Category Archives: Vegetarians

TWAT News: Beyond Meat COO Arrested For Biting Man’s Nose In Violent Rage

One of the main reasons that vegetarians give for their impractical diet is that it’s supposedly “violence and cruelty free”. If their role model is Dave Ramsey, the COO of Beyond Meat, they might want to find a new one, and quickly.

That’s because the COO was arrested after allegedly beefing with a motorist whose vehicle collided with his tire. During the alleged fight, during which Ramsey punched through the back windshield of a Subaru, Ramsey bit the nose of the driver, ripping flesh from the tip of their nose. He also supposedly made terroristic threats.

For most COOs, to go completely feral like this would be at least a little unusual.

Ramsey had previously worked for Tyson Foods. The stock value of current company, Beyond Meat, fell by 73% just this past year. In the last three years, the market value of Beyond Meat fell from $13.4 billion to $1.09 billion, which is no surprise considering that nobody wants to eat his bullshit fake meat. Except maybe vegetarians.

Does anyone else notice how vegetarians love to pretend to eat the things they don’t allow themselves to? Otherwise, why is there a market for vegetables that have been shaped into fake meats that don’t have the same nutritional value as the foods that they attempt to imitate?

If vegetarians think it’s wrong to eat meats, why do they work so hard to make themselves some fakes?

My guess is that there is a primal side to them that they’ve been working hard to ignore. They want to belong, and one of the ways that people bond with one another is over food. Yet, that’s hard for them to do when they insist on rejecting what most people eat. They have appetites consistent with the hunter-gatherer specie that humans are, but fail to requite these appetites with the nutritional requirements of omnivores.

Over time, as this primal side is repressed and denied a healthy outlet, their appetites build to the point where they boil over, and they attempt to satisfy their urges with any target that’s available. Such as the nose of another motorist, for example.

Thus, one of the reasons why meat eaters are safer to be around is that they have a healthy outlet for their primal sides. And let’s be honest here, humanity has certainly not adapted out of needing to eat meat for nutrients.

But as for vegetarians, there’s no telling when they might flip out, drop the act, and decide that meat is back on the menu. And they might be willing to take it from anywhere they can get it.

Win: Dunkin’ Donuts Begins Phasing Out Beyond Meat Sandwich

If you’re a fan of real food, you’ll agree with me that this is a win. Overpriced coffee vendor Dunkin’ Donuts has discontinued a Beyond Meat breakfast sandwich in all but 10 states.

If you’re a vegetarian, and you’ve done your research into the risks of the vegetarian diet, and aren’t smug about it or seek to impose your diet on anyone else, I’m not judgmental towards you.

But one thing I’ve noticed is that vegetarians tend to go crazy trying to eat something that they’re not. They miss hamburgers, which is why there is such a market for vegetarian hamburgers. Of course, they don’t want to be left out when there’s a cook-out, even when they get neurotic in insisting that their veggie patties aren’t grilled on the same surface as regular hamburgers. They then wonder why they are being excluded when they’re no longer invited to functions, when they made themselves more difficult to interact with.

Beyond Meat, along with Impossible meat, are the most sophisticated attempts to imitate life to date, using happy magical chemistry to make meat patties that pass for the real thing. But Beyond Meat is not the real thing, and I don’t accept it as such, for the same reason that if you mixed seltzer water with grape juice, I’m not going to accept it as champagne if I understand the fraud for what it is.

Lived experience can be imitated, but it can never be replaced. Which is why when a breakfast sandwich was imitated, it was only a matter of time before it was taken from the menu.

As much as I’d like to credit this development to the better judgement of people, on Sunday mornings, people line up at a Dunkin’ Donuts near here for overpriced donuts and coffee. The hypnotic effect of Dunkin’s marketing is such that the lines even extend well into the road, cars deep into a major highway. What is wrong with people?

In any case, the sandwich has eggs, so that flimsy sponge in particular doesn’t endear itself to vegans. Many vegetarians are going full-on vegan, which is easy to understand when you consider that most cults encourage embracing their extremes.

While it’s easy to feel bad for the few outliers that are going to miss this sandwich offering, it was easy to see coming when you consider that it was sharing a menu with a bunch of items that people would rather eat.

It was actually earlier this year in which Texans were driven to stockpiling meat products for fear of supplies running out, when Texas suffered from power outages when they found out that wind energy wasn’t reliable.

But as for imitation meat products, they didn’t bother.

