When people try argue against veganism
 

Hello,

Whenever i tell people I am vegan they always try to argue against it and they bring up really unreasonable things and i rather not discuss about it because they will have their opinion and i will have mine..

However i need help how to respond to this
when they say that plants are alive/feel too (and that there was studys done on that)
so how could i respond to that?

Just smile, and let it be. There is no need to argue at all.

Usually the kind of responses you receive reflects the manner in which you express/present your viewpoints...

For example, if you're coming across as pushy that may stir up uncomfortable feelings within the other person which causes them to react in a defensive manner...However, if you're presenting your viewpoint in a neutral manner and have information to share without preaching to other people, you are more likely to receive positive or neutral feedback in return...

If you are not being preachy and still receive negative arguments that tells me something becomes stirred within the other person causing them to react defensively...That is their problem/issue to deal with and not yours...

As Rah nam stated, sometimes it's best to let things be. Say what you feel like you need to say then let it rest...

I agree with what has been written above. You can mention what your position is and why you adopted it, without being unduly pushy or preachy. There is no need to enter into arguments. If you discuss veganism with an acquaintance who just loves to argue (such people exist! :wink: ), then if you don't wish to argue you can just say, "You are entitled to your opinion, so am I. I'm not entering into an argument with you."

Regarding the issue of plants having feelings, I assume that you are referring to the work of Bose, Backster and others. There is a good summary here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_...8paranormal%29

The lack of proper controls in the experiments means that the tricky issue of whether plants can sense pain remains possible but very unlikely. I do not doubt that they do possess some form of awareness, perhaps full consciousness, but the ability to feel physical pain requires not just a nervous system (which they do have, albeit very different from humans/animals) but also a brain to sense pain signals. The question of whether plants have brains is discussed here: http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/fea...ts-have-brains

The lack of a brain in plants to sense pain is really the basis for a vegan diet. Perhaps the Universe is planned in such a way, so that plants are aware but do not feel physical pain.

I think you should focus on your attitude. I think the best attitude is one of love and compassion, to be with the other people instead of against them.
I you are both very occupied in an argument neither of you will get anywhere because you are both too obsessed with telling the other one what he/she is doing wrong.

Vegetarianism and veganism have benefits for personal health, animal well being and environmental sustainability.

I have learned that veganism is an inevitable aspect of the human being when they become more spiritually awakened. Spiritiual awakening means developing more and more love towards life of any other being, human, animal, plant, etcetera.

Personally I have noticed an improvement of my well being as a result of a plant based diet. Feeling better makes it easier to be more compassionate towards other people and other life in general.
I have to admit that when I started to feel these improvements I wanted to tell everybody else about it. It's kind of logical: if something good happens to you you want to share it with others. But others may think differently and you have to respect that.
I want others to respect my way of living too.

Don't force yourself into anything that doesn't fit you or that demands too much from you. Won't work.

Hey imawonderer, I think the difference is that animals have a central nervous system, so they do feel pain like we do. Plants don't have a central nervous system, so although you could argue that plants can suffer too, it's not in the way that we experience pain. Along the same lines, I have heard certain vegetarians say that for the same reason it is ok to eat oysters, because they don't have a central nervous system either, so they don't suffer like animals would. They are also an excellent source of vitamin B12. But I'm allergic to oysters so I haven't tried that. :rolleyes:

It is simple. You don't have to go into this disgution. They don't understand your reasoning so it is a waste of time. You don't have to defend your point of view. Just tell them that vegetables are healthier and you like them more. That you chose this style of living because you find it agree with your nature. They can go and search how it has been proven that it is healthier.

Thank you I appreciate for everyones suggestions and I dont really want to argue with others about it and try to avoid it but then some people like to push it and keep talking and talking about it even if i told them that they will have their own views and i will have my own

Oh okay thank you a lot i'll keep that in mind so I will know what to say next time ahah :biggrin:

Native cultures often thank the plants they take from; I think I've even read that they can apologize - so obviously, they think that the plants have a capacity for suffering. Read about animism. The idea, whether you eat animals or plants, is that suffering or not, there is some kind of symbiotic relationship.

