Sometimes I just wonder about the strangest things.
Sometimes I just wonder about the strangest things.
It's not a rule, but generally vegan are against violence, both against other humans and animals as well. Thus I'd assume they'd dislike abortions as well.
My personal guess is some think abortion is Ok and some don't. There are likely some that think that those that were not born with a uterus don't have a right to express their opinion about that subjext.
The vast majority of vegans are leftist/liberals. Being that, they must fully support the freedom to have an abortion.
So paradoxically, they don't extend the same empathy they feel towards animals to human fetuses.
The vast majority of vegans are leftist/liberals.
How can you possibly know that "the vast majority of vegans are leftist/liberals"? Do you have some half-vast poll that shows that. Do all these vegans you are so sure about describe their own politics that way - or is that a label you've given them?
I have a vast amount of anecdotal experience. I've yet to meet one conservative or libertarian vegan. Hell, I've yet to meet a single centrist vegan. Vegans are always leftist. It seems veganism goes hand in hand with socialism and social activism. It's almost a stereotype.
I'm very open minded and I change my mind when presented with facts that make me change my mind.
So, unless you can present me with some kind of evidence to the contrary, I'll stick to my assertion.
Vegans are always leftist.
My evidence contrary to your false assertion is my personal knowledge, not anecdotal as you say yours is. My sister-in-law is a vegan Mom who labels herself a conservative Republican. Her daughter, at age 15, is also a vegan. To the best of my knowledge, the daughter has not yet adopted a political label for herself.
The "problem" with vegans is not that they have a political philosophy different from mine - but that they have different eating habits. Ever try to prepare a meal suitable for guests that include a vegan (who eats no meat and loves pasta and sweets) and an elderly woman (who loves meat and despises vegetables)? Satisfying both is twice the work. Might as well prepare two separate meals. Throw in as another guest a diabetic man (no pasta, no sweets) and preparing a meal becomes complicated.
As best as I can tell, the vegan Mom and the elderly woman more or less agree with each other politically.
From the evidence I have available, being a vegan means absolutely nothing when it comes to politics.
The vast majority of vegans are leftist/liberals. Being that, they must fully support the freedom to have an abortion.
Adolf Hitler was a devout vegetarian who advocated for vegetarianism (the term Vegan wasn't in use until 1944) and many current day, far right wing, neo-Nazis/White Supremacists are emulating him by going full vegan. Just say'in. (that you are totally wrong....)
Adolf Hitler was a devout vegetarian who advocated for vegetarianism (the term Vegan wasn't in use until 1944) and many current day, far right wing, neo-Nazis/White Supremacists are emulating him by going full vegan. Just say'in. (that you are totally wrong....)
Whoa! Slow your roll, chief.! Hitler was a socialist. The NASDAP (The National Socialist German Workers' Party) often called the NAZI party, was a socialist group.
The modern day splinter organizations that pretend to emulate Hitler have simply cherry-picked the most offensive bits of his various stances and created a new philosophy of their on.
Thankfully, the new groups are even more offensive (and less intelligent) than old Adolf. He was an evil, disgusting human but smarter than the average demagogue in knowing how to address issues that the people cared about and gain support.
Your argument is specious at best.
Hitler was a socialist.
Dude, you need to crack open a history book!
The National German Socialist Workers' Party might have had "socialist" in it's name, but that was as close as they ever came.
Actually, shortly after the Nazis took power, they banned the Social Democratic Party and sent their leaders (and most other leftists) to concentration camps.
BTW, here is what Snopes.com has to say on the subject, "The claim that the Nazis actually were leftists or socialists in any generally accepted sense of those terms flies in the face of historical reality." .
Now let's follow that up with what Wiki has to say... "Nazism is a form of fascism...".
[/educating people who don't read history books]
You understand that snopes is a leftist site do you not? They are far from the arbiters of facts they are made out to be. A bit of research into the founders of snopes will reveal that truth.
As for history, which history do you refer to? If you're pulling that from wiki, I'd suggest you review the editing history of the page. Wiki has turned into history by consensus, a consensus not associated with reality in many cases. Of course
Revisionist history has one fatal flaw. There are too many hard copy books still in existence for it to be viable. Many professors and teachers these days under the age of forty are unaware of the breadth of the changes that have been made as they rely heavily on the Internet. It's on the Internet so it must be true... right?
