Why vegans don't eat honey

Patricia Soldan First honey is made by bees for themselves, it is their food, it is an animal product, so it is not vegan. People take (steal) the honey from them and give bees sugar instead (many bees are also hurt and die in the manipulation process). Using any type of animal product just reinforces the idea that animals, being them mammals, birds, insects etc are here to serve us, and this is exactly the paradigm that we are trying to shift. No matter to what species they belong to they should have full rights over their bodies and their products, they are sentient beings and should be nobody's property.

Ickevåld och mat, Gandhi, Jainism, hel-vegetarian, vegan

Översättning av bilden:
Ett åtagande för ickevåld börjar med att inte sätta i sig våld i kroppen och inte bära våld på kroppen.
Gary L. Francione
Bli vegan. Utbilda andra. Adoptera/fostra. | www.abolitionistapproach.com © AbolitionistApproach.com. Inte för kommersielt bruk. Foto: © Sustainable sanitation.
----

Här följer bara några citat som jag gillar:
"Non-violence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind. It is mightier than the mightiest weapon of destruction devised by the ingenuity of man.
Mahatma Gandhi"
"Non-violence is not a garment to be put on and off at will. Its seat is in the heart, and it must be an inseparable part of our being. Mahatma Gandhi
"At the center of non-violence stands the principle of love. Martin Luther King, Jr." (okej, inte från Gandhi, men tog med det)

"The most violent weapon on earth is the table fork." Gandhi

“I do feel that spiritual progress does demand at some stage that we should cease to kill our fellow creatures for the satisfaction of our bodily wants.” Mahatma Gandhi
"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.""
“It is necessary to correct the error that vegetarianism has made us weak in mind, or passive or inert in action. I do not regard flesh-food as necessary at any stage”    Mahatma Gandhi
“I hold flesh-food to be unsuited to our species. We err in copying the lower animal world if we are superior to it.”

"To my mind, the life of a lamb is no less precious than that of a human being. I should be unwilling to take the life of a lamb for the sake of the human body." Mohandas Gandhi (1869-1948)
It ill becomes us to invoke in our daily prayers the blessings of God, the Compassionate, if we in turn will not practice elementary compassion towards our fellow creatures.
—Mahatma Gandhi (1869–1948)

Det är tydligt att Gandhi i ickevåld omfamnade att inte praktisera våld mot (inklusive: inte döda) djur för mat (vilket är veganism om man ska följa det konsekvent, eftersom att all produktion av kött, mjölk och ägg som säljs i affärerna idag involverar våld mot djur). vilket också anhängarna av Jainism, som förespråkade Ahimsa (icke-våld), var tydliga med.

Jag skulle också vilja rekommendera: http://www.eatlikeyoucarebook.com/ och http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/06/varfor-alskar-vi-hundar-men-dodar-och.html

---
Some words to consider:
“Being vegan is easy. Are there social pressures that encourage you to continue to eat, wear, and use animal products? Of course there are. But in a patriarchal, racist, homophobic, and ableist society, there are social pressures to participate and engage in sexism, racism, homophobia, and ableism. At some point, you have to decide who you are and what matters morally to you. And once you decide that you regard victimizing vulnerable nonhumans is not morally acceptable, it is easy to go and stay vegan”
― Gary L. Francione

“Veganism is not about giving anything up or losing anything; it is about gaining the peace within yourself that comes from embracing nonviolence and refusing to participate in the exploitation of the vulnerable”
― Gary L. Francione

“If you are not vegan, please consider going vegan. It’s a matter of nonviolence. Being vegan is your statement that you reject violence to other sentient beings, to yourself, and to the environment, on which all sentient beings depend.”
― Gary L. Francione

"The most violent weapon on earth is the table fork." Gandhi

“I do feel that spiritual progress does demand at some stage that we should cease to kill our fellow creatures for the satisfaction of our bodily wants.”

"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.""


Vad tycker ni om detta?

Non-violence, no unnecessary harm and death towards animals = veganism

ADVENTURES IN RATIONAL THINKING

We all--including nonvegans--agree that it is wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering and death on animals.
We all--including nonvegans--agree that we can't justify imposing suffering and death on animals for pleasure.
We all--including nonvegans--agree that what Michael Vick did was wrong because he inflicted suffering and death on animals for pleasure.
But the best justification we have for inflicting suffering and death on the animals we eat or use for milk, eggs, etc. is palate pleasure. We don't need to eat animal foods to live healthy lives.
We cannot distinguish morally what we do when we consume animal foods from what Michael Vick did.
Therefore, if we really do take animals seriously as a moral matter, we are committed to not consuming any animal products whatsoever.
This is the idea we explore in "Eat Like You Care: An Examination of the Morality of Eating Animals" Quote from: http://www.facebook.com/abolitionistapproach
www.eatlikeyoucarebook.com

You can't both respect animals and kill animals for food

But if we don't have any need for animal foods, how can we say that we are respecting animals when we are disrespecting their life and killing them for palate "pleasure"/convenience?