For example with plains indians such as Lakota, and the buffalo. Yes they hunted them, but only for what they needed to survive, and they made use of every part of those animals. At the same time, they protected the buffalo and saw them as sacred.

May I ask how you "tell people you are vegan"?
You may be presenting it in a manner which inspires a defensive response.

I think if plants screamed when you cut them, people might feel differently.

I think I would simply respond with, "Eat what you wish. Grant me the same respect and freedom of choice."

Well i told my friends im vegan thats it so they know that i cant eat certain foods and cant go out to eat in certain places.For instance we went subway and i didnt get anything because there is nothing to get and when my friends were eating my friend had a reason bring up why im doing it and i told her but then she kept talking and talking about it which alot of it was based on opinion rather than evidence. i even told her than its best to leave it because i will have my views and she will have hers but she still carried on talking but i didnt even listen anymore and just zoned out because i dont want to hear any of it.

Tewwible, just tewwible. ;)

Maybe you could point them to the healthy eating plate over at Harvard. Maybe that helps.
If you look at their about page you will see the editorial committee are all professors.

Yeah.. you could not be flawed for that at all. Thank you from everyone for not pushing your views, a lot of vegans do. Even if their contention was valid, perhaps their diet was based on their ApOE genotype, as mine is, and must involve meat... that's still their choice. They should respect yours, even if they don't agree with your reasoning.

One of the truly ironic things I find everywhere is that our laws often hold up the right for certain freedoms that we enjoy, yet we deny others the same. People eh. :rolleyes:

Unfortunately all I can suggest is to perhaps point out that they have their choice, you have your choice and your friendship is more important than an argument and they please leave it be. Then quickly, change the subject.

If they really want to push it, ask them to explain why they feel they must change your mind. Make them face their biases. That can backfire and may make them very upset. (Cognitive dissonance) But I feel you understand that.

Good luck.

If ever it comes up as discussion, I always say that I am vegan because of my own personal feelings about animals and connection with animals.
I have a friend who eats meat. He likes meat very much. I never tell him what he should or should not eat or choose to do. I only let him know what I choose to do, and only when dinner is involved. He completely understands, and has started to get interested in Quorn mince/sausages/burgers which make a nice vegetarian (though not vegan) dinner. Now he is trying out recipes with this stuff. He did that of his own accord. I didn't lecture him.

Unfortunately many people personally identify with their likes and dislikes, they make their opinions aspects of their selves and if you perchance collide with one of their so dearly held opinions, they experience cognitive dissonance and go on the warpath.

Helloooo ego!

Tell 'em you're a vegan and you don't particularly care to hear their opinion.

I feel like I can speak to veganism well but there are really great resources out there. I usually take a health angle to veganism first and my go to for the health aspects are referring to the documentary Forks Over Knives and if they want quick hit facts I will refer Dr. Michael Greger's YouTube channel NutritionFacts.org

I don't really bring up my diet unless someone takes notice and asks. And I try not to argue - I just say that I don't eat meat or animal products for personal and philosophical reasons. That's not really controversial, since a lot of those philosophies are pretty mainstream. Also, if you do have a discussion about eating meat, don't do it while you're supposed to be eating.

Also I've found that some vegans and vegetarians - especially new ones - tend to come off as condescending or aggressive in tone when they explain what they do. It's often unintentional, but it still puts people off. I didn't consider plant-based diets for a long time - not because I didn't care about animals or the environment, but because the people I had to interact with to get information were so obnoxious. If someone asks me why I don't eat meat, "I eat this way for philosophical reasons" is an acceptable answer. "I eat this way because I value all lives (unlike you)" is not.

Humans are not raised vegan (with few exceptions), and entirely plant-based diets are a relatively recent phenomenon. (So is the mass farming of meat, BTW.) So even though it's very frustrating to hear bad arguments, you have to remember that you were just like them at one point. It's a cultural norm that people don't really question. It doesn't make them bad or stupid though.