The nazis were most definitely socialist. We can go round and round over that, but it won't change the history. I've family still alive that were children and young adults born in Germany during their reign. Some of their sisters and brothers died at the hands of those bastards. It is you who needs the history lesson.
Revisionist history
Try reading some of George Orwell's contemporary accounts of fighting in the Spanish Civil War. Hitler helped Franco defeat socialists and their assorted left-wing allies of convenience.
Try reading some of George Orwell's contemporary accounts of fighting in the Spanish Civil War. Hitler helped Franco defeat socialists and their assorted left-wing allies of convenience.
Your argument is most likely futile. If I remember correctly, the non-revisionist historians in this forum already outed Franco as a socialist as well.
Your argument is most likely futile.
Is there a word in German meaning something like 'I know it's futile but what the heck?' :-)
Is there a word in German meaning something like 'I know it's futile but what the heck?' :-)
Generally, I'd call someone like that a 'Sturkopf', which translates into 'pigheaded fellow' in English. Regarding the special context, I prefer the term 'Alamo Socialist', which I'm pretty sure is a horrible blasphemy somehow.
Your argument is most likely futile. If I remember correctly, the non-revisionist historians in this forum already outed Franco as a socialist as well.
So your entire definition of 'revisionist' is anyone who disagrees with you?
Wow! I knew we were living in a dangerous age, when people feel free to simply believe ANY 'facts' they prefer while droning out everyone else, but I'm guessing your readings of history are highly revisionist as well.
Don't forget, one of the strongest American factions supporting Hitler was the NYC liberal 'anti-war' faction, who thought allowing Hitler to operate 'on his own' was the best way to avoid a war in Europe entirely. Those people, historically speaking, are best described as 'delusional'!
So your entire definition of 'revisionist' is anyone who disagrees with you?
Are you certain you addressed the right comment?
So your entire definition of 'revisionist' is anyone who disagrees with you?
Are you certain you addressed the right comment?
Frankly, I no longer care. This entire thread, started on an entirely frivolous point, has completely spiraled into a purely political rant, verging dangerous close to outright alt-right talking points.
I'm done. This is a prime example of everything that's most dangerous about the internet!
If anyone wants to discuss the 'vegetarian perspective' in all its ramifications, I welcome them to email me, but I refuse to argue against blatant political rhetoric.
Try reading some of George Orwell's contemporary accounts of fighting in the Spanish Civil War. Hitler helped Franco defeat socialists and their assorted left-wing allies of convenience.
True, because those socialists in Spain wanted to put in place a World Socialist order under the control of Stalin while Franco wanted a Spanish Socialist order under his control. A similar thing happened in Germany where Hitler absorbed many of the German socialists into the Nazi party and then set about eliminating the socialists who wanted a World Socialist organisation controlled by Stalin. The fighting wasn't about doctrine so much as to who would be in charge.
edit to add; A major part of the problem with how some people see the Nazi and Fascist parties is most people see only the World Socialist organizations that seek to have a one world government with a supreme socialist leader who puts the world as one government to control while the Nazis and Fascist want a National socialist party with their own local leader who puts their country first. That's why the word Nationalist is in the Nazi name.
George Orwell was a democratic socialist. Not exactly what I would call an unbiased opinion.
George Orwell was a democratic socialist. Not exactly what I would call an unbiased opinion.
Yes. And he fought on the side opposing Hitler and other fascists.
You understand that snopes is a leftist site do you not? They are far from the arbiters of facts they are made out to be. A bit of research into the founders of snopes will reveal that truth.
Speaking of 'relying on the internet', I seriously suggest you should consider your own internet browsing history, as most of your arguments here are merely echoing the increasingly vocal alt-right (the 'neo neo-Nazis'). All 'fact checking' sites are actually leftist propoganda (i.e. their efforts don't reflect any basic understanding of provable facts), that Hitler was in fact a leftist liberal, and that he didn't go far enough in exterminating minorities, and that 'the entire American educational system is a vast leftist propaganda machine, intent on silencing the right'.
