VEGAN THREAD is ressurected 4 lulz

ShammerS · Post by **ShammerS** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 4:15 am

Kudos to you and your belief / diet connection. It'll be an interesting journey for you, I'm certain.

I, on the other hand, can't go a week without a Baconater from Wendy's. I should be a fatass.

chocobojoe · Post by **chocobojoe** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 9:41 am

Vegans don't like sugar because of all those mean Brazilians that whip those poor donkeys senseless to harvest the sugarcane.

BigBadOrc · Post by **BigBadOrc** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 10:15 am

Ho wrote:Please educate me. What's wrong with sugar? ...from a vegan perspective, anyway. I'll grant you the possibility of weight gain or tooth decay issues, but I'm pretty sure sugar is not an animal product in any way.

I know there is a lot of argument about the health risks of some or all of the substitutes, but I don't really think any of them are animal products either. Though I will admit I haven't really looked into them since I haven't been inclined to use any of them (and I generally think they taste like poo).

Indeed, the not eating sugar/sugar substitutes thing has nothing to do with veganism (as far as I know). This was not a pure vegan book. This was a health book. Veganism just turns out to be really healthy.

Fortunately, there are plenty of natural sweeteners such as evaporated sugar cane (it's really a whole foods vs refined/bleached foods argument), agave nectar, and molasses. Also I'm sure you'll be happy to hear that a number of points in the book have recently been challenged by a friend. So, I'm going to read over the citations and look up the original sources for myself and see what I come up with.

hascoolnickname · Post by **hascoolnickname** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 4:10 pm

there are a fair amount of straightedge vegans, who when combining these two militant subcultures formed the even more elitist "hardline" subculture. concerning white sugar: For veganism there is the health concern, straightedge it's breaking of all addictions and keeping the body pure, and for hardline its both plus the environmental and political effects this crop has on the world.

personally i understand and agree with most if not all of the ideas that these labels stand for, just don't see the need to fall into that group. I understand what people are trying to do when they join these ideas and label themselves in this way, but don't agree with what most of them do towards others outside or even within these cliques.

Fluffyumpkins · Post by **Fluffyumpkins** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 4:23 pm

Good luck in sorting out BS on either end. Many groups both, pro and against various chemicals in foods, rely on sensational claims and pictures that are marketed to get us, the consumer, emotionally involved. My advice? Stay away from 'vegan', 'vegetarian', 'conscious carnivore', and just look for a diet that you believe is best regardless of what you think you may not be allowed to eat.

SoDeepPolaris · Post by **SoDeepPolaris** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 7:07 pm

hascoolnickname wrote:there are a fair amount of straightedge vegans, who when combining these two militant subcultures formed the even more elitist "hardline" subculture. concerning white sugar: For veganism there is the health concern, straightedge it's breaking of all addictions and keeping the body pure, and for hardline its both plus the environmental and political effects this crop has on the world.

letshavetea · Post by **letshavetea** » Sun Jan 27, 2008 1:01 am

http://www.vegstarterkit.com/index.html lols usefullish

Original Sin · Post by **Original Sin** » Sun Jan 27, 2008 2:27 am

I like animals and everything, but at the same time.....well, they're delicious. Human beings have been eating meat since the dawn of time, and I've no intention of changing that.
True, the meat packing world is cruel, but I don't take too well to sensationalist media. And, scientific sources or not, not all scientific studies are done properly...you have to pay attention to the fine print, so to speak. How many sources did they use for their study? They could have very well just sought out the worst of any case and used that for their study, conveniently ignoring those that aren't convenient to their cause.
That aside, not all sources are true....at all. I've read plenty of books and magazines and studies with flat out lies, or fictitious sources. I'm not saying what you read IS false, just saying, don't take one point of view and run with it.

As for thinking that eating healthy will make you live longer...what's the point? Honestly, the way I see it, you're likely to get hit by a bus and die tomorrow, or have some other accident take your life. Life is funny like that. I'd rather enjoy mine, just in case. If I only live to see 75 or 80...oh well. At least I'm less likely to watch the passing of my spouse, as well as my kids. I'd rather die at 30, and lived a full exciting life, than crawl by to see 100, constantly worrying about the way I'm living. But, to each their own

None of this is meant as a personal jab at your choice...if that's what you want to do, then by all means, good luck. I just see so many people fall into things like this for the wrong reasons, and on the whole, the media just bugs me the way it tries to lure people into things.
And for those of you who don't like the meat packing industry....still want to eat meat? Try hunting. Despite what you may want to think, it's infinitely more humane than the way animals are slaughtered. And that aside, wild game is just damn tasty. You can get it prepared in all sorts of ways...no artificial hormones, chemicals, etc etc. Meat, the way nature intended it. Think it's cruel? At least if you're hunting a deer, it's got a sporting chance. Those animals at the slaughter house don't have a prayer. If it were me, I'd rather take a bullet to the heart and die quickly, than be cut and ripped apart while I'm still alive.

mexican ninja · Post by **mexican ninja** » Sun Jan 27, 2008 3:19 am

I skimmed the excerpt from that book and I already hate the author with a passion. But I'm sure you two will make fine vegans/whatever. I pretty much just hate militant types of people because I am extremely chill and they are not.

letshavetea · Post by **letshavetea** » Sun Jan 27, 2008 10:14 am

I thought the author was funny.