We all agree that “unnecessary” animal suffering and death are morally wrong. If that means anything at all, it must mean that we cannot justify animal suffering and death by reasons of pleasure or convenience. But what is our best justification for imposing suffering and death on the 56 billion animals (excluding fish) we eat annually?

Pleasure. Convenience.

So the only justification we have is that which we agree cannot suffice. This is moral schizophrenia.
If you are not a vegan, you are participating directly in animal exploitation. Being a vegan is easy, better for your health, and the most powerful way that you, as an individual, can say “no” to animal exploitation.

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

Vegan reply to: "God wants/allows us to eat meat"

"Even if you believe that you have a soul and animals don’t, and that we ought to prefer the interests of a human in any situation in which we must choose—that is, in any situation of legitimate conflict—that gets us right back to the fact that when you are deciding what to eat tonight, there is no conflict. There is only a choice. If you choose the animal product, you are participating in suffering and death in the absence of any sort of conflict or compulsion. Your only justification is that you enjoy consuming animal products or that it is more convenient for you to do so.

Think about it this way. Imagine that Michael Vick were to say that dog fighting was okay because dogs don’t have souls. Would you buy that? Imagine that Vick says God wants us to fight dogs because they don’t have souls. Would you buy that? You would respond to Vick that God’s creating us in God’s image means that in situations of conflict between human and nonhumans, we ought to protect the human interest over the animal interest. So in the situation in which a person is in a true emergency situation, such as being in a situation where she is starving to death with no plant foods to eat, it would make sense for a religious person to say that God wants her to kill and eat an animal and that she ought to do so. But saying that God wants us to eat animal foods when we are not in that sort of emergency situation is no different from saying that God wants us to fight dogs. If you outrageous perhaps—you should find the former so as well.would find the latter to be objectionable—outrageous perhaps—you should find the former so as well." Quote: http://www.eatlikeyoucarebook.com/

 

"Since it's now an established medical fact that humans have no need to consume animal products in order to live long and healthy lives I have a question for believers. If God created us in his own image He must have made us this way, so why would He then think it's OK to enslave, mistreat and murder billions of His other creations completely unnecessarily?" Quote Alan R.

I recommend you to study this: http://www.eatlikeyoucarebook.com/

 

 

 

 

Vegan reply to counter argument: But…Isn’t eating animal products, meat, milk, eggs, etc., natural?

 If our body was designed for meat consumption, humans wouldn't get these problems: http://vimeo.com/15787322 , http://www.adelicatebalance.com.au/
Meat in large quantities is not dangerous for an omnivore.

I don't understand this "human nature"/natural-argument.

It is also discussed here:
Question 5: Isn’t human use of animals a “tradition,” or “natural,” and therefore morally justified?Answer: Every form of discrimination in the history of humankind has been defended as “traditional.” Sexism is routinely justified on the ground that it is traditional for women to be subservient to men: “A woman’s place is in the home.” Human slavery has been a tradition in most cultures at some times. The fact that some behavior can be described as traditional has nothing to do with whether the behavior is or is not morally acceptable.

In addition to relying on tradition, some characterize our use of animals as “natural” and then declare it to be morally acceptable. Again, to describe something as natural does not in itself say anything about the morality of the practice. In the first place, just about every form of discrimination ever practiced has been described as natural as well as traditional. The two notions are often used interchangeably. We have justified human slavery as representing a natural hierarchy of slave owners and slaves. We have justified sexism as representing the natural superiority of men over women. Moreover, it is a bit strange to describe our modern commodification of animals as natural in any sense of the word. We have created completely unnatural environments and agricultural procedures in order to maximize profits. We do bizarre experiments in which we transplant genes and organs from animals into humans and vice versa. We are now cloning animals. None of this can be described as natural. Labels such as “natural” and “traditional” are just that: labels. They are not reasons. If people defend the imposition of pain and suffering on an animal based on what is natural or traditional, it usually means that they cannot otherwise justify their conduct.
Quote: www.abolitionistapproach.com/faqs/

----
There is no doubt that we can live a very healhty life on a vegan diet:
“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.” — Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (formerly the American Dietetic Association)

Thus, eating animal foods is inflicting unnecessary harm and death upon animals, and this we all agree is morally wrong.

