When Vegans Turn Radical

originally posted by: seattlerat

originally posted by: StallionDuck

originally posted by: seattlerat
I don't agree with vandalism to prove a point. However, vegans make up a tiny percentage of the population in most countries (radical activist vegans even less), and I suspect that omnivores probably engage in far more destructive vandalism by percentage than radical vegans.

Towards Vegans? Don't think I've heard that one. Please tell.

Though, living in Austin, I do see a 'type' in 100% vegan restaurants. Granted, I love the food in some of these places since one of my dear friends is vegan, we eat out together now and then. Though, that type seems to be scrawny women with hairy armpits and slight muscle builds. Hey... That's alright with me but if you're gonna look like a man, at least wear some deodorant! Sheesh!

I know... It's not a vegan thing. It's more of an Austinite hipster vegan LGBT thing.

I'm not sure which 100% Vegan restaurants you are dining in, but
here in Seattle the customers at such establishments look pretty much the same
as in any other restaurant, except perhaps fewer morbidly obese individuals.

Here are some famous vegan men from both past and present that might suprise you:

Mike Tyson- call him a sissy, I dare you
Bill Clinton- call him a sissy, he'll have you shoot yourself in the head
Joaquin Phoenix- ok, so he might be a sissy in some movies, but he's a great actor
Carl Lewis- if you don't know who he is, look him up
James Cameron- he's badass for many reasons
Jeff Goldblum- almost eaten by a T-Rex, lost the stomach for meat
Albert Einstein- can't argue with one of the most intelligent guys to ever exist
Peter Dinklage- short but not stupid
HG Wells- amazing author
Leonardo Da Vinci- another brillilant mind
Nikola Tesla- was in love with a pigeon
Paul McCartney- he can afford to eat whatever he wants

Vegan woman outnumber vegan men at least 10 to 1 in the US so it is no surprise that you might encounter more of them than other gender(s). Very few of the many vegan females I know come close to your description. Also, vegans don't need deodorant to be attractive, at least according to one study done at the University of Prague, which showed that giving up red meat made a man's "odor" more attractive to the opposite sex.

I was going to group you into my last response but your post had me laughing so hard, I just had to commend you in a response all to your own.

I'm really not stereotyping vegans. I'm stereotyping Austinites, more specifically, the Hipster trend or whatever we've got going on down there. Still, my post could read like yours. Mostly what I mentioned except for maybe a few normal people. I do notice things that stand out. When I feel like I stood out in a vegan restaurant, most assuredly I noticed why. That's what I'm relaying... what saw.

Still... I lol'ed so hard:

Mike Tyson- call him a sissy, I dare you

- Don't you mean "Thithy" ?

Bill Clinton- call him a sissy, he'll have you shoot yourself in the head

- So lol'ed!

Joaquin Phoenix- ok, so he might be a sissy in some movies, but he's a great actor
Carl Lewis- if you don't know who he is, look him up
James Cameron- he's badass for many reasons
Jeff Goldblum- almost eaten by a T-Rex, lost the stomach for meat
Albert Einstein- can't argue with one of the most intelligent guys to ever exist
Peter Dinklage- short but not stupid
HG Wells- amazing author
Leonardo Da Vinci- another brillilant mind

- (brilliant

)

Nikola Tesla- was in love with a pigeon
Paul McCartney- he can afford to eat whatever he wants

I wish more responders were like you. You really made my kind of response. Comical yet pointing out what you thought. You lightened the mood for sure.

I do have nothing against vegans. I do think there is something to veganism and special abilities?, according to the old testament?

Personally, I couldn't do it. I would so do it wrong. I like cow and chikin way too much.

originally posted by: Nothin

What shall we eat: if we ever find that some plants are more intelligent and sensitive, than some animals?

Wasn't there some news article once upon a time that stated that plants scream!!?? when cut?

originally posted by: StallionDuck

originally posted by: Nothin

What shall we eat: if we ever find that some plants are more intelligent and sensitive, than some animals?

Wasn't there some news article once upon a time that stated that plants scream!!?? when cut?

Perhaps...
More than a ton of info here, in Blendsy's amazing plant thread. Go-ahead and give her a well-deserved star and flag.
It's a Plant's Life.