On Sin's post.

I try to eat healthy for a better NOW as well as future. I know that now I feel a lot better about my body than before I took this up, and doing so has made me aware of what I'm actually putting into me. If you think we're constantly paranoid about what we're throwing in our body, you've gotten the wrong impression. I'm never stressing about it, and so this isn't a strain on me at all.

I'd rather live to see 100 and see my grandkids grow up and whatnot. I'd like to outlive my spouse (so that they wouldn't have to be alone) and I'd like to be able to see my children develop. I'm not saying I wouldn't see that if I were eating meat, I'm just saying that there isn't a "benefit" for a short life whereas there is for a long one.

That's thinking of it without the whole killing of animals part thrown into it.

I'll agree that USUALLY hunting is more humane. I know a few kids back home that are just absolutely insane and think it's a joke to watch things suffer.

Even fish.. one time I was with my step brother fishing (yea, I've gone hunting too... settle down... not for several years though) he caught a little one he pulled it out of the water and nailed it's tail to the dock. Some people are just screwed up in the head.

Somehow my brain took me through a really weird path and I've decided that one of the worst jobs in the world is one of the guys who collects deer urine to put into those little bottles of "deer scent". Think about how they'd have to go about collecting that....

I was thinking about how you said the animals have a chance at life... and that chance is really only determined by how bad the hunter is. It's not hard at all to shoot something 100 yards away if you have the proper equipment.

At any rate.. STOP KILLING ANIMALS hahahahaha *sigh*

hascoolnickname · Post by **hascoolnickname** » Sun Jan 27, 2008 4:09 pm

SoDeepPolaris wrote:
hascoolnickname wrote:there are a fair amount of straightedge vegans, who when combining these two militant subcultures formed the even more elitist "hardline" subculture. concerning white sugar: For veganism there is the health concern, straightedge it's breaking of all addictions and keeping the body pure, and for hardline its both plus the environmental and political effects this crop has on the world.

SoDeepPolaris · Post by **SoDeepPolaris** » Sun Jan 27, 2008 5:13 pm

That .gif has always been lulz.

BigBadOrc · Post by **BigBadOrc** » Sun Jan 27, 2008 9:37 pm

@HCN and Fluffy: I see what you guys are saying about fitting in with labels. Certainly the label "vegan" does not exactly describe my stance on food, no more than the word "democrat" describes my political views or "caucasian" describes my ethnicity or "buddist" describes my religion or "software engineer" describes my job. These are all just labels which have stereotypes, some bad, some good. They're not exact, but they are close. I'm sure there are plenty of asshole vegans out there, but I'm also sure there are plenty of asshole caucasions, plenty of asshole democrats, plenty of asshole buddhists, plenty of asshole christians, plenty of asshole software engineers who eat hot pockets and watch star trek reruns all day. My point is that there are also some good vegans and vegetarians out there who aren't judgemental and retarded. I see your point though, I certainly wouldn't just adopt the vegan stance and start spewing canned anti-meat-eater phrases

I'm still an individual and I always try to keep an open mind.

@Original Sin: They had 226 citations from about 130 different sources. I'm in the process of going over the original sources to read what the original authors had to say. The main theory on meat is that the average cow or chicken has more than 100 different chemicals from pesticides to preservatives to antibiotics to steriods to rocket fuel. But even if that weren't true, humans are actually much better at digesting plants than meat or dairy. And the USDA is not on our side. I've found NOTHING that contradicts this book so far. So if someone skeptical wants to help fact check that'd be great. Your post also implies that you can't live a healthy life and enjoy it at the same time. I disagree. Sure, the healthly live and certainly veganism/vegetarianism is definately not for everyone, but I personally have every intention of enjoying it

We made burritos from tofu and veggie sausage today and it was pretty good. We also found some non dairy ice cream sandwiches that are absolutely delicious!

@mexican ninja: oh, I know. We were walking through Borders and I saw the book on the bestseller list and I was like "WTF, who would read this shit" And then I read a few pages... and then I realized that it wasn't written by stupid rednecks after all. I actually think the authors are quite intelligent.

malictus · Post by **malictus** » Sun Jan 27, 2008 10:15 pm

BigBadOrc wrote:@HCN and Fluffy: The main theory on meat is that the average cow or chicken has more than 100 different chemicals from pesticides to preservatives to antibiotics to steriods to rocket fuel.