---------------------More arguments:

Quote from www.eatlikeyoucarebook.com/ :

This “But” is like saying that God wants us to eat animals but we don’t need to bother with God.  Something else that is big and important—nature— wants us to eat animals. If we don’t eat animals,we are acting against nature. We are behaving in

an unnatural way. That’s powerful stuff—even if you’re an atheist. In fact, “But Natural” is like “But God” without God. It seeks to establish necessity, but without God. But why do we think that nature intends, whatever that means, that we eat animals? The usual response is to say that we are physically adapted to eat meat and other animal products.

 

Putting aside that many people are lactose intolerant, and that many physicians are pointing out that animal products are detrimental to human health, the most we can say is that we can eat animal products; there is nothing about our bodies that suggests that our bodies are designed to do so. Humans compare physically much more to herbivores than to carnivores. Carnivores have well-developed claws. We don’t have claws. We also lack the sharp front teeth carnivorous animals need. Although we still have canine teeth, they are not sharp and cannot be used in the way carnivorous animals use their sharp canine teeth. We have flat molar teeth, as seen in herbivores, such as sheep, that we use for grinding. Carnivores have a short intestinal tract so that they can quickly expel decaying meat. Herbivores have a much longer intestinal tract as do humans. Herbivores and humans have weak stomach acid relative to carnivores who have strong hydrochloric acid in their stomachs to digest meat. Herbivorous animals have well-developed salivary glands for pre-digesting fruits and grains and have alkaline saliva that is needed to predigest grains, as do humans. Carnivorous animals do not have similar salivary glands and have acid saliva.

(..) And, as we stated earlier, the evidence is quite clear that we don’t need animal products to be optimally healthy. You would think that if we were intended to eat animal products, those of us who don’t (and haven’t for decades) would suffer deleterious health effects. But we don’t. We do just fine. We have to make sure we get vitamin B-12, which humans do not manufacture, or at least not in reliable quantities. But all humans have to get B-12 from somewhere. Carnivores get it from meat; vegans get it from nutritional yeast, other fortified food, or supplements. But all B-12 comes from microorganisms. (..)

 

So while there is considerable evidence that animal foods are detrimental to human health, we don’t want to get into a battle of studies here to convince you that it’s healthier not to eat animal products. We do, however, want to make clear that the very best a consumer of animal products can say is that her diet is no better than that of someone who eats a balanced diet of non-animal foods.

 

In sum, there is no evidence that nature requires that we eat animal products. Indeed, the extant evidence is to the contrary." End of quote.

 
More Resources:
Humans have no known anatomical, physiological, or genetic adaptations to meat consumption.
We have many adaptations to plant consumption.
Vitamin C is found in plants. We can’t make it ourselves such as carnivores.
Quote:
http://tedxtalks.ted.com/video/Debunking-the-Paleo-Diet-Christ;search%3Adebunking%20paleo
True human diet. Humans evolved on a starch-based diet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0PF5R0ywp4
"Dartmouth Associate Professor of Anthropology, Nathaniel Dominy PhD, talks about his research and why he believes the true human diet is one based in Starch. "

Some more links here: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/04/vegan-answer-to-humans-are-at-top-of.html

Fiskar och andra utrotningshotade djur och deras rätt att leva

Mitt inlägg till en person:
Fint att du kämpar för fiskar.
En art består av många individer. Alla har ett egenvärde. De värderar sina egna liv, och således är de värdefulla.
Alla individer av alla arter är lika värdefulla, oavsett om de är utrotningshotade eller inte. Du håller nog med, men det är viktigt att vara tydlig om detta när man kommunicerar med andra.

Så länge som djur är 'egendom' så kommer de bli utsatta för onödigt lidande och död, inklusive ägare som dödar sina djur när de tröttnar på dem eller överger sina djur på andra sätt. Rekommenderar denna artikel för ett fullständigt resonemang: http://bloganders.blogspot.se/2013/07/varfor-djurskyddslagen-och-lagen-om-att.html

Om man inte vill utsätta djur för onödigt lidande och död ska man arbeta för att avskaffa deras egendom-status, vilket gör att de blir totalt oskyddade från människor som inte vet hur man ska behandla djur.
Djur kommer att ha en egendom-status så länge som vi domesticerar djur, och framförallt så länge som vi anser att det är okej att utsätta djur för onödigt lidande och onödig död för 'gastronomisk njutning' av djurprodukter eller 'estetiska prefenser' för kläder av djurprodukter, etc.