I'm moving toward eating predominantly veg and fruit and plant based, but I'm never going to call myself vegan or vegetarian, for the same reason I don't call myself a christian. I borrow the good I see in a philosophy and make it my own. I also dislike labels because they rarely describe anything well.

These days it's almost a necessity to make it the large part of your diet purely because of how prevalent disease is, and how much points to such a diet slowing or even reversing the progression.

IMO the best thing anyone can do is learn to listen to their own body, it will tell you when you are eating **** and when you're healing it. It takes a lot of patience and trial and error but that's how I have done things for nearly 10 years and my diet has transformed rather significantly in that time.

There's a wonderful quote which can be applied to situations such as this:

Never try to explain who you are to someone who is committed to misunderstanding you.

Occasionally you meet someone who is genuinely interested in your decision to become vegan and is open to change. Unfortunately those people are incredibly rare. More often than not, you will meet those who are invested in defending their own choices and in critising yours. Many people LOVE to argue their case given a chance. It's human nature. By entering into that you achieve nothing accept frustration and misery for yourself.

I use the tactic that others have mentioned. I don't bring up my choices in conversation unless it happens naturally or we are in a resturant for example. I make clear that I don't judge other people's choices and I simply focus on my own reasons. This approach can often inadvertently have far more influential affects than trying to argue your case with someone who has no interest in understanding and is keen to argue for the sake of it or to defend their own position.

You might want to pre-empt the whole "conversation" by avoiding the term "Vegan." "Vegan" seems to bring out hostility and almost anger in some people.

Instead you simply say you prefer to stick to meatless foods for your personal health.

No explanation, no defense, just "I feel healthier when I avoid meat dishes."

No one on earth can live an ethical and healthy life if they are putting into their stomachs the burnt, dead bodies of tortured and murdered sentient beings, or eating any foods that contribute to the suffering of those beings. If they are taking that into themselves they will become sick, both physically and spiritually. That usually gets the point across, and it's true. Cause and effect. This is important big stuff, never forget that.

I agree, drop the terms vegan and vegetarian. I use the term cruelty free diet, as that's what it is. Just don't expect anyone to change, and what they eat is their business. However, I support speaking out for those who cannot speak for themselves. If even one person in 10,000 becomes interested in a non dead body diet, my speaking out has been a success.

Get them to read 'Diet For A New America' (25th Anniversary Updated Version). Then they'll understand.
Either that or take them to a slaughterhouse!

To be honest, I don't think there's any one surefire method to convince people. Most find graphic images of slaughter offensive rather than educational. And I must confess that I didn't have any emotional reaction to watching slaughterhouse footage until well after I started eating a vegan diet. This isn't a matter of being a bad person, it's just that some people (like myself) are wired differently to not feel as many emotions or as strongly. (No water signs in this poster's chart!)

I started logically reevaluating my views and practices after watching [a VICE documentary on the Yulin dog festival which didn't take a sensationalistic approach like most vegan materials do. When people ask me why I do what I do, I send them this video first, because it really puts the Western view of animal slaughter in perspective.

EDIT: Tried to get the link right :-/

Well what exactly do you find unreasonable about the points they bring up? There are multiple sides to every story. Not to start a debate or anything, I just feel the need to give you some food for thought. Might not be vegan food though.

I am a meat eater. Specifically, my diet consists mostly of meat, dairy, nuts, fruit, tubers, and warm spices. Humans didn't evolve over 2 million years to be vegetarian or vegan.

We're animals and part of the food chain just like every other animal. You eat vegan because you feel compassion for animals, right? Is it wrong for a lion to eat meat too because the gazelle suffers? Or is it worse for the lion to suffer malnutrition on a grain-and-bean diet? I've never met a healthy vegetarian.

They say they feel good, but they look pale and weak. Your bodies react with sickness to foods outside your regular diet, not adapting to diverse or more readily available food. I prefer to eat organic and foraged but at least processed food doesn't make me sick.