Fake meat products such as Beyond Sausage are weird and gross. It’s as simple as that.

Even Fear of Starvation Isn’t Driving Texans to Buy Fake Meat

Texas is in a pretty scary situation. Supply lines are disrupted, and shelves are being cleared out at supermarkets. In some cases, there’s no sign of more shipments coming in. Faced with the prospect of starvation, Texans are panic-buying.

But they’re not desperate enough for Beyond meat, an imitation meat product that Bill Gates hopes will end up replacing the real deal in the near future.

From what I’ve heard, fake meat like Beyond Burger and Impossible Beef pass for the real thing. But let’s be real, here: there’s no point in pretending to eat something that you’re actually not. If I know that a wine glass contains grape juice mixed with club soda, I’m not going to accept it as champagne. Simple as that.

The same goes with meat products. If someone were to pull some stunt on me by presenting me with a hamburger, then being like “Surprise, it’s actually an Impossible burger!”, I’d be pissed, because they committed fraud.

I don’t know much about investing, but I suspect that an investment in a company that fills shelves with products that no one buys would be total crap. Though, on the chance that Bill Gates himself reads this, he’s free to take to the comments and explain what it was he was thinking.

Take your fake meat and shove it.

lina disappointed

I stood in place, neck craning at the illuminated menu. The contents of my stomach fought an uphill battle with my esophagus as I struggled to comprehend what I was beholding. As the seconds passed, my appetite decreased to the point that I could have simply walked out, requesting nothing of the distressed menu that was before me.

The problem? Submitted for your bemused disbelief, the Impossible Whopper:

F4CB0AA5-8C3C-422E-A763-98CA0C9032E5

There is some honesty to be appreciated in the implication that it’s impossible for a Whopper with 0% beef to be considered a hamburger, but any good will that could have been fostered is offset by the fact that the Impossible Whopper is, at its core, an imitation product.

If there’s no beef present, then just what meat is being served? Is it pork? Some variety of browned poultry? No, it’s pretty much a veggie burger. Of course, if the Impossible Whopper were marketed as the fake that it is, it would find it’s way down fewer gullible throats. The imitation burger is instead a lie by omission.

Another trend that’s disturbing is that of lab-grown meat. When I sit down to a steak, I shouldn’t have to ponder whether some lab somewhere successfully synthesized the protein that supports muscle growth, or the B vitamins that upholds brain function. My expectation would be that the steak was once an animal with awareness. If this were not the case, the violation of my expectation would throw my trust in the server into serious jeopardy.

It’s obvious why they’re trying to trick us: if we knew that these imitation meat products were not the real deal, almost none of us would bother with them, except perhaps the vegans who are going so crazy by reason of their ascetic diets that they’re willing to accept look-alikes to fill the void caused by an absence of normal food. But even then, that group is so legalistic that they wouldn’t likely risk the cross-contamination that’s expected at fast-food joints. So what are these proponents of fake meat doing besides trying to trick us?

There are people out there willing to ironically consume something gross just to say they did, but it’s a limited market. Once they’ve tried it once, they’ll move onto pig rectum subs or whatever, then what? What benefit is it to Burger King to leave something on a menu that just a few people are going to try only once? I’m not hungry enough to eat some imitation meat, and if I was starving, I have the benefit of having to choose between a bunch of things I’d rather eat, including durian.

If you can’t out-compete a fruit that smells like farts, you’ve failed.

Why Meat-Eaters are More In-Touch With Reality

ccapp-theoutbackerburger-2x.pngSource: The Outback Steakhouse menu

While the rest of us live happy, healthy lifestyles, vegans go to-the-hilt trying to convince us that we aren’t really happy or healthy, and they attempt to make the meat-eating diet out to be the cause of our woes.

Their motives are not hard to understand. It’s obvious that their problem is with meat-eating, and they work hard to ensure that the choice that they’ve made for themselves is also the choice that they make for the rest of us.

To this end, they attempt to characterize meat eaters as callous and indifferent. As vegans see it, meat-eaters are low-IQ knuckle-draggers who couldn’t care whether our actions today burn the world to the ground tomorrow.

What vegans don’t comprehend is that meat-eaters are happier and healthier for some very good reasons. Among these reasons is that we understand our impact on the world, and the nature of the world that we live in, and these facts are something that we’ve come to peace with.

Among the fallacies common to vegans and to those obsessed with nature is the idea that nature is a personal entity concerned with balance and order. Such thinking is a clear projection of one’s own values onto a theoretical personal entity.

