain why.

“One of the main arguments that I make is that although almost everyone accepts that it is morally wrong to inflict “unnecessary” suffering and death on animals, 99% of the suffering and death that we inflict on animals can be justified only by our pleasure, amusement, or convenience. For example, the best justification that we have for killing the billions of nonhumans that we eat every year is that we enjoy the taste of animal flesh and animal products. This is not an acceptable justification if we take seriously, as we purport to, that it is wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering or death on animals, and it illustrates the confused thinking that I characterize as our “moral schizophrenia” when it comes to nonhumans.”
Quote: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/vivisection-part-one-the-necessity-of-vivisection/#.UchssJxW6nk

Animal abuse is wrong because animals have a moral value. But if animals have a moral value, they also have the right to not be used as a resource, including the right not to be killed by humans.

“If you think that any sentient nonhuman life has a moral value, then it is irrational to deny that all nonhuman life has moral value. To put it another way, if you think that dogs or cats (or whomever) have moral value, you cannot logically exclude cows, fish, pigs, and chickens from the moral community. And having moral value means that we cannot use animals as a resource. Therefore, veganism is what follows from the simple recognition that animals are not things. If animals have any moral value, we cannot use them as resources. Peirod.” [Quote: http://www.facebook.com/abolitionistapproach]

You agree that animals do have a moral value. This implies that they do have rights, including the right not to get killed and exploited. Claiming that veganism is a personal choice is tantamount to saying that murder, slavery, exploitation and torture of humans is a personal choice. It is not!
No treatment of an individual, regardless of the individual is a human animal or a nonhuman animal, as a human resource is a personal choice.

“Speciesism and human slavery are similar in that in all cases animals and enslaved humans have a basic interest in not being treated as things and yet are treated as things on the basis of morally irrelevant criteria. To deny animals this basic right simply because they are animals is like saying that we should not abolish race-based slavery because of the perceived inferiority of the slaves’ race. The argument used to support slavery and the argument used to support animal exploitation are structurally similar: we exclude beings with interests from the moral community because there is some supposed difference between ‘them’ and ‘us’ that has nothing to do with the inclusion of these beings in the moral community. The animals rights position maintains that if we believe that animals have moral significance, the principle of equal consideration requires that we stop treating them as things.” – Gary Francione

Go vegan! Stop exploiting animals. I recommend www.vegankit.com

-------

Do you try to stop someone when you see animal abuse?
For same reason vegans share about veganism to educate others from not harming and killing animals for "pleasure" of animal foods. I recommend you to study this article: http://articles.philly.com/2009-08-14/news/24986151_1_atlanta-falcons-quarterback-vick-illegal-dog-dog-fights and www.facebook.com/abolitionistapproach

---
 Vegans have nothing to be ashamed about so why hide it like a dirty Secret?

Debunking health myths: A diet with starches, e.g. potatoes and rice, doesn't cause diabetes

Codie-Joy Duncan,
That a starch-based diet causes diabetes is another health myth. It cures type-2-diabetes.

Here are some resources that I recommend:

Please study this about a plantbased diet and diabetes:
http://www.drmcdougall.com/med_hot_diabetes.html

The blood sugar level is dropping with a starch based diet, see e.g.:
http://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2008nl/jan/grains.htm
Some people eating a starch based diet and that are having type 1 diabetes: http://www.drmcdougall.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=36855&p=374878&hilit=type+1+diabetes#p374878

I found this post and the comments relating to diabetes type 1 and a vegan diet: http://jacknorrisrd.com/vegan-diet-for-type-1-diabetes/#comments

I also recommend this video about a starch-based diet:
http://www.drmcdougall.com/video/starch_solution.html

"The most important support for my conclusion that we are starch-eaters is based on an observation that you can easily validate for yourself: All large populations of trim, healthy people, throughout written human history, have obtained the bulk of their calories from starch. Examples of thriving people include, Japanese and Chinese in Asia eating sweet potatoes, buckwheat, and/or rice, Incas in South America eating potatoes, Mayans and Aztecs in Central America eating corn, and Egyptians in the Middle East eating wheat. "

Quote from: http://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2008nl/jan/grains.htm

Quorn-products contains eggs, and thus hurt and kill animals. They are also bad for your Health.

More about diabetes and a starch-based diet:
“Starchy foods, such as whole grains, beans, and vegetables, are healthful foods, and the body is designed to use the glucose that they hold. In type 2 diabetes, the body has lost some of this ability. But the answer is not to avoid starches, but to restore the body's ability to use them. After all, cultures whose diets are traditionally high in carbohydrate--Japan, China, Latin America, etc.--have had very low diabetes rates until meat, cheese, and other fatty foods displace their healthy carbohydrate-rich diets; only then does diabetes becomes more common.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kathy-freston/a-solution-for-diabetes-a_b_312219.html

Tackling diabetes with a bold new dietary approach: Dr. Neal Barnard: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktQzM2IA-qU

Vegan reply to Why vivisection and animal testing should be banned from medical institutions.