The modern "paleo" diet is wrong too. Just like veganism, it restricts the diet too much. So much meat and not enough wild plants. Everyone in the food chaim, humans included, are in a symbiotic relationship with every other creature. An animal's dietary needs change with age, sex, moon phase, season....Everybody gets eaten by something.

That's the beauty of God, the beauty of birth and death, the cycles of nature. Every creature is both predator and prey. The lion eats the gazelle, the gazelle eats the grass, the grass "eat" the nutrients in the dirt, and the dirt is made by bacteria who eat all the waste. It's okay to be eaten.

Sure getting killed and eaten hurts an animal, but so does dying in every other way. Death is necessary for new birth. Energy and matter of every creature must be transformed, making room and providing the building blocks for new life. That is the beauty of a balanced self-sustaining ecosystem.

I'm an animal lover. One of those people who get really defiant if you say plants and other animals aren't people. But I'm morally okay with eating almost any creature. I do disagree with modern livestock farming, as well as any agriculture besides small homesteads. More of a hunter-gatherer type.

For most of human history, there were less of us and more other organisms. The food that grew wild was enough to sustain us. We would eat what we need, be eaten by something else, and thus give back to the Earth. Now there are too many of us and we only take without giving.

No modern lifestyle is free of cruelty to our fellow creatures. :(

I think veg has a rational ethical basis in a human society which is highly irrational, but no moral basis as a general rule. Of course if you take fish from the diet of an island people, or meat any nomadic group or jungle tribe, the 'right' becomes harmful.

This is the problem with righteousness: it's inherently unethical. Ethics have never in history come down to hard fast rules, but has always been a continual consideration of dilemmas, ad what's 'good' (beneficial) in one circumstance is often 'bad' (detrimental) in another.

The question is, hypothetically, if veg was made compulsory for everyone in the world, who would benefit (priviledged white people) and who would be harmed (remaining tribal communities). Veganism as an ideology is therefore an act of genocide, or at least, cultural domination.

I get what you mean, Gem
But who knows for sure if veganism/vegetarianism would harm the body-systems of tribal people? It may be detrimental to their culture and traditions....but would it harm their physical health?
Because of where they live and the options available to them then such people have no choice than to hunt and fish for a living. If they suddenly had options, and (theoretically) adopted a good balanced vegan diet, with all necessary nutrients, we can't really say without lifetime studies, how that would affect them physically.

I don't really see veganism/vegetarianism as exclusively a 'middle-class white-man's' eating fad, or any politically/culturally-motivated domination agenda....
Many Indian people are vegan/vegetarian.

I think the main point is that you dont have to explain yourself. Maybe even stop explaining it to yourself by putting yourself in the vegan box. Like who even cares. Why not just be an "I eat what makes me feel great" person. If you look healthy and feel great then I'll bet no one will argue against that.

Many scientific studies say that plant based food benefits your health.

HSPH: The Nutrition Source > Disease Prevention

HSPH: Processed red meat related to higher risk of death, plant protein to lower risk

NCBI: The Health Advantage of a Vegan Diet: Exploring the Gut Microbiota Connection

NIH: Vegetarian Diets Linked to Lower Mortality

GWU: A Plant-Based Diet Causes Weight Loss, According to New Mega-Study

It is even found that plant based food is tied to happiness:
Psych Central: Eating More Fruits & Vegetables Tied to Happiness

I'm imagining if you took the fish out of the diet of island peoples they would have malnutrition.


That doesn;t happen, and island peoples who are 'given options' (meaning made to pay for imported food) don't actually 'choose' vegan diets. In fact, their traditional diets are replaces with the cheap stuff they afford. Rice, flour, sugar, tea and fatty canned meats.


They have religious/cultural reasons and that's fine, it doesn't make them more better than a Pacific islander fisherman or a desert nomadic person. It just means they clear a lot of forest to create agriculture.

Veg does have sensible and ethical reason, so I'm nor going against it, but merely pointing out that ethics are not 'right'. Ethics is a dilemma.