The fact is, nature is not a person. Nature is not a goddess, nor is it anyone’s mother. Because nature is not a personal entity, it is not concerned with regulation or with maintaining a balance. Nature is simply a broad term used to refer to the physical world around us. Nature puts no forward effort into replenishing what is excessively used, nor does it make a conscious effort to cull what has become too successful. Nature is a thing, and it’s a thing that we decide how to live in. When humanity makes a choice that impacts the natural world, that impact is weighed against the benefit to us, and we make the choice we deem to be more beneficial to us.

Most of us have come to peace with the reality of the world that we live in, and have accepted it. That acceptance is what enables us to live happily. As this happens, among the least happy among us are the outliers who stand in opposition to the choices agreed upon by the collective.

Another fact that we’ve come to peace with is the understanding that suffering is an intrinsic part of life. Livestock winces the moment it’s killed as it’s nerves send pain signals to its brain. Plants initiate defense mechanisms when we harvest from them. You feel upset when a motorist taunts you for deciding not to drive. The fact is, suffering is everywhere.

The way we experience the world can be positive or negative. A work of art can induce a positive emotion. To be spurned by a potential suitor can induce a negative reaction. A boxer receiving a left hook experiences a very obvious kind of suffering. To live is to experience, and that includes suffering.

While vegans are obsessed with limiting suffering any way they can, the rest of us have come to peace with the fact that living means sometimes experiencing suffering. While vegans worry themselves awake over the possibility that something they did caused a mouse they never saw to feel pain, the rest of us are aware of suffering as a part of life, and sleep well for having come to peace with that.

Our parents and grandparents have experienced suffering in one form or another, we’ve suffered, and our children will suffer after us.

A vegan might respond to this by asking whether you’d be okay with suffering if you or someone you care about is hit with a brick, this would lead pretty well to the next point: Meat-eaters are healthier and more mentally sound because they’re primarily concerned with the state of human lives, rather than animal lives.

Humans stick with human kind. Humans respond more sympathetically to the pains of our fellow human beings. Humans are inclined to dine with fellow humans. Humans seek sexual relations with other human beings. Humans socialize with human beings.

Animals are much the same way, with animals of one kind usually preferring the company of their own kind. When a wolf dines, they are likely to do so in the company of other wolves. A cat does not concern itself with whether it’s treating a fish humanely before it eats it. A rabbit that desires to copulate seeks out another rabbit as a partner.

While a vegan might seek out a rare outlier in an attempt to defeat this point, the fact is, it’s impossible to deny the tendency of most animals to stick to their own kind, and the efforts of the vegan would stand out as an obvious attempt to deny the reality of the natural world.

The fact is, meat-eaters understand the reality of the world we live in, and have come to peace with it. This makes meat-eaters happier and more sound-minded, as we’ve embraced reality for what it is, rather than what we prefer it to be.

If veganism were nothing more than a choice that one made for one’s self, I wouldn’t have any concern about it except for the nutritional deficiencies intrinsic to a meat-free diet. But because vegans are out to make veganism everyone else’s diet, and they’re willing to employ all manner of misinformation and deception to bring such an outcome about, there is a bit more urgency to respond to it.

Obviously, the belligerence with which vegans seek to change the world doesn’t lend itself the qualities of a peaceful mind that is better in touch with the world around it. It does just the opposite. At their best, these vegans maintain a veneer of serenity, even if only because they understand the value of maintaining such an image.

But the reality is, it’s meat-eaters that understand how things are, and as vegans have been climbing the mountain seeking wisdom, they’ll be surprised when they finally find meat-eaters waiting for them at the summit.

Vegans take twice as many sick days, says UK study

broccoli.png

A study conducted in the UK has found that vegans take twice as many sick days as meat eaters.

Source: Daily Mail

The findings of this study goes against conventional thinking, though I’ve known for some time that veganism is not a healthier lifestyle. The difficulty in obtaining protein and the near-impossibility of finding alternative sources of necessary B vitamins (a deficiency of which can result in irreversible neurological damage) makes veganism a disastrous lifestyle choice.

By the looks of it, science is increasingly backing up the understanding that veganism is terrible for one’s health. This understanding may make it more difficult to conduct studies on the topic, as one can certainly question the ethics of asking someone to undertake a particular diet with the potential of causing neurological damage for science. However, the information we already have access to is sufficient to conclude that a vegan lifestyle should be avoided.

