Eating both non-vegan and vegetarian diet for ethical reasons is hippopotamus.
Debate Rounds (3)
Con will argue against the topic.
In plain English to eat eggs, milk and cheese but not meat to save animal lives is hippopotamus.
So you say hippopotamus is lacto ovo vegetarian. Great! We have a place to start.
Under your definition hippopotamus eat eggs, milk and cheese, but they are strictly vegan; they are just faking eating eggs and cheese to be cool.
Hippopotamuses munch on grasses, water plants and such things. Yes, they sometimes bite on a person or alligator who get in their faces from time to time; but they do spit them out, just yucky.
Did you know that a hippopotami"s closest relative is whales and porpoises, who are not non-vegan? They will eat just about anything that moves. So much for cousins taking up the ethical family"s eating habits in an effort to save animal lives.
Also, the word hippopotamus is from an ancient Greek word (strange alphabet that does not cut and paste) which means water horse. A horse is a vegan also; yeah!
Hippopotamus are classified along with other two toed animals such as camels, cattle, deer and pigs. Camels and cattle are vegans, pigs not so much; non-vegans. But, camels are related to llamas and alpacas; cows have their cousin the bison, deer are related to elks and gazelles; all are vegan. Bonus points for this group.
So there you have it, horses, camels, deer, cattle, bison, alpacas, llamas, elks, gazelles and hippopotamus are hippopotamus therefore, vegans pretending to be Lacto ovo vegetarians who care about ethics by not eating other animals. Whereas, whales, porpoises, and pigs are unethical meat eating non-vegan nasty folk, also known as carnivors.
"Most recent industry figures indicate that around 400,000 unwanted dairy calves, not wanted for herd replacement or rearing for pink veal, are slaughtered each year in Australia as 'waste-products' of the dairy industry"animalsaustralia.org
"Based on this estimation, someone with a desire to modify their diet to reduce the number of animals killed for their food, or someone who is interested in gradually moving towards a plant-based diet for ethical reasons should start by removing chicken and eggs from their diet, but the most animal suffering and death can be prevented by following a vegan diet. " animalvisuals.org
Effectively by still purchasing and drinking cow's milk you are contributing excessively and endorsing animal cruelty. At least meat eaters aren't hippopotamus. Some Lacto vegetarians proudly state "I am not responsible for any animal deaths." That's hippopotamus!
Not only are Lacto vegetarians responsible for animal deaths, they are straight out telling a falsehood. If you want to save the most animal lives go vegan. If you think animals can be raised humanely look at the humanemyth.org website. Not only are lacto vegetarians responsible for animal deaths, they are responsible for animal suffering.
Finally, there are plenty of perfectly health vegans. Calcium and vitamin D can be gained from other sources. Calcium from leafy greens. Vitamin D from the sun.
"experts say going outside for 10 minutes in the midday sun"in shorts and a tank top with no sunscreen"will give you enough radiation to produce about 10,000 international units of the vitamin." usanews.com
"Collard greens, cooked1 cup357" vrg.org
First, 249,825 Australian individuals are employed in the farming industry. Affiliated industries such as meat packing, milk and egg production, distribution, retail and fast food employment grow the employment numbers exponentially.
In the meat packing sector there are 148,000 full-time jobs that contribute 16.2 billion dollars to the Australian economy annually. $37 billion of the fast food industry contributes annually with 156,186 jobs; McDonald's, Burger King, Subway and the like. The meat industry as a whole, chicken, beef, and lamb contributes $18 million dollars a day to the Australian economy.
The food animal industry contributes $16.2 billion in gross domestic product or 1.3% of total GDP. Now, you may feel that 1.3% of the GDP can be sacrificed in the name of animal ethics but, percentages do not reflect value of product. Mining and ore exports hold higher monetary value per pound than meats and animal products. But, meat production, animal products and associated industries attribute to 58% of all jobs held in Australia. In the name of animal ethics would you put that many people out of work? The unemployment and social services payouts would break the nation financially. With more than half of the Australian population unemployed, hungry and some homeless as a result; do you think a vegetarian or vegan diet is in balance with people out of work and starving? Where do animal ethics draw a line?
I will not repute that cruelty exist in the farming of animals, but the sources you referenced are biased. These are organizations whose" goal are explicit toward vegetarianism or vegan life styles and animal ethics. They do not provide statically rich information regarding cause and effect from an economic standpoint. Though their claims have some merit, upon examining economic repercussions, one must ask does animal welfare supersede human hunger due to unemployment? It is conceivable that over time that natural resource use proves that meat production and affiliated industries are too intensive to be sustainable as the global populations grows. But, given the data presently available, animal ethics and morality places human populations at greater risk for suffering if applied.
Second, I believe we have defined hippopotamus.
Stating that "Some Lacto vegetarians proudly state "I am not responsible for any animal deaths." That's hippopotamus!" This statement is false.