Speaking of 'relying on the internet', I seriously suggest you should consider your own internet browsing history, as most of your arguments here are merely echoing the increasingly vocal alt-right (the 'neo neo-Nazis'). All 'fact checking' sites are actually leftist propoganda (i.e. their efforts don't reflect any basic understanding of provable facts), that Hitler was in fact a leftist liberal, and that he didn't go far enough in exterminating minorities, and that 'the entire American educational system is a vast leftist propaganda machine, intent on silencing the right'.
They did not come from Internet sources. I do take offense at your characterization of my comments. If you had even a brief understanding of my background, your understand just how far off base you are by insinuating I'm a nazi, or even remotely aligned with them. If Hitler were to have gotten his hands on my ancestors, they would have been gassed as well.
Is calling someone a nazi your goto argument, or can you better define what 'specifically' you are trying to say?
that Hitler was in fact a leftist liberal
Hitler was a leftist, on the American spectrum because he advocated for nationalizing(socializing) all industries. Yes, their implementation was a hybrid that allowed for "private ownership" but only for approved persons "in good standing" and even then, the owners were beholden to demands/expectations from the government.
But really, you're arguing "there is no true Scotsman" on this one, and it is a very highly annoying thing most Liberally inclined people do. After all "no truly socialist government" has ever existed, much like" no truly communistic government" has ever existed either. So we need to give those two systems of governance a try, never mind the wreckage of the dozens of countries who have attempted to go down those roads.
We need to ignore the wreckage because "they weren't truly what they claimed to be....."
Hitler was a leftist, on the American spectrum because he advocated for nationalizing(socializing) all industries.
By such a brain-dead definition every tyrant, despot, and dictator who ever graced the face of this world was a socialist. How do you want to control a country unless you hold all important resources in your hands?
By such a brain-dead definition every tyrant, despot, and dictator who ever graced the face of this world was a socialist. How do you want to control a country unless you hold all important resources in your hands?
Well, Hitler also had that whole "worker's party" thing going on in addition to being a "national socialist" neither of which have Any affiliation with "right wing politics" in the United States, but a very long history on "the left."
Hitler campaigned as a Socialist, at least until his party gained control. What they did after doesn't matter. It goes back to "there are dozens of nations" with very horrific outcomes tied to self-professed Socialist or Communistic agendas. Which is where "no true Scotsman" keeps getting invoked, and others have started to rightfully go "Don't care" because EVERY time a nation has thought they were on the path towards that, they found themselves in Authoritarian Purgatory instead.
It is because of THAT whole history of finding purgatory rather than paradise that my preference is to avoid major Socialist and Communist platform planks like the plague. Because getting the plague might actually be preferable in that case.
Well, Hitler also had that whole "worker's party" thing going on in addition to being a "national socialist" ...
May I assume that by the same amount of factual evidence, you accept that every country which has 'Democratic' in its self-applied name is a Democracy?
May I assume that by the same amount of factual evidence, you accept that every country which has 'Democratic' in its self-applied name is a Democracy?
Actually, by the logic I employ based on the realization of Socialist nations... Anybody who identifies as a Socialist is more likely to be looking for a means to exercise Authoritarian Control over MY life than they are interested in actually trying to help me. Even if they insist otherwise.
I pay attention to history, and have no interest in repeating it.
Anybody who identifies as a Socialist is more likely to be looking for a means to exercise Authoritarian Control over MY life than they are interested in actually trying to help me.
You may 'identify' any playground bully who wants all the toys as a socialist if it helps you organize your worldview. Just don't pretend it's a historically proven fact.
You may 'identify' any playground bully who wants all the toys as a socialist if it helps you organize your worldview. Just don't pretend it's a historically proven fact.
It's how I would go about doing so, and history indicates it is how a VERY long list of others had gone about doing so. It is one of the best scams a person could possibly run, so long as you're able to place yourself in one of the upper tiers of the new power structure.
So I stand by the idea of treating any self-proclaimed Socialist as somebody who isn't actually out to help me, but is rather going to screw my life in ways I will be unable to recover from, without respect to if I cooperate or not.
