I've heard that durianrider Harley, will soon be having a face off with a guy named Richard Nikoley who runs the blog Free the Animal.
Richard is this guy who blogs about eating meat with the occasional attempt at justifying his actions through moral. I say occasional, as I have read recently that he plans shortly to do so. So maybe I exaggerate some. Anyhow, the latest I have heard is that the debate is to be hosted/moderated by Steven Prussack of "Raw Vegan Radio" (anyone have a web address or can confirm that?), probably within a couple of weeks from now.
I for one am curious to follow the debate, and see the final outcome.
After having myself recently also begun my own little debate with Richard and his crew, directly on his blog, I can safely say that the majority of his readers, and Richard himself appear to be unable to hold a rational debate without resorting to insult and profanity. Those commenting on his blog appear quite full of aggression and anger, which I guess is not surprising considering their diets.
Actually, I was a little disappointed that Richard would not man up to simple questions I asked him, preferring instead to skirt around issues rather like a politician does to avoid answering something directly that they are perhaps otherwise unable to tackle truthfully. Actually, my focus of questioning was mostly revolving around the ethics of animal eating, and because I'm a persistent bugger, I eventually got Richard to state his opinion that he is predominantly a selfish person who really doesn't care what happens to animals so long as they end up on his plate. For him it's all about taste.
Surprisingly, despite a few people throwing around the phrase that meat is superior nutrition, and many apparently believing that this was an unquestionable fact, not one person offered any real evidence to support that claim.
I found also that Richard and his crew appear to be using a different dictionary to most, they define words in very different ways to what I am used to. For them, peace is one sided, and if they are inflicting harm on another, they believe they can do so peacefully. Respect is another word which they have a very different understanding of, for them they brandish the word respect in combination of taking the life of another, for me this action is never respectful of that others life, but for them, they like to believe that it is. Actually, there is some contention there, as when pushed Richard seemed to air a degree of uncertainty in his view on that.
When I finally felt that I had had enough insults thrown at me, misquoted and false conclusions drawn about me, I withdrew. The whole debate took place over 3 days I think, and can be read here:
See the comments under his post
Interestingly, on leaving, quite a few people have added further comments that I sort of wanted to jump in and tackle, but I don't really see what the point would be, as I know that likely is that once more I would end up having my words twisted. To Richard, though, who responded to my statement that to the best of my knowledge morals cannot really be imposed on anyone, or any other other species or being. He came back and said:
It's a prima facie fact that morals are imposed upon people in abundance. Ever read a law book? What, you think, statutes are based in thin air, out of ass ideas? How about murder? Rape? Kidnapping and robbery?
I'd like to say that if you ever stumble upon this Richard, then please see that once more we have different dictionaries, because for me, morals and laws are 2 very different things. The law may say don't kill another human, but if it is truly in someones natures and desire to do so, they will find a way to do so and attempt to not get caught.
You ask me also directly, Richard, whether or not I am about persuasion, or if I would resort to legislation. I say forget the legislation. I would like for humans to have a global shift in conscience, and for laws to be unnecessary. I do not like governments or laws, and tolerate them merely because I must. If the road says 80 is the limit, and it's clear and safe to do 100, and I am guaranteed there are no cops, then I will do 100.
And to Sonagi, who threw in his final snide comments, I would add that once more you fail to report the truth and that I never derided anyone for disagreeing with me. I criticized people like yourself for not being able to hold a rational/logical debate and for twisting words and misquoting. I am quite at ease with outright disagreement. And my reference to Jorge was not about his English per se, at the time of writing I was not thinking at all about him not being a native english speaker, speaking several languages myself, I understand the difficulties of debating a language other than my own, and admire him for doing so. I was referring purely to his insistence that animal killers respect the animals they kill..
Anyhow.. I sort of felt that I wanted to get this out of my system. Too time consuming and a waste of energy really. I hope Harley enjoys himself, but I don't expect either party to change their view.
(I recall some years ago, when I used to run a forum, that I started a similar debate that focused on Fox hunting.. it went on for far too long, and got no where really. you can read it here: The Fox Hunting Debate).
Richard is this guy who blogs about eating meat with the occasional attempt at justifying his actions through moral. I say occasional, as I have read recently that he plans shortly to do so. So maybe I exaggerate some. Anyhow, the latest I have heard is that the debate is to be hosted/moderated by Steven Prussack of "Raw Vegan Radio" (anyone have a web address or can confirm that?), probably within a couple of weeks from now.