I guess I'm just wondering why we're all not dying left and right if meat is as bad for us as you're making it out to be. Were you that unhealthy as a meat eater? What about plants that are genetically modified, fertilized, and bug-treated? Wouldn't they have just as many chemicals?

I admit that I haven't read the book, nor do I have access to it, but I do have to say that I'm skeptical of a book like this that's written by a model and a modeling agent and aimed at young girls. What exactly are the dangers of eating meat that this book is warning about?

BigBadOrc · Post by **BigBadOrc** » Sun Jan 27, 2008 10:32 pm

No, I wasn't that unhealthy of a meat eater. I avoided fast food. I always bought meat such as this: http://www.laurasleanbeef.com/

I was already preparing this, so I'll post what I have so far:

It's important to find quality sources from actual credible scientific research. I'm not sure how to find this. I admit I was a computer science major and really am not that good at research in general. (For example, it took me forever to figure out that "Ibid" means "same source as above" lol). All I did was look up a number of the points they made in the original sources (some online, some in books. I haven't gotten to the books yet.) I read the online sources for myself. I'm not sure why a book would be more credible than an online source. The only thing I can think of that would definitely be trustable is something published in a scientific journal.

Now, I read their online citations on three different subjects so far: USDA, Aspartame, and Dairy. Here's what I came up with:

Dairy

Main milk sucks link page http://www.milksucks.com/more.asp

http://www.milksucks.com/osteo.asp
http://www.pcrm.org/health/Info_on_Veg_Diets/milk.html
http://www.pcrm.org/health/Info_on_Veg_Diets/dairy.html
http://www.pcrm.org/health/veginfo/vege ... letes.html

I'll summarize what these sites say: Instead of preventing osteoporosis, milk is actually a major contributing factor in getting it. This is backed up by several scientific studies. Most animal products have 100 or more steroids, antibiotics, and pesticides in them that can cause cancer and other nasty shit.

USDA

I have to quote this site because they said it so well:

http://www.earthsave.org/news/polsmd.htm wrote:Having the same government agency charged with educating Americans about healthy eating also promoting industry interests is an obvious conflict of interest and explains in large part why the American public is not being told the entire truth about the nutritional value of its food choices. Big business has much at stake when it comes to maintaining the status quo. Until the USDA is reorganized to split these two competing interests, the American public will continue to be fed misinformation and unhealthy foods, resulting in ongoing high rates of chronic disease and related suffering.

same wrote:It's no secret that our taxpayer dollars are hard at work promoting the meat and dairy industries.

same wrote:Jennifer Raymond, M.S., a nutritionist, author and chef who has been trying for several years to get soy protein approved by the USDA for school lunches, tells an interesting tale of politics and greed. In the summer of 1996, prior to the fall elections, the USDA was just about to adopt a new regulation that would have made schools' use of soy protein 100 percent reimbursable. The regulation was inexplicably shelved. Then, last May, Raymond met with USDA officials, along with a small group representing the soy industry, in an attempt to persuade the agency to release the previously- stalled soy protein reimbursement regulation. Raymond described the scene: "After we had all made our pitches, one of the USDA aides asked, 'Have you met with the cattlemen? You know you need to do your homework and meet with them, because unless they approve this, we can't.' I was blown away! I mean, we all know who's really in charge, but to have him come right out and say it was mind-boggling! Most people have no idea about the money and politics behind the food that's served in the school cafeterias around the country." That a USDA official would openly admit to the unfettered power of the meat industry over a major food assistance program is disturbing evidence indeed of the politics of food in this country.

same wrote:Can you imagine Secretary of Human Health and Services (HHS) Donna Shalala doing ads for Coke or McDonalds? And yet log onto the web site http://www.whymilk.com, and hers is the first "mustache" you see.

http://www.organicconsumers.org/bytes/051005.cfm wrote:Lester Friedlander, a former USDA veterinarian, says he was told by USDA officials as far back as 1991 that if his testing laboratory ever found evidence of Mad Cow disease, he was to tell no one.

The site http://www.organicconsumers.org/organic/usda.cfm shows the USDA trying to let people cheat on organic label. Basically, you can't trust something to truely be organic if it's only certified by the USDA.

And one last dairy site: http://www.informedeating.org/docs/dair ... ganda.html

Aspartame

Asparame approval timeline:
http://www.quantumbalancing.com/news/as ... proved.htm

Anti aspartame links page: https://www.shopholistic.co.uk/viewdoc_61.php

One particularly anti aspartame page: http://www.healthandyoga.com/html/news/ ... iller.html