Some excerpts:
Some plants bleed real blood! Ok, that was a lie too. They bleed a red colored resin that looks like blood when they get injured. But they do have cool names that imply they bleed blood such as Dragon's Blood Tree and The Bleeding Tooth Fungus:

It is not the texture of the bark, shape of the tree, or even the fact that it could live up to 500 years old, that makes the Dragon’s Blood Tree so famous though, it is the blood red sap that oozes out of it when it is cut.

Now you may be saying to yourself “trees don’t have circulatory systems and blood, what are you talking about trees bleeding?” and you would be partially right. Trees don't have blood cells or veins like animals, but they do have vascular systems made of xylem and phloem which carry nutrients and water throughout the plant. In sap bearing trees like D. Cinnabari , the carbohydrates transformed by the photosynthetic process are goopy and are transported through the xylem. Simply put the reasons why the sap is red is rooted in the nutrients taken in from the soil and air and the enzymes created because of those nutrients. ...

Scientifically known as hydnellum peckii, the young bleeding tooth fungus’s thick red fluid oozes through its tiny pores, creating the appearance of blood....

I've found an unusual amount of carnivorous plants. The pitcher plant, Venus flytrap, Cape Sundew, Rafflesia, Elephant-foot yam...I'm sure that isn't all of them as it is believed that there hundreds of carnivorous and thousands of poisonous plant species. Basically they are the "hunters" of the plant world. Only instead of tracking down and stalking their prey, they make the prey come to them.

Carnivorous plants come in all sizes and the largest ones. Some, shaped like giant pitchers with a lid covered with the plant’s sweet syrupy secretion, are found on the island of Borneo. They are so big, that they can hold two liters of water when filled to the brim, and were thought to catch rodents! But no rat or rat-like creature has ever been found inside one of these pitchers. Why then do they have these shapes and what is it for? Scientists studying these fascinating plants have recently come to a very strange conclusion.

These plants don’t catch rodents -- they eat their poop! And how do we know? Well, look at the evidence. These giant pitcher plants grow under certain trees. The size of the pitcher-lip matches the exact size of the tree shrew (small mammals that resemble squirrels) that lives on the trees. Yet, no shrew has ever been found inside the pitcher. ...
***
eventually found a plant that commits murder. Basically is sucks the life right out of it's "prey":

Several types of figs (Ficus spp.) are called "stranglers" because they grow on host trees, which they slowly choke to death.

Once established, the young strangler figs begin sending aerial roots down to the ground, where they quickly dive into the soil and anchor themselves. The roots may dangle from the host tree's canopy or creep down its trunk. Once in contact with the ground, the fig enters a growth spurt, plundering moisture and nutrients that the host tree needs. The strangler fig's roots encircle the host tree's roots, cutting off its supply of food and water, ultimately killing the host tree. Meanwhile, back at the epiphyte, the strangler fig is busy producing new leaves and shoots that soon become large enough to overshadow the host tree's foliage, stealing sunlight and rainfall from the host canopy. By the time the host tree is dead, the strangler fig is large and strong enough to stand on its own, usually encircling the lifeless, often hollow body of the host tree. ...

(See the thread for links to the info. Sometimes the links are at the end of a paragraph, in 3 dots.)

ETA: Am not taking sides in the vegan/carnivore debate.)

originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: Nothin

Chandra Bose proved plant sentience in 1900, so...both sides of this present argument, are faulty. Like him or not Castenada was correct in one regard imo...its a predatory universe

While looking-up the response for SD above, found some info on what you were referring-to: (Good call!)