I for one am curious to follow the debate, and see the final outcome.
After having myself recently also begun my own little debate with Richard and his crew, directly on his blog, I can safely say that the majority of his readers, and Richard himself appear to be unable to hold a rational debate without resorting to insult and profanity. Those commenting on his blog appear quite full of aggression and anger, which I guess is not surprising considering their diets.
Actually, I was a little disappointed that Richard would not man up to simple questions I asked him, preferring instead to skirt around issues rather like a politician does to avoid answering something directly that they are perhaps otherwise unable to tackle truthfully. Actually, my focus of questioning was mostly revolving around the ethics of animal eating, and because I'm a persistent bugger, I eventually got Richard to state his opinion that he is predominantly a selfish person who really doesn't care what happens to animals so long as they end up on his plate. For him it's all about taste.
Surprisingly, despite a few people throwing around the phrase that meat is superior nutrition, and many apparently believing that this was an unquestionable fact, not one person offered any real evidence to support that claim.
I found also that Richard and his crew appear to be using a different dictionary to most, they define words in very different ways to what I am used to. For them, peace is one sided, and if they are inflicting harm on another, they believe they can do so peacefully. Respect is another word which they have a very different understanding of, for them they brandish the word respect in combination of taking the life of another, for me this action is never respectful of that others life, but for them, they like to believe that it is. Actually, there is some contention there, as when pushed Richard seemed to air a degree of uncertainty in his view on that.
When I finally felt that I had had enough insults thrown at me, misquoted and false conclusions drawn about me, I withdrew. The whole debate took place over 3 days I think, and can be read here:
See the comments under his post
Interestingly, on leaving, quite a few people have added further comments that I sort of wanted to jump in and tackle, but I don't really see what the point would be, as I know that likely is that once more I would end up having my words twisted. To Richard, though, who responded to my statement that to the best of my knowledge morals cannot really be imposed on anyone, or any other other species or being. He came back and said:
It's a prima facie fact that morals are imposed upon people in abundance. Ever read a law book? What, you think, statutes are based in thin air, out of ass ideas? How about murder? Rape? Kidnapping and robbery?
I'd like to say that if you ever stumble upon this Richard, then please see that once more we have different dictionaries, because for me, morals and laws are 2 very different things. The law may say don't kill another human, but if it is truly in someones natures and desire to do so, they will find a way to do so and attempt to not get caught.
You ask me also directly, Richard, whether or not I am about persuasion, or if I would resort to legislation. I say forget the legislation. I would like for humans to have a global shift in conscience, and for laws to be unnecessary. I do not like governments or laws, and tolerate them merely because I must. If the road says 80 is the limit, and it's clear and safe to do 100, and I am guaranteed there are no cops, then I will do 100.
And to Sonagi, who threw in his final snide comments, I would add that once more you fail to report the truth and that I never derided anyone for disagreeing with me. I criticized people like yourself for not being able to hold a rational/logical debate and for twisting words and misquoting. I am quite at ease with outright disagreement. And my reference to Jorge was not about his English per se, at the time of writing I was not thinking at all about him not being a native english speaker, speaking several languages myself, I understand the difficulties of debating a language other than my own, and admire him for doing so. I was referring purely to his insistence that animal killers respect the animals they kill..
Anyhow.. I sort of felt that I wanted to get this out of my system. Too time consuming and a waste of energy really. I hope Harley enjoys himself, but I don't expect either party to change their view.
(I recall some years ago, when I used to run a forum, that I started a similar debate that focused on Fox hunting.. it went on for far too long, and got no where really. you can read it here: The Fox Hunting Debate).
32 comments:
and the arguments those peaople bring up to justify eating meat. One guy talks about "most vegans are typically trapped (voluntarily) in a modern industrial civilized safety net that prevents them from comprehending what it means to live in an environment that doesn’t have B-12 vitamins and dehydrated kale chips on the supermarket shelves." yet i find it hard to believe he practices what he preaches. I doubt he is out there as a feral being, ravenous, and hunting wild game for his lunch. Let alone in the wild, with his bare hands and clumsy movement (since humans aren't agile like cheetahs, but rather slower and more nonchalant like Bonobo chimps (frugivores)). Rather he's just a hypocrite and goes to the "supermarket" to buy his tainted, tampered, unnatural, meat, or maybe hit up a local fast food joint. I applaud you for staying in the debate as long as you did. It seems like you were debating with a brick wall.