At least with a self-described "capitalist," I know he's trying to screw me, he'll often even admit as much, but at least I have both the option to "walk away" and potentially have the ability to recover.
I don't like unrestricted capitalism, so in that respect I do like it when the number of ways "the capitalist" can screw me are limited, but at the same time, I will take my chances with Capitalism over Socialism.
Hitler was a leftist, on the American spectrum because he advocated for nationalizing(socializing) all industries.
By such a brain-dead definition every tyrant, despot, and dictator who ever graced the face of this world was a socialist. How do you want to control a country unless you hold all important resources in your hands?
In retrospect, this requires clarification of "The American Political Spectrum" vs the "European Model" where they align on different axis from one another, although people keep trying to shove that square peg into the round hole.
Right/Left for the United States, at its core, seems to more firmly fixate on Federal vs State/Individual power. That our politics "flipped" around the end of the 19th Century further confuses things.
The Right/Left "spectrum" in both cases originates in France where King Louis held court and those who supported the Crown(and Aristocracy) sat on his Right, while the Liberals who supported giving more autonomy to "the people" sat on his left.
Which in the U.S. led to the Federalists becoming "the right wing" as they supported growing federal power as the new proxy for the crown. While the (Jeffersonian) Democrats supported giving autonomy to the states and individuals respectively... Bearing in mind both Federalists and Democrats were "Liberals" so far as the French were concerned. (Yes, there are some time-frame issues in this summary/example) The Federalists subsequently became Whigs, who subsequently became Republicans, but the "right/left" axis kept to Democrats being "left" on the U.S. spectrum.
I don't think anyone really knows how exactly it came about, but by the 1920's the Republicans and Democrats had essentially switched sides in regards to expanding federal powers.
Which gets us to "right-wing" in America meaning someone favoring individual or state autonomy over Federal oversight. While a "left-wing" individual will favor government oversight(any level) and authority on any of a broad range of things.
Or more aptly, it may be more correct to say the Republicans remained largely true to Federalist positions circa 1800, while the Democrats have proceeded to progress well beyond even those.
Which then brings us over to European side of things. Where I am sure a European would perhaps be better suited to describe that.
But my guess is because the U.S. never strongly identified with "the Crown" and had a VERY different relationship with "crown/noble lands" and other assorted "crown resources" that Right/Left for Europe became more about which proverbial hand things were coming from at group levels rather than having much particular regard for individual considerations.
Hitler was a leftist, on the American spectrum because he advocated for nationalizing(socializing) all industries. Yes, their implementation was a hybrid that allowed for "private ownership" but only for approved persons "in good standing" and even then, the owners were beholden to demands/expectations from the government.
Most people don't have any problems with Hitler's economic policies. In fact, most capitalist countries, in the west, presented him as a great capitalist reformer.
He, and Mussolini, were credited with saving capitalism from the radical left.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-american-papers-that-praised-hitler
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/how-journalists-covered-rise-mussolini-hitler-180961407/
People then, and now, don't decry Hitler's economic reforms. The problematic stuff was the anti-Semitism, racism, authoritarianism, wars of aggression, and genocide. By your barometer, since Britain has NHS, they are Nazis, right?
Are you trying to get this thread locked?
I doubt @sufi knew about the new policy on no political discussions here.
I apparently missed the announcement while away from home for a few days.
I didn't know until a new thread I started on Brexit (a subject which has not started any battles here) was deleted.
Is political discussion not allowed anymore? If it is, then I apologize, I was not aware of this change in policy.
Is political discussion not allowed anymore? If it is, then I apologize, I was not aware of this change in policy.
It's always good to check what's on the following sub-forum every few weeks if you don't check the 'All threads by date" each day
https://storiesonline.net/d/s1/site-announcements
"Whoa! Slow your roll, chief.! Hitler was a socialist. The NASDAP (The National Socialist German Workers' Party) often called the NAZI party, was a socialist group. "
Um, don't believe everything you read on propaganda sites.
1) Hitler was never Socialist (as opposed to Mussolini, who started as a Socialist.
2) Hitler, notoriously, first attended a Nazi meeting as a police spy. He decided that, since they were anti-Semite, they were okay.