Still, those pushing the vegan lifestyle do succeed in winning impressionable minds to their cause. Among the selling points are treating vague symptoms like “brain fog” or “fatigue”, or appealing to an inordinate sense of guilt. “Brain fog” is a concept that is vague enough that one can easily make the case that just about anything can be blamed for it, and “fatigue” is a natural consequence of doing stuff. After going on a long hike, fatigue is normal. One can even experience fatigue after a few hours of typical activities. It’s not realistic to feel alert and focused all day, every day, no matter what your diet may be.

And the guilt thing a person should easily get over with a simple dose of realism: human beings are biological constructs suited to a predatory lifestyle. We’ve hunted and ate meat over the course of aeons, and our bodies are well-suited to this.

When a person goes against what’s worked well over the course of human history, it shouldn’t be surprising when things don’t go very well for that person. For example, that person may get to be in poorer health and require more sick days for convalescence as a result of their impractical diet.

What’s more, the study showed that vegans took more time off from work to recuperate from the cold or flu, minor ailments that most people just shrug right off. That vegans have a much more difficult time with what most of us consider a mere inconvenience doesn’t really make their diet seem very effective.

While vegans imagine that the rest of us like meat just to be mean, we eat it because it plays a critical role in maintaining good health. It certainly helps that it’s delicious.

Vegan claiming to have been cured of breast cancer dies of breast cancer

mari lopez not obama

A YouTube personality named Mari Lopez made the claim to have been cured of her breast cancer, and said that she owed her recovery to her vegan lifestyle.

You could imagine that vegans would jump all over this, considering that they trip over themselves in the rush for any evidence that their hokey diet makes them superior to the general population, with mainstream media outlets enabling them by publishing anything attention-grabbing that doesn’t go against their own narrative. Mari also claimed that her diet cured her homosexuality, but media outlets don’t seem to have much to say as far as that goes.

In a stunning turn of events, Mari’s breast cancer had returned. To Mari’s credit, she did seem to figure something out, because she started eating meat again after her cancer returned. Obviously, her vegan diet wasn’t really doing anything for her, and she might have benefited from the iodine and B vitamins that she would have been missing out on as a result of veganism. Sadly, Mari Lopez didn’t make it.

The show’s co-host, Liz Johnson, was quick enough to throw Mari under the bus. Johnson blamed Mari’s death on her becoming inconsistent with her diet and spiritual life. Also to the fact that she underwent radiation and chemotherapy, which have been helping people to battle and survive cancer for years.

As you’ve probably pieced together by now, their channel was one that peddled all-natural remedies.

Liz also opposed Mari using a microwave to prepare her food, which was something that Liz was against. The idea that microwaves do any more damage to a food’s nutritional value than traditional cooking or somehow makes food worse to consume is another idea that gullible people buy into, but it’s not as virulent a brand of nonsense as veganism, because it doesn’t eliminate necessary nutrients and an entire food group from one’s diet. But it’s still something to watch out for when you want evidence that someone is terrible at thinking for themselves.

While natural remedy sites thrive on the business that they get from morons, there’s more to it than that. I suspect that these sites are so popular because people don’t want to visit doctors. With how expensive a visit to the doctor can get, it’s easy to understand their reluctance. There are people out there that wouldn’t go to the ER with an emergency, as doing so can easily cost a person as much as a year’s wages, and the prospect of making repeated calls to an insurance company to beg them to honor their commitment is more than a little daunting. And through it all, the stress might have an even further negative impact on their health. Then, suddenly, that sewing kit starts to look mighty attractive.

People become so desperate for an alternative that they begin accepting any that is presented to them, including the vegan diet, which is among the most persistent of fad diets. As veganism is criticized, vegans double down on their stance, and they attribute every health benefit that they can imagine to the diet in an attempt to justify it.

Considering this, is it any surprise that there are vegans that actually believe that their diet can cure cancer? And as the recent death of Mari Lopez has demonstrated, it’s not a harmless misconception.

The question at this point is, how many more lives need to be devastated by the widespread misconception that veganism is a healthy lifestyle? And why aren’t more people doing something about it?

Sources:
The Fox News article
The Yahoo News article

Vegan Artbook revisited: answering another vegan lie

straw man

Sometimes, I go back to a webcomic that I’ve reviewed to see what the artist has done with it since. I decided to check out Vegan Artbook, and found that it had two updates, one of which addresses a point that I’ve made in the review.