-Eduardo P.S. apologies for the long post and crass previous post. :)
Hi Eduardo,
thanks for your feedback. I share your sentiments about Richard.
yes, the debate was pretty futile really.. sometimes i just feel to let myself get sucked in and see what happens.
peace,
mango
Mango, well debated. That guy Richard comes across as very arrogant and conceited, and you are right, he answer questions like a politician, as did most of the people that talked with you there. Even the guy Al, who behaved friendly, "skirted" around your question, and instead of answering it directly, answered something else instead. I think it really just shows that they do not want to face up to that line of questioning. What I find interesting, is how they are so defensive of their own rights to do as they please, but try give other animals comparable rights, and they want to lynch you!
well spoken mango!
Bernie
Hi Bernie,
yes, I was beginning to find it quite frustrating in a way. Especially the misquotes and the quoting out of context, twisting of words, posters claiming I said things I didn't at all, and accusing me of things like avoiding the issue, when that was exactly what they themselves were doing. Then the insults, and even the one physical threat, cumulatively, I realised that I was not dealing with rational people. I noticed Richard has put a new post about some vegan family whose kid died. I am sorely tempted to respond, but biting me tongue and hesitating.
Mango.
I couldn't help myself.. I posted a comment on his new post too..:
My comment to Richard about death of vegan child.
"I can safely say that the majority of his readers, and Richard himself appear to be unable to hold a rational debate without resorting to insult and profanity. Those commenting on his blog appear quite full of aggression and anger, which I guess is not surprising considering their diets."
Delusional, much? This is what happens when you deprive your brain of B12 & DHA.
I doubt that this comment will appear.
nigel, there is no delusion. many of the answers i received were irrational, but I guess it takes a rational brain to see that. Questions I asked were avoided or at best skirted around, there were insults and profanity, people did appear threatened by my presence (hence the insults), and I was loosely threatened with a punch. Drawing a conclusion that my brain is deprived of B12 or DHA is totally illogical. Perhaps my conclusion that your(plural) behaviours were due to your diet could be wrong, it could just be teenage hormonal imbalance, or immaturity, I don't know. What I do know is that from previous experience, when questioned as I have done, people who cling to flesh in their diet tend to appear to become very fearful and angered by my line of questioning, and that throwing around insults often ensues, resorting to profanity is a poor excuse for debate and shows one is very uncertain in ones view point.
Firstly, thank you for allowing my comment to remain.
Secondly, how do you know that there is no delusion? Are you familiar with the Dunning–Kruger effect? For example, my mother is too demented to know that she's demented.
Thirdly, Dr Michael Greger (the vegan MD) states in his video lectures that vegans are deficient in B12 & DHA. Did you see what I did there?
Finally, I can be quite sarcastic at times (we Brits have a very dry sense of humour), but I tend to not use profanity. I prefer to let science do the talking, which is why I liberally pepper my posts & comments with links to support my arguments.
Take a look at my blog. It's quite interesting, although self-praise is no recommendation! All comments are pre-moderated, but I rarely reject.
Cheers, Nige.
I enjoyed reading the debate. They were just struggling ... You were totally rational, confident, and truthful. You rock Mango!!!
"Secondly, how do you know that there is no delusion?" Probably the same way that you know whether or not you are delusional. How do I even know you exist? How do you know that I exist? How do you know I'm not just a figment of your imagination? I have to suppose some things, and to the best of my knowledge, what I wrote above is true. I'm not sure how you can interpret it otherwise. Most of what I wrote on richards blog got misquoted or quoted out of context. go back and look at it for yourself, conclusions were frequently jumped to that bore no relationship to any stated reality.
No, I wasn't aware of the Dunning-Kruger effect, so in your opinion, how can either of us be sure we are not victims?
Bandwidth is precious, so I wont be watching the video lectures, but such a bold statement coming from anyone at all I would be skeptical of.. especially considering the amount of vegans i know, and as i have written on richards blog, there are even 3rd generation vegans, many of which don't take b12 supplements, myself included, and to the best of my knowledge, i have no b12 deficiency symptoms (vegan 25 years now). I do know that there are many flesh eaters that also lack b12 and take supplements. I don't take any pills and potions myself.
yes, i see what you did, but i am still a little uncertain why you claim i am delusional, perhaps normally things are smoother on there when opposing thoughts are at bay.