It is a Plant's Life

The similarity of human and plant neural systems and the presence of identical chemical messengers within them illustrate just why the same molecular structures (e.g., morphine, coc aine, alcohol) that affect our neural nets also affect plant consciousness. Jagadis Bose, who developed some of the earliest work on plant neurobiology and plant intelligence in the early 1900s, treated plants with a wide variety of chemicals to see what would happen. In one instance, he covered large, mature trees with a tent, then chloroformed them. (The plants breathed in the chloroform through their stomata, just as they would normally breathe in air.) Once anesthetized, the trees could be uprooted and moved without going into shock—the pain perception of the plants diminished. He found that morphine had the same effects on plant consciousness as that of humans, reducing the plant pain perception and pulse proportionally to the dose given. Too much took the plant to the point of death, but the administration of atropine, as it would in humans, revived it. Alcohol, he found, did indeed get a plant drunk. It, as in us, induced a state of high excitation early on, but as intake progressed the plant began to get depressed, and with too much it passed out. The plant felt drunk. Irrespective of the chemical he used, Bose found that the plant responded identically to the human; the chemicals had the same effect on the plant’s consciousness and nervous system as it did the human. ... That excerpt says it better than I ever could and there are more details in the link. The findings show they can think and feel like we do, even to the point that if we give them anesthesia it will reduce the shock of being uprooted and re-potted. So, they feel pain and what sounds like, anxiety. They have their own "world wide web" underground through their root system. Using their roots to not only gather nutrients but also to connect with other plants and gain information on what is around them in the environment. Sometimes they use that information to change at a genetic level or adapt to newly introduced challenges. That is all done through collecting data. Which means they have to "think" about what is occurring.

Scientists have known for the past two decades that many wild and agricultural plants launch an immune-like chemical defense when attacked by insects. That chemical resistance response can make the plant a poorer food for the insect and it may send out an aromatic SOS that hails the insect's natural enemies. One of the tomato's common pests is the beet armyworm, a greenish 1-inch-long caterpillar that feeds on tomato leaves and fruit. Thaler was curious how effective the tomato plant's resistance response was in defending the plant by calling in the beet armyworm's natural enemy, a tiny parasitic wasp. The chemical resistance response in a plant is technically known as the "octadecanoid pathway," a complex chemical chain-reaction that is triggered when an insect feeds on the plant. A wound from the insect signals the plant to produce a chemical known as "jasmonic acid," which in turn causes increased production of chemicals responsible for the leafy green odors of plants. "Wasps can smell those compounds through their antennae and can more easily find the caterpillars when the caterpillars are less than 1 centimeter long," Thaler said. "The plants are essentially sending up a chemical 'smoke-signal' to attract the wasps." ...

a reply to: Nyiah

I know which farm the fryer chickens I bought last week came from, all the various beef cuts, the various pork cuts, my eggs, my milk, I know who made the locally-made (real) cheddar cheese I bought. I know which local orchards my fruits come from, which local farms my vegetables come from. I know exactly which local apiary my honey comes from.I make a strong effort to only buy local, and SELDOM buy corporate factory-made food. How many self-righteous vegans with an axe to grind eat local and ONLY local, hmm? You know much pollution is churned out trucking vegan-preferred goods in from across state lines and abroad?

If you want to call me a pompess twat thats good by me. The fact remains here that you do not know what you are talking about. You are ill informed. If you want to understand why producing meet requires a lot more energy than eating vegetables you will need to understand ecological energy movement and trophic levels.

I would explain further but usually its a waste of time people are not they interested in learning new stuff. They tend to want to keep their old views. Its called cognitive dissonance.

If however you want to learn go and use google and return a comment when you are informed enough to do so.

Happy days

:-)

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: purplemer

There would be enough food to go around for everyone

Proof.

Mostly due to habitat loss.

Habitat is lost when vegetable farms are made.

Every vegetable farm you have ever seen used to be the home for animals.
What was done to those animals in order to make that area we need to grow vegetables?

How much land would be required to feed the world with only plants?

What do the people do who live in places that don't have the weather or land capable of growing enough different types of plants to keep them healthy, and that also don't have the means to transport those plants to themselves?

How much pollution do vegetable farms in the USA create now?

How much more pollution would be created if we had enough vegetable farms to feed the world and transport it around the globe?

Proof?

Trying using google and doing some research. It is you job to be informe. If you so choice. If you go and look you will understand the farce of your comment. See the fact of the issue there is already enough food in the world to feed everyone. What we have is a distribution problem.