3) At that time, and for some time around then, the Left was trying to organize people around class, and the Right tried to organize people around Nationality or ethnic group. The NATIONAL socialist GERMAN workers party tried to transcend that by organizing people around both. (I get the impression that they were not the first German party to use those terms.)
4) Hitler and his followers purged the NAZI Party of its leftist elements in the famous "Night of the Long Knives.
I expect Remus2 to "explain" to you that your factual comments are leftist and are, therefore, revisionist! (even if historically correct and would be accepted at face value if delivered with a conservative bias).
He seems to be all about people having only "unbiased opinions". (well... except for himself.) LOL
Your argument is specious at best.
And your argument, that Hitler was in fact a liberal socialist, is just as specious. If we all draw massive generalization from a single word or concept espoused by everyone we encounter, then soon the entire world is composed of "US" vs. "THEM", as we can cherry pick their views based on a few random things they utter. It's better to base your assumptions on their message, rather than random, largely irrelevant slices of their life.
the term Vegan wasn't in use until 1944
Vegan is also quite a bit broader than vegetarianism and covers the use of animal based products outside of diet.
The only right I have in this debate is as follows:
I can only make sure the woman/girl has all the information possible both for and against abortion. Then let her make the choice which is best for her. Its not my body its hers.
edited to add: I would personally choose giving the baby a chance, but like I said its not my body.
I've no idea about what the vegans believe in general or individually. However, there's one aspect of the abortion debate which I never see discussed in the media or forums, and I've no intention of argue for or against either side of the issues. Just raising the multiple points for others to consider.
1. Various groups push the line that only the woman has the right to decide if they have an abortion or not.
2. The same groups refuse the father any say in the abortion decision.
3. Many of the same groups argue that when a child is born the father has a financial responsibility to support the child, and that he has no right to refuse to support the child.
Many of the same people support all three positions at the same time. Thus they don't want the father to have any say in the decision, but to support the child if the mother allows it to be born.
On a personal level I leave it to the responsibility of the individuals involved to make the decision on all of the aspects, but it does need thinking about how lobbyist push the laws in two directions at the same time with the same baseline reasons.
2. The same groups refuse the father any say in the abortion decision.
No one, that I've ever heard at least, suggests anything of the kind. But, their emphasis is that, while they value the father's opinion, unless they're willing to step up and help shoulder the responsibilities that fall mainly on the women, then the woman herself should have the final word on the issue.
Given the steep obstacles a pregnancy places on a woman's life, and how severely it limits her career opportunities, having a guy say "I don't believe in abortion on religious grounds" doesn't offer much financial support for either her or the child for the next fifty years.
No one, that I've ever heard at least, suggests anything of the kind.
All of the pro-abortion groups I've come across have insisted that the father has absolutely no say in the decision.
I know of one fellow who wanted the baby even offered to take on sole care for the child once it was born and offered to pay all the living and medical costs during the pregnancy was totally frozen out by the girl and her family. She eventually decided on an abortion, and he was angry. He was an atheist, so the religious argument didn't come into it.
As to the financial aspects. Some of the local pro-abortion groups insist the father should pay for the abortion, even while they say he has no say in it occurring. Sounds like a government group, - you have no say but you got to pay for it.
Getting back on thread subject, I've known several vegans who are conservative. All of which were religiously driven variants of seventh day adventist. No one could accuse them of being liberal I assure you.
In the broader sense, vegans do lean heavily towards being leftist/liberals outside of the exceptions I'm aware of. It's to the point that vegetarians vs vegans should be defined. They are not at this point in history, one and the same with the only shared experience being the aversion to eating flesh.
Getting back on thread subject, I've known several vegans who are conservative. All of which were religiously driven variants of seventh day adventist. No one could accuse them of being liberal I assure you.
For the most part, and based purely on my own personal observations, the vast majority of vegans are young preteen girls experimenting with expressing their views in a non-confrontational way in the face of an overpowering father figure (i.e. if they're afraid of tackling him on social issue, simply assert that you 'believe in the sanctity of live and then see how likely he is to EVER support anything else you might say in the future).
That too, is a vast oversimplification, but it exemplifies how the subject is very nuanced. Most vegans' decisions are based on things other than a 'sanctity' of life.