As much as I’d like to think that this means that the author has read the review and has taken it to heart, taking it as an impetus to improve, if you were to read her latest update, you’d see that this is not the case. The point that I made was that veganism propagated through dishonesty and predation on ignorance.

Here is what Vegan Artbook has to say about that:

p32ONLINE

You can see what I meant about the comic declining in artistic quality, but that’s not what I’m arguing against here.

Putting aside that she speaks of meat and vegetable industries as though they were in competition, the main problem with her argument (putting aside her incessant use of straw man fallacies) is her use of cherry-picking, which stands out like neon breast implants. She mentions those huge celery, pear, grape, and peach industries as those who don’t “hire PR agencies to write newspaper articles for them every week”. This says nothing of the apple industry, or for that matter the broccoli, turnip, mushroom, or even the mammoth, heartless, soulless zucchini industry, with their briefcases packed with freshly-printed hundred dollar bills. Did she leave them out because they do this?

I know that the typical vegan worldview pictures the meat and vegetable industries as being in some kind of competition. But in reality, the two fall under the banner of “agriculture”, and are happily married. They do stuff with each other, and they even have awesome children such as hamburgers. And jockish duds such as gummy candies.

So, why does the meat industry want PR articles written? The answer should be obvious: because vegans make up lies about them incessantly. Priya is the cause of the problem that she’s complaining about! What she’s doing is called defamation. However, it’s pretty hard for an industry to go after ordinary members of the public for a civil defamation suit. It’s more cost-effective to use PR to undo the damage that they cause.

No surprise; vegans lie to propagate their cause. Here are a few examples:

  • A few years back, vegans said that eating meat made it more difficult for men to maintain an erection. If this were true, you’d think that vegans would make up a higher percentage of the population by now.
  • They said that the Bible promotes a vegetarian lifestyle. It does not.
  • They say that it takes N gallons of water to produce a pound of beef. Like with the gender wage gap, the fact that the number fluctuates so wildly indicates no consistent source, and someone is making it up.
  • They also say that vegans are smarter. The vitamin deficiencies of a vegan diet directly results in irreversible neurological damage.

And there’s more. I can keep going. Their willingness to lie is symptomatic of the post-truth mentality that plagues left-wing fringe movements, which are already predisposed to the thinking that lies are justified if they somehow benefit the cause, rather than the liability they should be viewed as.

I’m going to conclude this with the same point that I’ve made in my review of Vegan Artbook:

If it’s necessary to lie to get people to accept what you’re trying to sell them, perhaps you shouldn’t believe it, either.

Webcomic Review: Vegan Artbook

soThe moment you realize that only the first two letters of that rebuttal are necessary.

If smugness had an official webcomic, that webcomic would be Vegan Artbook. The sheer amount of arrogance we are dealing with here would take Satan aback.

Vegan Artbook is about a group of vegans and their interactions with non-vegans. Those interactions boil down to how vegans are such great human beings, and how non-vegans are the cruelest, stupidest, most short-sighted monsters that the artist can imagine.

You could attempt to contact the artist directly and let her know that she’s wrong, her positions are all oversimplifications, many of her “facts” are misleading, and throw numerous scientifically-supported facts firmly grounded in nutrition, biology, and physiology, with supporting documents from reputable sources that can be checked with Google Scholar, etc. Then you’d read a few of her comics and come to understand that she’s aware of these facts, and just doesn’t care. If she cares enough about what you have to say, she’ll draw a caricature saying it which will usually have squiggly arms, buck teeth, acne, or whatever she can think of that would make you seem like a monster. Then she’ll honestly wonder why her webcomic has critics.

To her credit, however, she actually does delete some of her comics if someone can succeed in convincing her that making them was a terrible idea. Here’s one that was edited:

vegan artbook spot the differenceOld, left. New, right. Can you spot the difference?

Or this one, which was deleted from her page altogether:

vegan artbook 79 strawman deletedGather around! Vegan Artbook is going to teach us what a straw man fallacy is.

So, let’s not give up on the artist altogether. Let’s keep going! With enough persuasion, she may just delete every single one of her comics, and finally come around to being a decent, normal human being! But let’s not get our hopes up.

Vegan Artbook does have a cast of characters, but calling them characters is unfair to any other comic that has characters and to the definition of the word “character”. While there are different personages with distinct appearances, each of the protagonists are mouthpieces for the artist’s agenda with no deviation in the slightest. There’s a girl named Dolly that starts out as a meat-eater, but shortly into the comic, she changes sides and loses any aspect of her character that differentiated her from the rest of the protagonists, besides the color pink.