To answer your question in a simply way that you may understand. I will say this. Growing vegtables to feed you required a lot less land than growing meet to feed you. To grow meet you must first grow the corn. If the world was vegan you could drastically reduce the amount of land used for farming and this would in effect reduce the strain on a collapsing ecosystem.

a reply to: purplemer

Not really. That's only if you want your beef grain finished.

Grass fed beef grazes open pasture which is home to most wildlife. About the only critters who lose out are the large predators.

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

We are the animal kingdom..........unless youve found some sort of evolution that science is not aware of....... Just because our methods are different matters not........were all animals......and all omnivores eat and kill differently....... By your logic the same is true then.......if vegans eat all the plant life, and it becomes unsustainable because too many people are vegan, than youre destroying the earth...... Give it a rest..............

Yes we are of the animal kingdom. We are of the earth. By your statement above it is evident you have failed to understand my logic. If there is something you did not understand in my post please let me know. Otherwise I will just leave it as another case of cognitive dissonance.

As the adage goes.

You can take a horse to water but you cannot make it drink

originally posted by: intrepid
Meat eaters should consume mass quantities of the other, other white meat.

Save a cow, eat a vegan.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: purplemer

Not really. That's only if you want your beef grain finished.

Grass fed beef grazes open pasture which is home to most wildlife. About the only critters who lose out are the large predators.

Thats pretty ignorant reply dude. Do you know how much forest is cut down every year to make way for short term animal pasture. Usually it is old growth forest that cannot be replaced. Many of the species that are lost are never recorded by science.

Nor does the above negate from the following. acre for acre land is far more productive for growing plants to eat for food than it is for animal agriculture. This fact could reduce habitat loss on a large scale and help get land set aside for regeneration.

a reply to: ketsuko

No. They annoy us because what they eat is their business. How they live is their business. I don't feel the need to sit at my table at a restaurant and opine about how compassionate my way of eating is and how much better I am than everyone else in every way for eating that way. I just eat. I don't feel the need to get militant about it. Very few vegans are that way. I don't mind the ones who just go about their business. But for some vegans, it's a proselytizing lifestyle and everyone needs to be evangelized, loudly, everywhere, all the time.

Well thats the issue isnt it. If i pooped in your home and stared destroying it. You would have issue with me. So why should I not have issue with the fact that your eating habits are destroying our biosphere. Seems pretty selfish to me.

a reply to: purplemer

She owns her home, you don't own the biosphere.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: purplemer

She owns her home, you don't own the biosphere.

Putting economic value above the value of the biosphere inevitably causes the collapse of both the biosphere and the economy. That my friend is a no brainer. Please for the love of all things sacred. Think before you post. Add quality not quantity.

a reply to: purplemer

You want ignorance?

How much is cut down for short-term monoculture agriculture?

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: Nyiah

I know which farm the fryer chickens I bought last week came from, all the various beef cuts, the various pork cuts, my eggs, my milk, I know who made the locally-made (real) cheddar cheese I bought. I know which local orchards my fruits come from, which local farms my vegetables come from. I know exactly which local apiary my honey comes from.I make a strong effort to only buy local, and SELDOM buy corporate factory-made food. How many self-righteous vegans with an axe to grind eat local and ONLY local, hmm? You know much pollution is churned out trucking vegan-preferred goods in from across state lines and abroad?

If you want to call me a pompess twat thats good by me. The fact remains here that you do not know what you are talking about. You are ill informed. If you want to understand why producing meet requires a lot more energy than eating vegetables you will need to understand ecological energy movement and trophic levels.

I would explain further but usually its a waste of time people are not they interested in learning new stuff. They tend to want to keep their old views. Its called cognitive dissonance.

If however you want to learn go and use google and return a comment when you are informed enough to do so.

Happy days

:-)

I said pompous little brats, but if you want to call yourself a twat, who am I to dissuade you.

Regardless of what you spout, it still begs the question of how much transport pollution you're responsible for by the end of each plate. Are you eating local? Or did your avocados come from Mexico? Gojis from India? Quinoa from South America?

If you eat what isn't local to you, you're not helping the planet as much as you think. You're still eating pretty filthy. Mmmm, multinational orange juice mix with a side of carbon emissions, yummy!

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: purplemer

You want ignorance?

How much is cut down for short-term monoculture agriculture?