For years, we sent our two girls to a Seventh-Day Adventist summer camp, simply to help them clean out a years worth of eating junk food in school and on the streets of Manhattan. They always came back ravenous for burgers, but it at least provided an alternative world view and hopefully helped prevent a slide into obesity.
(And just in case you think I'm being two-faced about sending my daughters to a 'vegan camp' while I pigged out on steak, while they were gone, we'd typically go heavily vegetarian (fish and eggs, but no red meat, and often 5 t0 7 servings of vegetables with each meal, rather than relying on 'protein and starches').)
The SDA I refer to were self identified 'vegans'. I won't get into the veracity of that claim given the wide variances of opinion on that.
It was my understanding that Veganism is a diet. So unless you're planning on eating the fetus it isn't a relevant question. A vegan can fall anywhere along the political spectrum.
It was my understanding that Veganism is a diet.
No, Vegetarianism (in several flavors) is a diet.
Veganism preaches avoiding animal based products in all aspects of your life, not just diet. Leather goods in any form are forbidden.
I stand corrected. So I amend my statement to this: Unless you plan to make clothing out of or eat the fetus or both the question is irrelevant.
I stand corrected. So I amend my statement to this: Unless you plan to make clothing out of or eat the fetus or both the question is irrelevant.
And you're missing the reason for why they don't consume animal products, either by eating them or wearing them. The typical justification vegans is they oppose animal cruelty in all forms. Basically, if it had a nervous system, they view it as unethical/immoral for us to kill it for our own gain, or even simply keep it alive so we can milk it or harvest its fur/hair.
So most of "those vegans" if they're being consistent, should be opposed to abortion at least once the nervous system becomes active in the fetus. But humans are known for being particularly logical, or consistent about a great many things.
The typical justification vegans is they oppose animal cruelty in all forms.
But humans are not known for being particularly logical, or consistent about a great many things.
As proven by your comment, since I can't see a reason why anyone would need a justification for not doing something.
since I can't see a reason why anyone would need a justification for not doing something.
And you don't at all understand what's involved if you think veganism is "not doing something".
1. Biologically, humans are omnivores. A completely animal free diet is deeply unnatural. It's also dangerous, potentially fatal.
A vitamin B12 deficiency can be fatal, but there are NO natural non-animal sources for B12. All other forms of vegetarian diets, mostly religiously derived, allow one or more of fish, eggs, or dairy products.
2. A vegan lifestyle requires a considerable amount of effort. The complete avoidance of animal derived components in hair care products, skin care products, cleaning products, etc... is not simple and easy.
1. Biologically, humans are omnivores. A completely animal free diet is deeply unnatural.
I read a couple of newspaper snippets, printed completely without any corroboration, that claimed 'vegetarians have a slower than average walking speed' and 'vegetarians have less sex than average'.
In other words, vegetarians are the human equivalent of Giant Pandas :(
AJ
Once they said less sex than average I was out.;) I didn't miss the point I was intentionally being overally literal in my interpretation of the question for kicks.
I quit believing that humans use logic as the driving force of their life at least a decade or so ago. As the song goes "I'll think of a reason later" We use a logic to find a way to do what we already want to do. Every now and then we're smart enough to see it's showing us we're about to do something incredibly stupid and the drive for self-preservation kicks in.
As the song goes "I'll think of a reason later"
What song?
Hold on! I'll think of the name later. :-)
No need to think actually. An internet search for "song lyrics" followed by those words found it straight away, I'll Think of a Reason Later
And you don't at all understand what's involved if you think veganism is "not doing something".
Whatever the repercussions are and whatever a vegan has to do instead of eating meat or using animal products, it still is a personal decision, not involving anyone else who doesn't want to be involved. So why does it need a justification?
I would say abortion involves at least one other person rather intimately if not two. The person dying and the father of the person dying.
Even after DS' explanation of the manifold burdens a vegan is suffering, I wasn't aware that abortion is a part of it as well.
it still is a personal decision, not involving anyone else who doesn't want to be involved. So why does it need a justification?
1. Personal justification for the level of effort required. I know very few people (as in literally no one) who will go to any significant effort for anything without some sort of reason.