The antagonists are portrayed as varying degrees of insane, and they usually only serve as faces to say whatever argument that the artist feels like arguing against on that day, whether it be a ridiculous straw man argument or something that the artist doesn’t realize sounds reasonable and rational. But by the end of the page, they’re usually reduced to being unable to argue further, often by the counter-argument the artist wanted to convey or some quick zinger.

The art in Vegan Artbook seems competent at first blush. It’s so cute, that I just wanna huggle the entire cast, even as they call me a vicious monster! But then you realize how wrong you are for liking it because Priya went to the Ctrl+C then Ctrl+V school for webcomic art. Because of this laziness technique, she only has to draw each character once, and if she gets it right the first time, just modify the facial expressions, and it’s smooth sailing from then on out.

While most webcomic artists improve with time, the art style in Vegan Artbook is one of the few to have actually gotten worse. While her earlier comics were vibrant and colorful, Priya’s latest comics (which star a self-insert, tending Vegan Artbook towards Sonichu territory) are done in a monochrome with brown. This is somewhat reminiscent of old sepia-colored photographs, but is entirely inappropriate for a webcomic done in a Sanrio style. I’m puzzled as to why she would choose to do this. My guess is that the artist thinks that this is somehow more eco-friendly, but that would only matter for the printed books in her online store (which are still printed with bright colors), not for something transmitted as data and displayed on a monitor, which uses no ink or trees.

Then, with no warning, the comic hits you with gore. Some panels are filled with photographs of gory images that the artist uses to show just how ugly the production of meat is. This comes with no warning for those who happen to be reading her comic at work, which can actually make her comic a disservice to the careers of its intended audience. As you could probably imagine, some of the images used are discredited photographs that were once used in PETA propaganda.

For most of this review, my focus was on the webcomic itself. But for a moment, I’d like to indulge by taking on the author’s philosophy, seeing as it takes center stage in her comic. Like many SJW comics, not every page of Vegan Artbook is a comic page. Some pages are “splash pages” or “pin-ups” that convey distilled smugness. The following summarizes the purpose of the author’s personal philosophy pretty well:

IMG_0587

Vegans and vegetarians alike bloviate about how it’s their mission to limit suffering, harm, or whatever they choose to call it. When you talk to one enough, you’ll find that that’s what their position pretty much comes down to. However, their entire endeavor is self-defeating, which becomes obvious when you make the following observation:

Suffering is an intrinsic part of life.

Think about it. You suffer day after day. You suffer because some jerk cut you off on the highway. You suffer because you slave away with MS Office in a cubicle for 8 hours a day working with people who have no idea what you do and therefore assume that you have no value. You suffer because congress votes your constitutional freedoms away while shooting down any solution that could make anything any better for the rest of us. You suffer because your teenage children think that they know better than you, even though you’ve been around at least twice as long as they have, and they’ve spent half their time alive soiling their undergarments. And none of this is unusual.

Then you look at livestock. They never have to worry about paying the bills or having their property repossessed. They never have to worry about starving, or being hunted by natural predators. They have it well until the day that they’re slaughtered and made into someone’s food, which is done with a manner that’s quicker and far more humane than a natural predator would. Livestock have it so well.

In spite of this, the suffering of livestock matters more to vegans than the suffering of their fellow human beings. This is what makes them so reprehensible. But there’s more to it. They say that they’re in it to limit suffering, but they always draw the line when things get too difficult for them.

There are two things that vegans could do if they really wished to limit suffering. I wouldn’t even bring these ideas up if it weren’t clear that I disagree with them (which I do). I bring them up because I want to make it known just what veganism and its underlying philosophy leads to when followed to their shared conclusion. Here they are:

  1. Stop procreating. Throughout a person’s life, even if they’re vegan, they consume plenty of resources, including the indirect deaths of numerous insects, small mammals, and other animals that are killed in an effort to bring these resources to you and your children. This includes the numerous rodents that are directly or indirectly killed as a result of grain harvesting.
  2. Taking your own life. If you do this, you’ll immediately stop consuming natural resources and stop causing indirect deaths that make vegan diets possible. Also, numerous insects and microbes get a free meal, so there’s that.

I could also bring up the possibility of going on a shooting rampage, but some vegans would probably actually consider it, and it’s not necessary to go that far to point out how morally moribund that the vegan philosophy is.