I am highly skeptical of dubious scientific claims, especially in the field of nutrition, new theories are forever disproving old ones. I think it's important to understand that nutritional science is mostly theory, and should not be quoted as fact.
Thanks Masood,
much appreciate your support.
Hi mango the punch to the fruit-hole comment was pure exageration. I'm now predisposed to be combative against radical vegans since being on the recieving end of the meat is murder line, and that I'm evil for eating meat, and someone should come kill my family (no exageration).
I think in large part conversation is going to be somewhat challenging because you have somewhat different axiomatic assumptions, so some of your questions were perhaps not percieved in the spirit or mode you intended them to be recieved. Hence your perception that you weren't recieved or responded to in a rational manner.
Anyway far be from it me to come into your home (your blog) and piss on the carpets. Good luck and good health.
I'm back. (it's about 08:45 here). You make a good point about delusion. We don't really know what's real and what's not. I had a test on my pituitary gland a few years ago that involved inducing extremely low blood glucose (1.5mmol/L, or 27mg/dL in US units). I was told that I became extremely confused, but I was completely unaware of any problem.
Bandwidth is precious? Pull the other one! 20Mbps is dirt cheap nowadays. Dr Greger is vegan which is why I posted a link to him. That's what I did. Go on. Watch the lecture. You know you want to. He's actually very good....for a vegan! ;-D
From where I'm sitting, our (the omnivores, that is) arguments are the rational ones and yours are struggling e.g. the BBC article that you linked to didn't support your argument at all. We all see what we want to see (cognitive bias).
The evidence that I link to is peer-reviewed studies. I know that results can be fudged by tweaking the methodology so as to to give a desired result, especially where money is involved (e.g. drugs trials) which is why I provide links to multiple studies. It's not theory, it's scientific fact. That's how I roll.
Anyway, thanks once again for letting me post comments on your blog. You can post comments on mine if you like.
Cheers, Nige.
Nigel, your "delusional" statement was meant as an insult. I checked up on the symptoms of deficiency of B12 and DHA, and neither would result in one being delusional.
Bernie,
If you take comments about delusion as an insult, that's your problem, not mine.
Nige.
"I'm now predisposed to be combative against radical vegans since being on the recieving end of the meat is murder line, and that I'm evil for eating meat, and someone should come kill my family (no exageration)."
Is this really true? Who said someone should go and kill your family? What if your family are all vegans?
I think noone said that and you're full of crap.
Hi Edwin,
I guess that's why not exaggerating is a good habit to get into. Anyhow, I have no reason to doubt your regrets in saying that, and hope your family is safe. Thanks for not pissing on my carpet.
Hi Nige,
It's a little amusing that you admit we don't know what's real or not, and then insist that something is scientific fact. (?) Anyhow, that aside, I accept that you belief you are dealing with fact, but politely disagree that that's the case. All it takes is one exception for them to be disproved. People often tend to stand behind men in white smocks as authoritative infallible figures, and believe unquestioningly in what they propose. Take evolution, so many people take it for granted as fact, but there is no definite concrete proof, only evidence. I'm not saying evolution isn't true, it may be for all I know, it's just it is definitely not fact. In nutritional science, even with peer-reviewed studies, there is always a degree of possibility for fault. We are dealing with people here, and we are a fallible lot. It's often been the case, that something has been proven, and then consequently disproven. Or for all attempts and purposes, something appears to function in a certain way, and a theory fits it, until further evidence is brought in to show that the theory is incomplete, or outright flawed. B12 has been a good case of that, where forever new intrinsic factors are discovered, that make it clear that things aren't as straightforward as one was initially lead to believe. Holding science as fact, is in my opinion fundamentally not much different to holding religious dogma as fact. Neither has been proven outright, both require a certain degree of faith. Sure, maybe there's a lot more of the faith and belief on the side of religion, I'm not doubting that, but to fully deny there is belief involved when trusting science is, once more, illogical.
Bandwidth, not everywhere has easy cheap deals. We have a capped limit, that if exceeded, means that internet access is painfully slow. At the end of the month if there is still ample left, I will consider watching it, but you are wrong in assuming that I want to. I am not much in to the science of nutrition, and focus more on ethics. Sure, I may be wrong in doing so. I have never denied that with me I believe many things and have (perhaps misguided) faith, but they are my choices. You will notice that I try to avoid debating science. While writing at Richards no one seriously mentioned science as a defense for meat eating, of course there were a few of those neanderthal "duh, meat is superior" comments thrown around, but hey, that's not science, that's opinion. Some have claimed to prove the exact opposite, do you know the china study? I'm not saying I recommend it, or that I've even read it, and it's not likely I will, but it does show me that scientific results often depend on ones own viewpoint.
