VEGAN THREAD is ressurected 4 lulz

[lgolem]

http://www.peta.org.uk/


that is all the fucking book is, it is writin by a MAJOR supporter of PETA (the legit PETA not the People Eating Tasty Animals PETA). You can win copies of the book by supporting Peta.

Skinny Bitch is Peta
and is now dead to me

[chocobojoe]

Skinny Bitch is Peta
and is now dead to me

Alcoholic beverages and fruit juice are more toxic for you than diet pop, also. (source)

[BigBadOrc]

are those vegan? I know a lot of fast food chains have vegetarian substitutes but I am drawing a blank trying to think of one that serves vegan items.

I just looked on chipotle's website and it says its rice is made with cilantro, citrus juice, and salt. Their guacamole is also vegan, as are their black beans. However, their pinto beans are not. I'm not sure about their tortillas and they didn't say. Subway's veggie patty on wheat is vegan according to their website.

Skinny Bitch is Peta and is now dead to me

Why do you say that? I see on the website that Peta supports skinny bitch. Duh, it's a vegan book? But how do you come to the conclusion that the authors are major peta supporters? And even if they were, that doesn't invalidate any scientific argument they make

besides...... (links not quite work safe, but are pretty funny!)

one
http://www.booboob.net/blog/wp-content/ ... vabble.jpg
http://media-carnell.macrobyte.net/anim ... h_jane.jpg

Alcoholic beverages and fruit juice are more toxic for you than diet pop, also.

Quoting from your own source: "fruit juices and alcoholic beverages contain protective chemicals such as ethanol that block conversion of methanol into formaldehyde, while beverages with aspartame contain no "protective factors""

To say that fruit juice is worse for you than diet coke is quite a statement and I think you'll need a better source than that !

[Original Sin]

Fuck PETA. Animals are delicious. That's the way the food chain works. What's PETA going to do next, try to serve a fox a salad so it stops eating the cute little bunnies?
Perhaps we should put a PETA supporter in a cage with a tiger, and see how they feel about it then.

[SoDeepPolaris]

Fuck PETA. Animals are delicious. That's the way the food chain works. What's PETA going to do next, try to serve a fox a salad so it stops eating the cute little bunnies?
Perhaps we should put a PETA supporter in a cage with a tiger, and see how they feel about it then.

I dislike PETA for their methods and hypocrisy (animal euthanasia? wtf?), not because they promote animal rights.

The food chain? Compare our dental structure and digestive systems to carnivores. Omnivorous with the use of fire, at best.

No one responded to the point I made about the chain of products on the previous page. It's a VALID point.

[chocobojoe]

part of peta's website but might be useful for the vegan thing http://www.peta.org/accidentallyVegan/default.asp

[SoDeepPolaris]

part of peta's website but might be useful for the vegan thing http://www.peta.org/accidentallyVegan/default.asp

The majority of those foods are made by companies who also produce meat and dairy products.

PETA fails at focusing on the real issue.

"*Items listed may contain trace amounts of animal-derived ingredients. While PETA supports a strict adherence to veganism, we put the task of vigorously reducing animal suffering ahead of personal purity. Boycotting products that are 99.9 percent vegan sends the message to manufacturers that there is no market for this food, which ends up hurting more animals. For a more detailed explanation of PETA’s position, please visit http://www.caringconsumer.com/labels.html.
"

That's their response to my point. I fail to see how giving these companies money "vigorously reduces animal suffering."

[Fluffyumpkins]

part of peta's website but might be useful for the vegan thing http://www.peta.org/accidentallyVegan/default.asp

The majority of those foods are made by companies who also produce meat and dairy products.

PETA fails at focusing on the real issue.

"*Items listed may contain trace amounts of animal-derived ingredients. While PETA supports a strict adherence to veganism, we put the task of vigorously reducing animal suffering ahead of personal purity. Boycotting products that are 99.9 percent vegan sends the message to manufacturers that there is no market for this food, which ends up hurting more animals. For a more detailed explanation of PETA’s position, please visit http://www.caringconsumer.com/labels.html.
"

That's their response to my point. I fail to see how giving these companies money "vigorously reduces animal suffering."

Well it sorta makes sense. If something is truly 99.9% vegan, my guess is that the final mile for full out vegan manufacturing would cost a great deal of money. I'm sure there is a great deal of inspection of nearly all operations, not just ingredients. As they say, "Boycotting products that are 99.9 percent vegan sends the message to manufacturers that there is no market for this food." I'm guessing hippies don't have a lot of buyers potential anyway LOLOL.

[BigBadOrc]

The food chain? Compare our dental structure and digestive systems to carnivores. Omnivorous with the use of fire, at best.

No one responded to the point I made about the chain of products on the previous page. It's a VALID point.

Yes. You're saying that from a moral standpoint, it might be best not to buy ANYTHING from a company that has in any way stained its hands with animal cruelty. This is an interesting point, however its not really the central issue that I see. I became vegan because I want to be healthy and live a long time. If there are side benefits of not being cruel to animals, I think that's awesome But I'm not going to spend a lot of energy on changing the world - you won't see me in front of DC picketing the war either.