But I don’t just dislike Veganism for what it becomes when it’s followed to it’s conclusion. I hate it because it propagates through dishonesty. Veganism makes more vegans by preying on the under-informed, including those who are unaware of the necessity of iodine and B vitamins in neurological health, resulting in the brain damage of those who adhere to the vegan diet, and starting a vicious cycle which makes the vegan’s victim more likely to accept anything that they say.

Vegan Artbook lies to you all over the place to try to sell you veganism. That’s why this comic upsets me so much. Vegans themselves should stop and reconsider what they’re doing. If it’s necessary to lie to get people to accept what you’re trying to sell them, perhaps you shouldn’t believe it, either.

Take the comic’s opening salvo:

1ONLINE

It’s a popular belief that Calcium is all that’s needed for strong bones. Calcium’s absorption into the body is aided by vitamin D, vitamin K, and magnesium. All of the above vitamins and minerals are in milk. This makes milk pretty much ideal for bone health.

Now, look how that comic is numbered. Yep, this is Vegan Artbook number one. That’s the artist’s commitment to research and starting strong with statements supported by facts.

Oh, by the way, Priya actually compares meat-eaters to Hitler. You know, the most infamous vegetarian in human history?

And there’s more. Lot’s more. This review could have easily turned into a point-by-point rebuttal of every stupid and naive claim that’s made in Vegan Artbook. But then it would be super-long and not really be much of a review. Still, it bears mentioning, considering that Vegan Artbook is one of those webcomics that is made with the intention of teaching, in which case it matters all the more that she gets the facts right. It doesn’t help that her idea of teaching is to repeatedly call everyone who disagrees with her stupid until they stop.

And speaking of stopping, I’m going to stop this review and give the webcomic its score, which is a the-reason-I’m-ending-this-review out of ten.

VV57Notagain

Which would be a 0.8 out of ten. A person can only take so much of this. Besides, I’m going to head out and see whether spite makes hamburgers tastier.

UPDATE: It does. The fact that I get vitamins from it that vegans only get from BS sources if at all is icing on the cake. Carnivores have more fun.

More pros than cons to providing citations and staying on topic

I’ve decided to provide a critical analysis of a student essay by the name of “More Pros Than Cons in a Meat-Free Life” authored by Marjorie Lee Garretson, and published in the student newspaper of the University of Mississippi in April 2010. Those who wish to read the essay may do so here.

In her essay, Marjorie makes the case for a vegetarian lifestyle by stating that there are health benefits to adopting it. She also makes a moral appeal, citing the treatment of livestock used as food sources. At some points in her essay, Marjorie makes some statements that are quite emotionally charged.

The title of her article, “More Pros Than Cons in a Meat-Free Life”, is somewhat misleading, as it would lead the reader to expect an enumeration of both pros and cons to a vegetarian lifestyle. Instead, Marjorie makes a one-sided case for vegetarianism that leaves little doubt as to her position. What’s more, the title leads one to believe that the focus of the article would be the benefits of a vegetarian lifestyle, when in fact much of the article consists of moral appeals, such as criticizing the treatment of livestock used as food sources, even though the treatment of livestock has no direct impact on the lifestyle of a person who is either vegetarian or prefers a conventional diet.

Persons who argue for a vegetarian lifestyle typically begin on a rational-sounding note, though much of the time, their arguments quickly degrade into emotional appeals and ad-hominem attacks against anyone who would dissent. Marjorie, however, wastes little time getting to accusing adherents of the conventional diet of overlooking or ignoring for convenience the multiple benefits that she claims the vegetarian lifestyle provides.

Of course, she was only getting started. She lists the supposed benefits of a vegetarian lifestyle, which she says includes:

  • lower body mass index
  • significantly decreased cancer rate
  • longer life expectancy
  • avoiding Alzheimer’s disease
  • avoiding osteoporosis

There is a problem, however. She provides no citations. Marjorie’s claims are not considered common knowledge. They challenge conventional thinking. As such, citations are important in backing up her claims. Without citations, she is allowing her audience to assume that these claims are conclusions reached as a result of years of study by educated professionals, and it would seem as though she expects that her claims will be accepted by her audience without inquiry.

This is a trend that continues in Marjorie’s writing. She goes on to claim that “It takes less energy and waste to produce vegetables and grains than the energy required to produce meat.” Do you see where this is headed? She goes on to cite the statistic that it takes 16 pounds of grain and 5000 gallons of water to produce a pound of meat. This statistic is among the most repeated among those advocating a vegetarian lifestyle. However, the statistic is false. She provides no citations, however, so she is apparently banking on her audience not being particularly inquisitive, and accepting her claims on the basis of “sounds like it’s probably true.”