(to be continued).
Nige, (cont.)
As for the link I posted to the obese kid dieing, I admit, I should have done my research better. I made an assumption that for all intense and purposes is likely true, but of course unproven. For me, I have never heard of an obese vegan/vegetarian, that doesn't mean they don't exist, just I've never heard of one. Also, whenever anyone dies on a vegan/veggie diet, the news article will generally make that fact blatantly clear, so I think it's safe to assume the child was neither vegetarian nor vegan. Their diet may have been a very poor omnivorous one, consisting mostly of sodas and junk food, but my whole point was that I was responding to Richards initial comments on people not dieing from too much meat/vegggies/dairy/eggs, and obese children dieing are dieing from too much of those things.. admittedly too much of them in the wrong form, yes, but for me to assume that that was proof that a flesh diet doesn't work would be totally illogical of me. I make no such assumption. I merely tried unsuccessfully to show that the vegan kid dieing is proof of nothing either, it just shows that vegans can make mistakes, as can omnivores. So why mention it at all?
Backing up what I have said previously about being misquoted, I noticed even though I stated clearly to Edwin that I never at all supposed that eating meat causes obesity, several people jumped on the misquote and attributed it to me. Again, illogical responses from people who clearly can't read straight.
I sent a following link to a google search for obese children dieing, and there were lots of them! No I never looked further into any of them to check that they weren't all vegan kids. And maybe none of the articles mentioned their diets. Which is also typical, had that 12 year old not been vegan, they probably would not have mentioned her diet either.
Hi Bernie,
I guess I will agree with you that calling someone delusional with no evidence to support that fact (if you believe this statement to be wrong Nige, tell me specifically which part was delusional), could be taken as an insult. in any case I don't consider it "a problem" to believe that it was meant as one.
Mr. Zed, we have no reason to doubt that Edwin's family is under threat, perhaps he genuinely has been threatened, what I can say is that the English in his statement you quoted is a little confusing. I personally do not desire for anyone (including animals) to be threatened. But I do find it odd that in a situation like this, where one receives threats, and clearly must understand how discomforting that is, that one can continue to not empathise with others (animals) under far worse situations, where their lives are being threatened and harmed on a daily basis due to their own actions. I guess nobody likes turning the table in such scenarios.
The fact that you cannot detect self-delusion doesn't mean that someone cannot detect delusion in another. Therefore, your argument is invalid.
RE China Study: Have you seen http://rawfoodsos.com/the-china-study/?
RE fat vegans: I know of sedentary people who eat a lot of sugary & starchy carbs and are fat.
Your statement about the inability of omnivores to hold rational debate on Richard's blog is in my opinion delusional. Re-read what I quoted in bold. It's vegans who seem to be angry and extremely touchy, taking everything as an insult, not omnivores.
Anyway, this debate is rather like evolution vs creation - it's more about beliefs than facts and is therefore futile, so I shall bow out and leave you to it.
Cheers, Nige.
Nige,
thanks for your feedback. Nige, maybe I can concede that you are capable of holding rational debate. Maybe I can concede that everyone on richards blog is possibly capable of holding rational debate. I was wrong to make it a sweeping final statement. Maybe they are, but the majority did not do so while communicating with me.
I am rereading comments there right now. If I start at the beginning, I get chuck who states the video as proof that humans value flesh. He also stated quite dumbly that vegans don't think. I countered his false conclusions, which clearly cannot be reached through any rational means. Then David came in and among other things stated that reason i cannot understand why 3 adult African men would risk their lives by walking towards a pride of lions for a chunk of meat, is because most vegans etc.. Again, somehow he drew an irrational conclusion that I was unable to understand something. My initial question was never tackled head on, not once, by anyone. If it was addressed at all, it was consequently skirted around. That was all I'd asked initially, and I was then told that "when science provides no support for the cause, they’ll rely on logical syllogisms to show everyone why eating meat is so logically wrong!" nobody at all had argued science, I was debating moral, not logic, I was asking for logical replies, true, but not arguing logic.. I could continue, but what's the point, as far as you are concerned, we cannot debate, because you "know", wheras I only "believe".