2. The founder and the core of the vegan movement is very activist. They don't just believe in not eating/using animals, they strongly believe that no one should be allowed to. The foundations of the vegan movement are strongly tied to the animal rights movement.
Veganism preaches avoiding animal based products in all aspects of your life, not just diet. Leather goods in any form are forbidden.
Are you listening to yourself. Where are these 'official' Vegan Police enforcing these draconian rules about what their members are allowed to believe?
Instead, from all indications from many here, their entire view of vegetarians and vegans is purely based on their political viewpoints (i.e. ALL vegans are, by definition, liberal elites intent on shutting down all democratic institutions!).
If any of you (anit-vegans) have spent any time eating a vegetable-based diet, without organizing protests over the lack of meat, then I'll listen, but if you keep spouting empty stereotypes to justify your biased view, it's pointless even arguing the issue.
I've lived in both worlds. My ex-wife was a strict vegetarian due to health issues, while I, as a long-term juvenile diabetic, adopted the Atkins diet while he was still alive (eat all the meat your want, since it's a protein a breaks down slowly, providing increased stability in blood glucose levels). My family were also life-long hunters, and have run a hunting business (guided hunting trips) for the past fifty years. So believe me, I've seen both sides of the 'vegan wars', and your overtly political nonsense has no relation to veganism at all!
Where are these 'official' Vegan Police enforcing these draconian rules about what their members are allowed to believe?
Here: https://www.vegansociety.com/
https://www.vegansociety.com/about-us/history
Although the vegan diet was defined early on it was as late as 1949 before Leslie J Cross pointed out that the society lacked a definition of veganism and he suggested "[t]he principle of the emancipation of animals from exploitation by man". This is later clarified as "to seek an end to the use of animals by man for food, commodities, work, hunting, vivisection, and by all other uses involving exploitation of animal life by man".
You may be right in that there are more teen girls playing at being "vegan" as a form of rebellion, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a real vegan movement with real goals beyond the merely personal.
The core vegan movement has strong ties to the animal rights movement.
A gross mistake. It's 'You're Welcome!'
Well, it's a butcher, and he can butcher grammer too.
I'm a firm believer in PETA.
People
Eating
Tasty
Animals
The more cows and deer I eat, the more grass available for vegans to eat.
I also like being a vagitarian, too - just a little bit of hair pie.
On a more serious note, humans are omnivores for a reason. It's called biology and evolution.
That IS strange. What does it matter what vegan's believe? I don't want to be a vegan, but it you do, I'm all for you having that choice - whether or not you believe abortion is OK.
While we're contemplating frivolous questions, what do vegan mothers feed their babies? Is there an exemption for breast milk? And if so, what about other human products? Placenta soup, hair extensions?
AJ
what do vegan mothers feed their babies?
https://www.vegansociety.com/sites/default/files/Under-fives.pdf
The Vegan Society recommends breastfeeding, and there are commercial soy based baby formulas on the market.
That said problems happen because people, even vegan people sometimes do stupid shit.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2036671/Vegan-couple-serve-life-sentences-starving-baby-death-extreme-diet.html
A US vegan couple is serving life sentences for murder. Their baby starved to death at age 6 months with a body weight of 3.5 pounds.
According to the evidence presented at trial, they were feeding their son soy milk and apple juice.
Thanks for the info.
there are commercial soy based baby formulas on the market
The UK had an unusually warm summer this year, with a liberal accompaniment of bluebottle flies, some of which inevitably found their way indoors in search of meat on which to lay their eggs. I noticed that, of my unwashed crockery, the bluebottles seemed most attracted to cereal bowls containing the remnants of soya milk. I reckon the most likely explanation is that the soya beans contained maggots, and the bluebottles could detect their remains in the soya milk dregs. So vegans drinking soya milk could be inadvertently violating their beliefs.
AJ
EB, PLEASE rant away
Sorry, but I leave the ranting you, and I only provide intelligent responses along with historical facts and evidence. When I do provide a personal opinion I make it clear it is such, unlike some other posters who post opinion as if they're facts.
Obviously, I'm not the only one who doesn't use smileys when he's joking.
When i'm joking I usually use lol after it or (sarcasm off) after it.