To answer you question. No I do not want ignorance. I would rather have an informed discussion. Something that again is lacking in the statement above.

See it irrelevant to my point. Understand trophic levels and energy movement through ecosystems and you will understand why it requires a lot more land to breed livestock. Have a read its a simple concept.

I am not here to educate you. Your captain of your ship. Your choice

a reply to: StallionDuck

What if it is instead fake vegans paid by the meat industry themselves? I have not met a violent vegan.

From what I read many are worried because stores are starting to carry the alternatives to meat there as they do even in our smallest store in a small town where i live here in the Us.

New data revealed the number of vegans in the UK now exceeds three-and-a-half million, or 7% of the population. These figures indicate that veganism has seen a 700% growth in just two years.

www.livekindly.co...

I wish I had never eaten a cows corpse I am much happier now as a vegetarian.

a reply to: Nyiah

I said pompous little brats, but if you want to call yourself a twat, who am I to dissuade you. Regardless of what you spout, it still begs the question of how much transport pollution you're responsible for by the end of each plate. Are you eating local? Or did your avocados come from Mexico? Gojis from India? Quinoa from South America? If you eat what isn't local to you, you're not helping the planet as much as you think. You're still eating pretty filthy. Mmmm, multinational orange juice mix with a side of carbon emissions, yummy!

Thank you for the correction. The remain of your point above it mute. The question equally applies to whatever diet you eat. But the fact remains it requires a lot less land to produce plants than it does animals. Thats such a simple fact that I dont understand why you have such great difficulty understanding it.

a reply to: purplemer

I have done my research and this

See the fact of the issue there is already enough food in the world to feed everyone.

Is only true if you are eating both meat and plants.

To answer your question in a simply way that you may understand. I will say this. Growing vegetables to feed you required a lot less land than growing meet to feed you.

Ketsuko said it best. Grass fed beef grazes open pasture which is home to most wildlife. About the only critters who lose out are the large predators.

I noticed your not commenting on the amounts of pollution with animal vs plant farms.

And your not commenting on the amount of resources, money pollution that it would cost to transport enough verity of food to keep everyone in the world healthy.

I live in farm country. My father and grandmother were both vegetable farmers. I know what I am talking about.

learn.uvm.edu...

The first graph in that link will show that the distribution, processing and production for fruits and veg vs meat is just about the same. But notice that the distribution for the veg is much higher meaning more pollution from the trucks and ships used to carry the food where it needs to be.

Then look at the second graph. It shows that energy inputs/food outputs is best when the farm is diversified and that a lamb farm is much more efficient then the veg farms.

These five operations show how radically different the energy input-output ratios of small farms can be. I don’t assume that these farms represent averages for their scales or types, I’m just offering their data to demonstrate that even within small-scale agriculture there’s no clear benefit associated with choosing a plant-based diet over one that includes animal-derived foods. In fact, the diversified farm, growing a mix of plant and animal foods, is the most energy efficient of all the farms listed here. My observation that small, diversified farms seem to be an increasingly popular pursuit among new farmers is telling, and comforting.

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: Nyiah

I said pompous little brats, but if you want to call yourself a twat, who am I to dissuade you. Regardless of what you spout, it still begs the question of how much transport pollution you're responsible for by the end of each plate. Are you eating local? Or did your avocados come from Mexico? Gojis from India? Quinoa from South America? If you eat what isn't local to you, you're not helping the planet as much as you think. You're still eating pretty filthy. Mmmm, multinational orange juice mix with a side of carbon emissions, yummy!

Thank you for the correction. The remain of your point above it mute. The question equally applies to whatever diet you eat. But the fact remains it requires a lot less land to produce plants than it does animals. Thats such a simple fact that I dont understand why you have such great difficulty understanding it.

So, let me get this straight.

As long as the acreage was efficient, it doesn't matter to you how far from you it came from, nor how much combustion fuel it took to get it to you.
Ergo, the amount of pollution you traded from land pollution to transport pollution negates itself.

If you can't admit that's a pollution wash, then just enjoy those mental gymnastics, Charlie Sheen. Winning you aren't. Stalemating maybe, but not winning.