For the record, my sole reasoning to go there in the first place was to see if someone, anyone at all, could answer this simple question:
What particular qualities do humans possess that make us an immoral choice of food given the availability of abundance? Some tried to say it was because of our intelligence, that we can design bridges and check our emails, but if that were true, then there should be no reason stopping us eating those who are not so intellectually endowed. I think the only real answer that made any sense was Richard who finally just came out and said he really just didn't give a damn about animals and clearly didn't even want to think about why not.
Great comment mango, there is no doubt in my mind who is being delusional here, like Masood said, you wrote fairly and honestly and very rationally, you made one or 2 errors, like the gandhi thing, and you could have found a better news link than you did, but at least you had the deceny to admit those errors. Everybody else that you confronted with their error, either ignored you after, or just resulted to their childish insults.
Mango, What was it you said to Jorge in Potugese? You sure pissed him off!
Hi Bernie, yes, I normally sort of attempt to proof read my comments before sending them out there, but even so, I occasionally make errors in judgment. I'm not ashamed of that, and have no problem fessing up to it, but you are right, that was not something that I noticed anyone else doing, despite being faced with the obvious fact that they had erred. As for what I wrote to Jorge, in Spanish actually, or my feeble excuse at writing it, I basically apologized for offending him. I did not feel good that I had made him get so angry at me. Again, had I been thinking at the time, that his mother tongue was not English, I would not have worded things the way I did when criticizing his use of the word "respect". I am sorry for that.
"Mr. Zed, we have no reason to doubt that Edwin's family is under threat, perhaps he genuinely has been threatened, what I can say is that the English in his statement you quoted is a little confusing. I personally do not desire for anyone (including animals) to be threatened. But I do find it odd that in a situation like this, where one receives threats, and clearly must understand how discomforting that is, that one can continue to not empathise with others (animals) under far worse situations, where their lives are being threatened and harmed on a daily basis due to their own actions. I guess nobody likes turning the table in such scenarios."
Yes, it's funny how the second they feel the slightest bit threatened themselves they start crying and screaming blue murder and about all these loony vegans and yet they want to continue on in their daily holocaust of animals and causing irreversible damage and torture to the earth.
Mango, I think you might agree that at least that type of violence is a lot better than "their" type of violene. A clear and open threat of violence, can be a sort of primal and natural thing, a way of "solving" an unsustainable situation or a situation that is wrong.
Because it is natural and we are evolved to deal with this type of thing, I hold it to be an infinitely superior form of violence/threats than the violence inflicted by artificial foods, which absolutely destroy the lives and happiness of people and maim/murder people especially in their later years, and the same with pharmaceutical drugs. The problem is that people don't see their doctor as a drug-peddling scumbag. And even if they do they are always so sympathetic to the person "he is only trying to do good".... I believe this type of lies and deceit and thievary are far worse and far more devastating than an honest and natural threat of violence. The Orangutans don't get a threat of violence, they just have their homes destroy and forced to starve to death (sometimes relocated where they will live much poorer lives).
Mr. Zed, yes, well put, I am in agreement with you. Many of the Paleo people have no really evolved sense of moral. One guy participating in that debate, JLL I believe, even claimed that there was nothing morally wrong with eating other humans..hang on a sec.. yes, here's his quote:
if you could prove that someone’s brain will never develop any reasoning power, then that person would not occupy the same moral realm [as animals] either. And so you could pretty much do what you like [with them].
!!
hello all,
simply: treat others (all living creatures) the way, you want to be treated.
Love all,
fruitarian kveta <3
What if you want to be spanked daily? :o)
@kveta.. an excellent rule of thumb guide.. excepting if one has masochistic tendencies..
@Mr. Zed.. hmm.. you make a good point.. if humorously.. maybe it should be "treat others as you genuinely believe they would like to be treated.." I think even the flesh eaters can't seriously believe that any animal would intentionally wish to have suffering inflicted upon it, or be killed while still in good health.
Harley Johnstone, AKA durianrider took over the debate in a live radio event on the 15th April. His focus was more on nutrition and fitness than ethics, but if anyone is interested in hearing the debate, which is roughly 8 minutes in length, you can listen to it here:
Paleo Richard Nikoley vs Vegan Harley Johnstone)
Post a Comment