Welcome to Gaia! ::

These are just my observations on why omnivores don't take veg*ns seriously. Obviously this cannot apply to all veg*ns, but here are some well-known problems as well as problems I've observed.


PETA.
Like it or not, PeTA has become the public face of veg*nism for many people (probably because they spend all their money on promoting themselves rather than helping animals), and between their racist, sexist, anti-GLBTQ, blasphemous, fat-phobic, classist, and exploitative and simply clueless ad campaigns, it's no wonder people hate them so much.


They treat omnis like morons.
One vegan I met seemed convinced that a major blockade between me and the vegan side was the fact that I just didn't know anything about vegan nutrition and cooking. Despite repeated attempts to explain to her that I was familiar with the concept of combining amino acids and that I knew damn well how to cook absolutely wonderful and technically-balanced (I say "technically" because everyone's nutritional requirements are different) vegan dishes, she kept posting links to vegan recipe sites and information on vegan nutrition, as if I simply had no clue.

Furthermore, she adopted an air of superiority, telling me how people are averse to becoming vegan because it means having to admit they were wrong - and how hard it was for her to admit she was wrong. That, my friends, is condescending and patronizing - how would she know whether or not I'd ever admitted to myself that I was wrong about something big?


They assume that meat = factory-farmed beef.
It only makes them look stupid when they rail about the environmental impacts of factory-farmed beef without taking into account that not all meat comes from factory farms, and not all meat is beef.


They cite studies that make similar mistakes, or cite articles about studies.
A vegan brought up a GoVeg article about a scientific paper that apparently linked animal protein to cancer and heart disease. Here's what was written on GoVeg:


Now, many people are unaware that mainstream articles about scientific discoveries, particularly where health is concerned, extremely likely to be blown out of proportion by a reporter trying to make a headline, or in the case of PeTA, a dogmatically vegan group, myopically ignore anything that doesn't fit their agenda.

I located the paper, which did not quite say what PeTA wanted it to say.

-The study specifically implicated red meat, not meat in general.
-The study did not specify whether the animals were grass or grain fed.
-The study did not say anything about whether the meat was processed or unprocessed.

However, the study was conducted in Iowa, which is famous for its grain-fed beef. Grain-fed beef is higher in Omega-6 and low in Omega 3 fatty acids, which is - surprise, surprise! - associated with a higher risk of cancer and heart disease. (And just for fun, check out this article about the Tuoli - a group of Chinese people who eat over two pounds of dairy and a quarter pound of meat a day - and are just as healthy as those who eat mainly plants.)


They see the world in black-and-white.
Vegans who have only contempt for those who stray from the Path of Righteousness are doing themselves more harm than good. Some people have better health for including varying amounts of animal products in their diets now and then. (One dietician noted that, in his experience, the bell curve fell on a mixed diet.) By demanding absolute purity, they are driving people away who might otherwise first step into the wading pool, then later try the deep end on for size. It's much more effective to ease someone into a new lifestyle or way of thinking than to push them in - and if they find themselves sinking over there, don't get nasty with them when they paddle back!

A similar case is when vegans stick their noses into the air in situations it doesn't even make sense in - like this one. The vegan woman only proved to her boyfriend that vegans are snobs by refusing to eat even crackers that contained chicken broth when there was literally no other food available.


Refusal to acknowledge that vegan diets aren't for everyone.
As the Defensive Omnivore Card pointed out, a common retort from omnis is "I knew/read about someone who tried a vegan diet and failed!"

To which the defensive vegan will reply, "they must have done it wrong or didn't do it long enough!"

While this is true in some cases, it's not the case for all of them. Be aware of this. A better response to the omni's argument would be "It's possible that they did something wrong. However, there are many people who thrive on vegan diets, and you can't know that a vegan diet isn't for you until you try."

(Personally, I've been trying to figure out how to be more vegetarian without crashing my bloodsugar and/or creating the dreaded Chinese Restaurant Effect. It hasn't gone well so far; I'm thinking tempeh might work, but I can't find any 'round these redneck parts.)


They quote Thomas Huxley and other dead scientists.
Not to knock ol' Huxley, but his claim that humans couldn't possibly be natural herbivores due to an apparent lack of natural predatory skill has been overturned by later findings. (1, 2, 3) This is very unfortunate for them, as it implies that maintaining their lifestyle depends on whether or not veg*n diets are natural. Of course, this should have nothing to do with it - the real determining factor should be whether the individual is healthier for it or not.