For example. Lets say we come across an ethic group that lives in a forest, but they do little to no agriculture. For 10 thousand years they hunted and gather and led reasonably healthy lives. Then the great white/indian moralist comes and teaches them to not kill animals for food, but instead, clear the land for crops and take water from the streams for irrigation. As a result there is habitat destruction, soil erosion, and even species extintion. With less habitat to provide for them, the people become more reliant on their agriculture and continue the practice of deforestation to grow crops. Soon enough they forget hoe to hunt and gather, there are less jungle species available and they become completely reliant on their own toil to produce this vegan diet, but to the destruction of their culture their forest and their and knowledge. Morals are simple: don't kill, but ethics are complicated because something has to be killed one way or another, and that includes more than the lives of animals.

We've been here before!

There is chronic over-fishing in the Pacific Region. There is also chronic pollution in the Pacific Region. What fish remains is polluted with toxins like mercury.

The diet of the Pacific Islanders is predominantly imported junk food from Australia! They have the highest levels of obesity and diabetes in the world.
So this 'living off the land' idyll is totally false.

What may have happened in the past (though the diet of the New Guinea people for example was predominantly vegan, based on sweet potatoes and the like) is firmly in the past. This 'living off the land' hunting and killing theory may have been viable when earth's population was a fraction of what it is now, but with over 7 billion people heading to 10 billion people by the middle of the century .... All wildlife would be wiped out within a month!

Deforestation is predominantly down to land clearance for cattle ranching. Certainly the case in the Amazon.
You can feed many more people using land for crop production than you can meat production.
In any case, a disproportionate amount of annual crop production (i.e. grains, soya) is used for animal feed for livestock.

Islander peoples are generally impoverished by Western standards so they buy basics like soap, sugar, rice and cheap meat with high fat content. People of New Guinea who mostly do live off the land don't have the same health problems as you describe, but it is increasing.



If you actually go live in newguinea you will see how it is, but as it stands you have no idea. I've had the good fortune to travel the region between highlander subsistence farmers to island fishing villages, so I'm pretty well in the know of the cultures and lifestyles of peoples in that area.


I don't think you understand the bid picture of diet, culture and poverty, b s I say, there are sound ethical reasons for a vegan diet. It's just that most people, particularly those in remote regions, can't afford diets based on Western incomes.

You were in New Guinea as a boy as I understand it, which was what over 40 years ago? The world has moved on since then. In any case, if you lived there, you'll know, the diet of the inhabitants of Papua New Guinea is traditionally largely vegetarian. Yams, taro and sago forming the bulk of the diet.

Per capita income is a fraction of that of Australia, true, but most of the people in the Pacific Region do live on a Western junk food diet. That's why they're suffering from chronic levels of obesity and diabetes.
Of the countries with the highest levels of obesity. The top 5 are all in the Pacific Islands! They certainly aren't starving.

On the broader picture, the world CANNOT sustain the Livestock Industry, even at the present level.
It's destroying animals by the billion, causing untold suffering and harm; it's destroying the planet and it's tarnishing the Spirit of all those engaged in it, directly or indirectly.

In the future, people will be vegan or eating insects & test-tube meat. That will be the choice.

Ha yeah I don't take the word of places like NIH and Psych Forums.

And I never said hunting and gathering could feed more humans, I said it'd feed a healthy human population in a healthy ecosystem. Earth doesn't need billions of us.

I get that neither foraging nor the livestock industry can support the human appetite. But the pesticides, deforestation, genetic modification, and monocropping of agriculture can't support Earth. And a virus can't survive without a host.

If you genuinely feel healthy eating vegan, more power to ya. No one needs to justify not putting something in their own body. I lie and say I have a chitin intolerance to get out of eating arthropods, fish, and reptiles. But just know that until there are simply less humans, no diet is cruelty-free. So I eat what makes me strong for when Nature knocks us back to the Stone Age.