 This question boils down to the question whether animals have a moral value or not. I would say that almost everyone does believe that animals do have a moral value. Let me show how.

“One of the main arguments that I make is that although almost everyone accepts that it is morally wrong to inflict “unnecessary” suffering and death on animals, 99% of the suffering and death that we inflict on animals can be justified only by our pleasure, amusement, or convenience. For example, the best justification that we have for killing the billions of nonhumans that we eat every year is that we enjoy the taste of animal flesh and animal products. This is not an acceptable justification if we take seriously, as we purport to, that it is wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering or death on animals, and it illustrates the confused thinking that I characterize as our “moral schizophrenia” when it comes to nonhumans.”
Quote: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/vivisection-part-one-the-necessity-of-vivisection/#.UchssJxW6nk

Animal abuse is wrong because animals have a moral value. But if animals have a moral value, they also have the right to not be used as a resource, including the right not to be killed by humans.

“If you think that any sentient nonhuman life has a moral value, then it is irrational to deny that all nonhuman life has moral value. To put it another way, if you think that dogs or cats (or whomever) have moral value, you cannot logically exclude cows, fish, pigs, and chickens from the moral community. And having moral value means that we cannot use animals as a resource. Therefore, veganism is what follows from the simple recognition that animals are not things. If animals have any moral value, we cannot use them as resources. Peirod.” [Quote: http://www.facebook.com/abolitionistapproach]

Humans having a moral value, implies that we can’t use them as a resource, including we aren’t allowed to use them in vivisection.
Nonhuman animals do have a moral value, and thus we can’t use them as a resource, including we aren’t allowed to use them in vivisection.

------------------------

My reply to a person:
Please note that it is not only meat-eating that enslaves, hurts, uses and kills nonhuman animals, but ALL non-vegan choices, including the consumption of egg-, milk and other animal products. I recommend the website: www.vegankit.com for more information.
We can all learn to care more for each day, veganism is the first step; and then to educate all ones friends and the people one is meeting.

“As far as I am concerned, there is more suffering i I love this quote: “Our obligations to nonhuman animals are not a matter of charity or mercy; they are a matter of fundamental justice”

Quote: https://www.facebook.com/abolitionistapproach

“As far as I am concerned, there is more suffering in a glass of milk than in a pound of steak, though I would not consume either. Vegetarianism as a moral position is no more coherent than saying that you think it morally wrong to eat meat from a spotted cow but not morally wrong to eat meat from a non-spotted cow. We do not need any animal products for health purposes, and animal agriculture is an ecological disaster. The best justification that we have for killing billions of animals every year is that they taste good. That simply cannot suffice as a moral justification.”
Quote: http://www.believermag.com/issues/201102/?read=interview_francione


-------------------------

Codie-Joy Duncan,

You wrote: “What bugs me is people who claim they are vegetarian then go and eat fish. Fish is a living animal, it has a heart so how can you eat it”

Yes, and cows are also living animals, and they get killed in the milk industry. Male calves get killed before they are 18 months old, and female cows when they are 5 years old.

“As far as saving the animals go, I couldn't become vegan. I have so many health issues as it is, I'm quite surprised ive last over 3 years as a Vegetarian. I would love to become vegan but I dont think I could do it. Plus the cost of being vegetarian is insane, I cant imagine the cost for veganism.”

You will be way healthier on a vegan diet. Milk products are causing health problems. There are so many myths produced by the milk industry. I recommend this website: http://www.drmcdougall.com/med_hot_calcium.html and www.adelicatebalance.com.au

A vegan diet is really inexpensive. Basically you can eat a starch-based, home-cooked diet, cooked from mainly starches (e.g. potatoes, sweet potatoes, rice, lentils, chickpeas, etc.) with the additions of some vegetables and fruits. It is easy to get all nutrition from a vegan diet. The only supplement you may have to add is B-12: http://drmcdougall.com/misc/2007nl/nov/b12.htm

“I steer clear of it. I do eat egg as I get a good protein source from it, so that would be hard to give up.”

Eggs are very bad for human health: http://drmcdougall.com/misc/2005nl/march/050300pueastereggs.htm
Eggs are very bad for chickens. Male chicks in the egg industry are grounded up alive, hens are exploited and killed. Learn more in the movies here: http://www.vegankit.com/why

“ Im already ontop of the clothing and product part.”
That’s great!

“ I think my partner would hate me if I went vegan, he find it hard enough me being vegetarian “

Have you presented this argument for him?: http://articles.philly.com/2009-08-14/news/24986151_1_atlanta-falcons-quarterback-vick-illegal-dog-dog-fights

Follow your inner moral compass, stop exploiting the animals you love by eating animal products, go vegan. It is better for you, it is better for the environment, and most importantly, it is the only ethical thing to do.