Edit: Looking at the peta list, it's pretty clear that all they care about is animal cruelty, and not health benefits. Oreos lul. And in fact, the bisquick on their list is one of the things I threw out.

[Original Sin]

The food chain? Compare our dental structure and digestive systems to carnivores. Omnivorous with the use of fire, at best.

Point being, if it's tasty, and I can outsmart it or otherwise subdue it, I'mma gonna eat it.

[BigBadOrc]

Hm.. so this site claims that humans were anatomically designed to be herbivores. Not even omnivores, but herbivores. http://www.newveg.av.org/anatomy.htm

This needs to be confirmed or refuted

Edit: Hm anatomical structure comparisons with carnivores and herbivores may not even be relevant except in the digestive sense - humans have adapted other methods of hunting/eating.

I'm going to play devil's advocate for a second:

# Intestinal receptors for heme iron. The existence of intestinal receptors for the specific absorption of heme iron is strong evidence of adaptation to animal foods in the diet, as heme iron is found in nutritionally significant amounts only in animal foods (fauna).

# B-12 an essential nutrient. Similarly, the requirement for vitamin B-12 in human nutrition, and the lack of reliable (year-round) plant sources suggests evolutionary adaptation to animal foods in the human diet.

# Plant foods are poor sources of EFAs. In general, the EFAs in plant foods are in the "wrong" ratio (with the exception of a very few exotic, expensive oils), and the low synthesis rates of EPA, DHA, and other long-chain fatty acids from plant precursors point to plant foods as an "inferior" source of EFAs. This strongly suggests adaptation to foods that include preformed long-chain fatty acids, i.e., fauna.

# Taurine synthesis rate. The low rate of taurine synthesis in humans, compared to that in herbivorous animals, suggests human adaptation to food sources of taurine (fauna) in the human diet.

# Slow conversion of beta-carotene. The sluggish conversion rate of beta-carotene to vitamin A, especially when compared to the conversion rate in herbivorous animals, suggests adaptation to dietary sources of preformed vitamin A (i.e., a diet that includes fauna).

# Plant foods available in evolution were poor zinc and iron sources. The plant foods available during evolution (fruits, vegetative plant parts, nuts, but no grains or legumes) generally provide low amounts of zinc and iron, two essential minerals. These minerals are provided by grains, but grains are products of agriculture (i.e., were not available during evolution), and contain many antinutrients that inhibit mineral absorption. This suggests that the nutritional requirements for iron and zinc were primarily met via animal foods during human evolution.

Hm.. so vegetarians should watch out for B-12, iron, zinc, riboflavin, and EFAs (omega-3, omega-6). Actually.. reading that again it looks like iron and zinc come from whole grain foods? I'm not sure what the deal is with vitamin-a/betacarotene/taurine.. but I think it's pretty interesting that they mention B-12 (in part 7. I linked to part 9) is in nutritional yeast. (also in soymilk). A lot of the recipies in Skinny Bitch contain nutritional yeast !

[malictus]

I've been off and on vegetarian/vegan diets for last couple years (from being strict veg to lacto ovo and everything in between).But one point I've always thought about is how does purchasing from an institution that involves itself with animal products affect your involvement of that animal usage?

Like, for instance take Boca Foods. Veggie and vegan products, taste good and they're generally pretty nutritious. However, they're a subsidiary of Kraft. Kraft produces tons of processed dairy and meat products, the majority of which really aren't good for you. In addition to that, Kraft is owned by Altria and Altria stockholders. ALTRIA (AKA PHILIP FUCKING MORRIS) is responsible for tons of cancerous products in our beloved modern world.

So, with a chain of command like that, does blissful ignorance come into play or do you have to make 100% conscious decisions to avoid giving even a penny to animal product using industries (i.e. not getting an eggplant pasta at Olive Garden)? Personally, I think giving money to those institutions helps them which in turn helps their dependency on animals for profits. You could argue in reverse that you aren't "directly" supporting that part, but unless there's a loss of profit you think accounting regards that?

Obviously, this moral choice is up to each individual, but I personally see nothing wrong with buying one kind of product from a manufacturer, even if they may be associated with other products I don't support. I'm still making a difference in the choices I make.

Let's assume, for a minute, that I'm an Amoral Heartless Ceo of a large company. My job is merely to sell whatever people will buy, and I don't give a damn whether it's safe and humane or not. Well, if no one is buying Product X, which is bad or dangerous, then I'm not going to sell it anymore. Simple supply and demand. So, if I as a consumer don't buy those products, I'm making a difference.

Granted, the effect is definitely more pronounced if you just stopped buying things from that company at all. But, at a certain point you have to think about things realistically. I think there are better ways to make a difference in the world than spending every waking moment making sure the products you buy have absolutely no connection with any companies that you are morally opposed to.

[BigBadOrc]

Thinking about vitamins as a vegan... not necessary according to these sites ~_~

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index ... 006AA01beM

http://www.vegsoc.org/info/vegan-nutrition.html

[Fluffyumpkins]

I think your pyramid might be drowning.

Edit: Amoral Heartless Ceo Chad Wagner. Kinda has a ring to it. How do I sign up?

[Merk]

Since when did bowling balls become legumes? Everyone knows that alley grease is made with cute puppy fat.

fukken vegin nubzz