However, just because something sounds eye-opening doesn’t mean it’s true. A study by the Council of Agricultural Science and Technology in 1999 has found that 2.6 pounds of grain is used to produce a pound of beef in developed countries, while in developing countries the number is 0.3 lbs (for anyone wondering, this is what a citation looks like).

Vegetarians claim that the land that is used to raise cattle and other livestock could be more productive if that same land would be used to produce vegetables and grain. However, not every plot of land is suitable for growing grain. Livestock is typically raised on marginal lands that are not suitable for growing vegetables.

Marjorie goes on to claim that the runoff of fecal matter from meat factories is the single most detrimental pollutant to our water supply. She provides as her only citation in the entire article the Environmental Protection Agency, even if she doesn’t mention a specific study, leaving her readers with the task of verification. Perhaps Marjorie was employing some psychology, intentional or not; people tend toward the path of least resistance, so they’re likely to accept her claim rather than do their own research (such as with a simple web search) to verify.

The most significant source of pollutants according to the United States Department of Agriculture is nonpoint sources. Agricultural pollutants are among the pollutants that fall under this category. However, the EPA lists among these pollutants “Excess fertilizers, herbicides and insecticides from agricultural lands and residential areas”. So, ironically, Marjorie’s only citation in her one-sided case for vegetarianism is for a study that states that runoff from growing vegetables is among the most significant pollutants for water. Other sources of nonpoint pollution include urban runoff, salt from irrigation practices, and other sources.

The following charts show the ratio of pollutants in water supplies. Interestingly, as much as industry is demonized for being a significant polluter, it comes nowhere close to non-point pollutants, to which agriculture contributes heavily:

Percentages_sources_of_pollution_that_impair_water_bodies

Source: United States Department of Agriculture, Public Domain

Marjorie goes on to cite inhumane treatment of livestock. While there may be a problem with the treatment of livestock, vegetarians seem to idealize life in the wilderness. Anyone who thinks that life in the wilderness is idyllic has not spent a significant amount of time outdoors. Most people don’t have to. It’s typically done for a refreshing change of pace or to enjoy scenery.

For animals, however, it’s a different story. Animals live there. And for them, it’s a constant battle for survival. Nearly every organism in the wild is surrounded by predators and scavengers, many of which would happily accept them as their next food source, and not care about their objections or opinions on the matter. When animals do die, it’s usually a painful death as a result of predation.

Humans give livestock a pretty sweet deal. Livestock get to live with no fear of predation. They get enough to eat, whether it’s enough to sustain them or plenty to prevent them from getting too lean. When the time comes to make them into our food, we make things much quicker than predatory animals do.

Marjorie also voices objection to the practice of using livestock to obtain dairy products such as milk and eggs. She likens the practice to that of puppy mills, and accuses adherents of the conventional diet of looking the other way when it comes to livestock.

Again, the title of Marjorie’s work is “More Pros Than Cons in a Meat-Free Life”, which leads the reader into believing that the potential cons of the decision to go vegetarian would be considered. However, Marjorie doesn’t list any. It shouldn’t be a surprise by now that Marjorie was not interested in providing an objective analysis of the options. It should be easy to guess what her position is.

If Marjorie were to touch upon the cons of living a meat-free lifestyle, she’d have a fair amount to discuss. For example, those who are strictly vegan have no sources of iodine or essential B vitamins, a deficiency of which can lead to mental retardation and irreversible neurological damage. However, that’s a potential for discussion that she ignored.

Due to the deficit of citations and the overall level of professionalism in this piece, I do not believe that Marjorie’s essay is University-level work. The University of Mississippi should have felt at least a little hesitant in posting it on their web space as representative of their student’s work, and if this work is reprinted in any textbook (as it is in mine), students would be right to critically analyze it to identify Marjorie’s mistakes, and avoid making the same ones themselves.

Works Cited:

“CAST Animal Agriculture and Global Food Supply.” Publications. CAST, 1 Jan. 1999. Web. 22 Jan. 2015. <http://www.cast-science.org/publications/?animal_agriculture_and_global_food_supply&show=product&productID=2836&gt;.

“What Is Nonpoint Source Pollution?” What Is Nonpoint Source Pollution? EPA. Web. 22 Jan. 2015. <http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/whatis.cfm&gt;.