Hippopotamus is under an undisputed definition: A hippopotamus one is who is faking eating egg and cheese but in fact strictly vegan. Your comment is contradictory to the definition. Lacto vegetarians that eat eggs and cheese are not hippopotamus.
I will not argue that a vegetarian diet is healthy or in practice attainable for human heath but, you fail to connect that such practice is ethical. Presently you tout animal ethics is preferable without regard to the cascading effects that would precipitate greater harm against the human that is also an animal.
"I will not argue that a vegetarian diet is healthy or in practice attainable for human heath but, you fail to connect that such practice is ethical. Presently you tout animal ethics is preferable without regard to the cascading effects that would precipitate greater harm against the human that is also an animal." Con
An interesting point of view. Indeed there is vested interest in the meat industry. Yet, this doesn't mean change has to happen overnight. A chaotic situation would arise if massive change happened over night. A more gradual change could be implemented.
As for the economy there are some who think people are much healthier on a vegan diet. That health care costs would be reduced. I know in the USA health care costs keep rising.
"$245 billion: Total costs of diagnosed diabetes in the United States in 2012" diabetes.org
To stay on topic though the main point is vegetarians indirectly cause animal deaths. Vegetarians have animal blood on their hands. It annoys me that some hold their-selves on their high horses thinking they are so grand. If you want to save animals go vegan. As you can see eating eggs is one of the highest causes of animal deaths from the below graph in the animal visuals link. Milk is much higher than vegetables, fruits, and grains.
Let"s look at this gradual change idea. Suppose over the course of 20 years farming animals for food and associated industries were phased out. Now pretend 58% of a population is now employed in the renewable energy field. We are all now happy vegans with a clear conscience. Think again.
What about the 30 to 40 million people of the world that are nomadic? Their existence is dependent upon raising and grazing animals for food, or they are hunter gatherers. Most of these people live in arid or snow covered regions where growing crops is not an option for survival. Are you going to put a seed in the hand of a Botswanan bushman and say plant it to eat? He"ll reply no rain, an Inuit in Greenland, Canada or Alaska, too cold. How about the Kham Magar in the Himalayas; we live above tree line. In addition to the nomadic tribes of the world, millions of others live in these regions as well. Is it ethical to shut down all their cultures and starved them out of existence for the sake of preserving animal life?
---Pro "As for the economy there are some who think people are much healthier on a vegan diet. That health care costs would be reduced. I know in the USA health care costs keep rising."---
There might be some lines of thinking that "some" people are healthier on a vegan diet. But not all people, as mentioned above. Also, many children under 5 do not do well on vegan diets. Young children on vegan diets do not obtain essential amino acids that are only available in animal proteins. Many of these children suffer from rickets and fail to thrive as a result. After reading several sites purporting vegan diets for small children, most recommended some kind vitamin supplements; obviously something is missing nutritionally from an all vegan diet for children. Is this what we want pill popping babies? Personally speaking, I"d make sure my child ate some chicken or an eggs once in a while without worrying about chicken ethics.
Anyone who believes that health care cost in the US is determined by the level of health of the population at large is misinformed. We pay two-and-a-half times more than most developed nations in the world much of that has to do with 3rd party payers, much higher administrative cost, the inability to regulate fees for drugs and services, over testing due to the litigiousness of our society; as well a multitude of other factors. The $245 billion you state for diabetes testing is only 0.0245% of a 3 trillion dollar per annum industry.
--Pro "To stay on topic though the main point is vegetarians indirectly cause animal deaths. Vegetarians have animal blood on their hands. It annoys me that some hold their-selves on their high horses thinking they are so grand. If you want to save animals go vegan. As you can see eating eggs is one of the highest causes of animal deaths from the below graph in the animal visuals link. Milk is much higher than vegetables, fruits, and grains."---
Let us look at it this way, when omnivores turn into lacto ovo vegetarians they have much less blood on their hands, they are saving some animals. And I did look at your graph. Your sources are skewed toward a bias. The web sites mission statement is "The mission of Animal Visuals is to provide compelling visuals and interactive media to empower animal advocates, educate the public, and expose the injustices of animal exploitation." These dot.org sites are being used to make your whole point.
As I have pointed out throughout this rebuttal, there is much more to consider when stating preventing animal deaths is ethical, and should be brought about through an exclusive vegan diet. The statement "It annoys me that some hold their-selves on their high horses thinking they are so grand," is a subjective personal point of view. Furthermore, I let you off the hook concerning the definition of Hippopotamus. If I were a person that would to stoop to use semantics as a win strategy, I would have smoked you in the second round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Wylted 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||1|
Reasons for voting decision: It looks like the word hippopotamus was being used as a verb, and didn't literally mean the animal. I tried googling the term so that I could find a slang definition for it, and judge the debate based on the slang definition, but Incouldn't find one. I'll accept improperly defined words when judging for the most part, but in this situation it makes the pro side of the debate unreadable. It makes it impossible to know what the debate is even about. The word had such a large effect on my understanding of the debate, that I'm forced to award all the grammar points to con.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.