I left new guinea when I was 31, 18 years ago, but still have contact with people there. The mountain and valley folk have extensive agriculture so they eat mainly vegetables, but hunt and forage as well, and reserve livestock (mainly pigs) for ceremony, compensation, brideprice and feast, but poultry raising has become popular in accessible areas, which are consumed more frequently. The coastal and island peoples typically go fishing nearly every day, though. There are many cultural groups, so I'm just making generalisations. Villagers have next to no money, so tradestore goods are very basic, sugar, rice, canned fish/meat, salt.


Of course, they are suffering new illnesses due to consuming junk, which is cheap and heavily marketed. I think high carb and sugar is the main issue, and very low quality fatty meat like lamb flaps and canned processed meat with high salt content.


Yes, I encourage vegan ethics for the reasons you mention, which are very sound reasons, but as we see in practice, most peoples can't afford health, so they eat what is cheapest.

I disagree with that. My vegan diet is cheaper then a regular diet that includes animal food.

It may be difficult for people who live in remote areas to live cheaper on a plant-based diet, but if you have internet and are smart enough you can save money on a plant-based diet.

A cow or a pig needs to eat a few years before it produces a single portion of meat. The land that is needed to feed them can also be used for crops for human consumption every year. Sometimes even two times a year. So basically vegan food has to be cheaper by default.

Organic food is more expensive then regular food. But organic food is something different then plant-based food.

Organic food is not necessarily healthier then plant-based food.

Here in Holland 1 liter of cow milk cost about 60-100 eurocent. I make my soymilk myself and that cost me about 35 eurocent per liter at max. Non-organic.

I make hummus, seitan, bean burgers and indian omelets myself and they are almost all cheaper per 100 gram then any kind of meat or dairy. Non-organic.
So much for the holy proteins we all need every day.

B12 supplements cost next to nothing.

And my health and overall well being have significantly improved since I went vegan.

I find that too, mogenblue.
If I shop carefully, even in a mainstream store I can find basics for a healthy vegan diet at very low cost. And any additional supplements needed, can be found at competitive prices usually online.
As an example, I once worked out the cost of what appeared to be an expensive Omega 3 vegan supplement. But I found a deal where I got 3 for the price of 2 online, and free shipping. When I worked it out, penny for penny and week by week, it was no more cost than the 3 cans of fish I bought per week pre-vegan!

I mean....carrots 45p for quite a large bag. OK not organic, but they will do. Cabbage 69p....broccoli 49p....celery 49p... Potatoes....£1 a bag....cashew nuts 75p a bag! ...peanuts £1 a large bag.....etc etc
That's just a quick example. It doesn't cost much for vegan food if you are canny.

Not to add to debate, but I'm just curious. Y'all rely on grocery stores, supplements, and even the internet just to afford enough to eat. But what if all that failed? All it takes is one solar flare, one idiot nuking the magnetosphere, one hacker, one pesky plague....Even the machines that tend the fields can be hacked just like cars these days.

Everything relies on computers, everything is hooked up to one "grid" or "cloud", putting all our eggs in one basket. Just like monocropping. Just like hoping a superbug, resistant to our most poisonous pesticides, don't wipe out the whole harvest. So what if that happens?

Or what if yet another superbug makes everyone too sick to farm? I'm not sure ration cards can be used online, nor do they cover supplements. Food stamps don't even cover supplements. What if the next president ticks off Kim Jong Un, and he launches a nuke up in the atmosphere, disabling a 3rd of satellites like the US did in the 50s/60s? Or maybe it was the UK. Either way, there goes the internet.

So considering that the vegan diet requires either enough people to farm, computers to do it for us, or the space and skills to grow enough food yourself....And even with a big agriculture industry, y'all still seem to need supplements....Could any of you even survive a natural or manmade disaster that threatens our already-vulnerable food security?

Could you survive without the internet to buy vitamins, the modern technology farmers rely on, or those farmers alive and well to farm for you? Please tell me you guys at least know how to identify wild edible plants for when they reclaim the Earth? I'd hate to think any of you would starve. :(