They confuse learned behavior with natural instinct.
You've undoubtedly heard the claim that humans can't be natural meat-eaters because they find the sight and smell of raw meat repulsive, and anyway, even if they did, they'd be considered deranged.

Unfortunately, our aversion to raw meat has nothing to do with instinct - it's a learned behavior. The fact that anyone who deviated would be considered "deranged" is yet another social construct, not to mention a red herring: you'd be considered "deranged" if you waltzed about town naked, unwashed, and untrimmed, and our ancestors started eating meat long before they invented clothing, baths, and haircuts.

It's really hard to take this kind of thing seriously when you actually do salivate at the sight of a rare steak or actually know how to get meat with your bare hands.


They fail history.
I've seen cases where a vegan tries to essentially compare a wild antelope with a Chiquita banana. Because you couldn't catch the antelope with your bare hands but can easily peel the banana, they say, the banana is obviously the natural choice.

Such ignorance is rarely seen outside of Creationist circles, particularly with Ray Comfort, who proclaimed that the "convenient" design of the banana proved that it was intelligently designed. But I digress.

This is the ancestor of the wild banana. The natives only ate it when other foods were scarce. The fact that their name for it meant "animal feces" should clue you in on how they felt about it.

Most fruit is the same way; what you eat now is essentially a declawed and fattened version of what grew in the wild. Arguing, then, that the "natural" human diet comprises of these foods doesn't really work out.


They make bad comparisons
I've heard statements to the effect of, "Imagine a plate of boiled meat compared to a bowl of fresh fruit. Which looks more appetizing?" They then imply that the fruit will be the obvious choice, as the meat will be bland and tasteless unless you put seasonings on it.

What kind of comparison is that? Boiling takes the flavor out of anything, meat or plant. I've never seen anyone eat boiled potatoes without something to improve the flavor, be it as simple as butter. Most of the vegan recipes I've seen include seasonings of some kind, which fairly well destroys this argument.

Incidentally, depending on what I craved at that moment I might very well pass up the fruit and go for the boiled meat.


They assume they know more about a person's religion than that person does.
Particularly, by claiming that by eating animals, you're "playing God."

The entire stigma of "playing God" relies on the possibility of offending a deity by becoming too presumptuous.

If the omni believes in the Judeo-Christian God, this argument is irrelevant as the Bible makes it clear throughout that God has no problem with eating meat. Besides telling Noah and his family that they could eat anything that moved, the New Testament essentially tells vegetarians and vegans to shut up and get along because God doesn't care what you eat. (I believe it's in the Epistle to the Romans.)

The pagan gods that I know of are not known for punishing humans for eating meat. If someone is going to chide their pagan friends on this ground, they'd better make sure that there is actually precedence for their deity/deities having a problem with meat-eaters - and cases where a deity killed a peeping tom who happened to be a hunter don't count.

If the omni does not believe in any god, the concept of "playing God" is meaningless and irrelevant.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVxv7PPGZqg


and this nonsence otta have peta disbanded.
notice how the "beaks are removed on younger chickens" *a discovery made by a friend* but then are beaked as adults as there processed.

@Sakakikala: No.

I suspect the people who exhibit most of the behaviors I listed are mostly a vocal minority.

Also (and this is a somewhat different subject), I'm seeing evidence that there is a disconnect between veg*ns who think science is on their side and actual science. Spending some time listening to the right science podcasts (particularly, ones that deal with paleontology) or reading science magazines or sites would dispel their notion that humans are natural herbivores or that animal tests have no benefits, but as they continue on in these claims, I can only assume that their only source of science comes from myopic vegan sites, much as some fundamentalists' only source on science are sites like Answers in Genesis (which is not only myopic, but skews everything to fit their YEC agenda... but I digress). But the point is that I'm seeing cases where they are essentially distancing themselves from reality to maintain their worldview, and this is never a good thing.

@Hoshioni: Probably because debeaking is done with chickens intended for eggs, not meat, as they're trying to make you think.

Egg layers have their beaks clipped so they can't destroy their eggs and each other. Broilers aren't debeaked, because they are meat birds. What you saw was how much of a scam PETA is, don't trust everything you see on the internet. If you're against eating factory meat, then buy local meat.

I lived with a vegan for a while, she's a really good friend of mine. I don't like vegans who have a god-complex. Otherwise they usually make really good friends, parents, siblings, and people in general.

You should make a thread about is Vegan Social Etiquette for both vegans and non-vegans. The only thing you would have to say is: Mind your own business, it's not your life - it's not your diet.

I think Sakakikala is exactly the sort of vegan all of them should strive to be, but it's not because she's a veg. It's because she's a good person. She's not wishy washy, she gets her views across quite clearly but does so without being terrorizing. She's approachable and tries to help people understand rather than simply berate them for being different. If more people in general would be respectful of the choices others make and the ways others live then the world wouldn't have such problems.

I understand that like other "groups" many vegans are trying to get the rest of the population to see things from their perspective and change their ways, much like missionaries. Just like religious people, you've got some just doing what they feel is good and being non-judgmental and kind, and then you've got the pushy, nasty ones who will do no more than spitefully tell you they'll pray for your soul.

I don't know what makes someone jump from one level to the next but think it's more about personality than anything else. As far as being misunderstood and not taken seriously, it's all about how you spread your message. If you say things politely and respectfully, you'll get that in return most of the time.

Personally I'm not a veg but I feel what I'm doing is best for me and I try to eat only what came from animals who suffered the least. I know there are those who won't agree with that, but that's how it is for now. I'm not closed to ever being vegan and I eat a lot of vegan meals, it's just not 100% and it might never be.

Anyway I don't think we need to defend our own ways so much as just try to get information out to people who don't know anything about what goes on at factory farms and things like that. There are better ways of doing things and even the most hard-core carnivores can adopt those practices. Those are the people I'm trying to "reach" by talking about healthy living and animal advocacy. Not people who are already trying their best to live clean.

I like this blog http://vegansagainstpeta.blogspot.com/ and there are many others like it who all say the same thing about PETA which is basically, be nice and don't act like a terrorist group and maybe people will listen to you.

Now then, I have an off-topic question. Why do some vegans seem to prefer veg*n? What is wrong with the A? I've looked it up but I couldn't find anything. Just wondering.

Ah I see. Thanks, that makes sense.

people treat me the same way on HFCS, horomones and gluten.

i hate when people treat it like an insult to ask whats in it but people with allergys and diebeties get special treatment, granted i see the other side its still annoying to have double standards

I agree. It's especially rude when co workers basically take the tub of soy-ice cream out of your hands to read the labels. =,=


But the masses are idiots. They won't want to do research to find local companies that actually treat their animals like living beings and not JUST profit. And while I DO feel it is wrong to exploit animals/people in any way what are the odds of it actually happening? In my eyes, looking at it from a logical perspective, its Big Brother and Big Corporations either way you look at it.

"A person is smart, people collectively are dumb"
So yeah, :/ not enough omnis care to buy free range or local. Of course, when my boyfriend and I live together, he will only be eating that sort of meat(except when we go out to eat). Sure, I feel eating meat is wrong as much as the next vegan, but who am I to change HIM? he will still be eating his steaks and such, but it will have had less of a painful life. (He knows im not cooking anything for him that's not vegan, although I've offered to do all the cooking for every meal so he doesn't have to cook, it would just be vegan, he only knows how to use a microwave, which is really depressing too)

And while I'd LOVE to live in an animal product(aside from a pet) free home, that's unlikely to happen unless my boyfriend and I were to break up. Which would be devastating, because my family is a bunch of supportive omnis whom love to insult me(namely my dad) for my being "different". My man keeps me in reality, knowing not all omnis are "douche-bags".

Ack i got really off topic! Time to reorganize:
Overall the masses are idiots, so either its mass production of vat-meat or slaughtering...
From an environmentalist prospective, vat-meat could use up less resources if it got well established.
From a vegan perspective, vat-meat would cause less suffering and mistreatment.
From an anti-big-business perspective, it wouldn't make an effect on it anyway. The people whom want local and grass fed meat will continue buying it, and the people whom don't care will still eat whatever is set in front of them/whatever is cheapest.

Of course, if Vat meat was attempted to be set up and FAILED because the masses rebelled against it and all started buying local and free-range meat(mind you it's not the same, but less food miles even if it is just local) free range would become more main stream and cheaper, and local, it would help the local economy improve.

So even if the implementation of Vat-meat would be attempted and failed, I only see benefits overall. :3