Is honey vegan?

[divito]

1 hour ago, squirrl said:

snip

My only problem with all of that, is the whole stance stems from a fallacy. There is no logical, objective reason to supplant all animal food/products. Ultimately it's just an appeal to emotion.

[squirrl]

Just now, divito said:

My only problem with all of that, is the whole stance stems from a fallacy. There is no logical, objective reason to supplant all animal food/products. Ultimately it's just an appeal to emotion.

The biggest problem comes down to if it's ok for one person, it's OK for everyone. If everyone wants animal products for every meal every day then factory farms become a necessity. If you don't agree with the *unnecessary* slavery and murder of many species of living beings which inhabit the planet for the sake of "a tasty snack" then it's not a fallacy.

[divito]

1 minute ago, squirrl said:

The biggest problem comes down to if it's ok for one person, it's OK for everyone. If everyone wants animal products for every meal every day then factory farms become a necessity. If you don't agree with the *unnecessary* slavery and murder of many species of living beings which inhabit the planet for the sake of "a tasty snack" then it's not a fallacy.

Calling it slavery is just personifying the act, for the purpose of appealing to emotion; never mind that it's invalid based on the definition. 

And "living things" includes plants, which are okay to eat apparently, so now we're not being logically consistent either. Now it becomes a debate regarding sentience and degree to which there's similarity to human emotion. All while still ignoring any actual factual or objective argument/study.

[IrshaadH]

Here's another question that initiated a fierce debate between my friend and me last night... Do vegan girls spit or swallow? 

[ARikozuM]

1 minute ago, IrshaadH said:

Here's another question that initiated a fierce debate between my friend and me last night... Do vegan girls spit or swallow? 

Aren't vegans related to mantises? 

 

http://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/weirdest-praying-mantis

[squirrl]

1 minute ago, IrshaadH said:

Here's another question that initiated a fierce debate between my friend and me last night... Do vegan girls spit or swallow? 

Whatever they want. It's about consent.

The same reason that a mother feeding her child her own breast milk is vegan.

[Misanthrope]

There is no naturally occurring sources of B12 other than maybe seeweed but that hasn't been confirmed to be a reliable B12 provider regardless of source.

 

So a strictly vegan diet that's all natural is literally deadly to humans. Vegans have to fortify some of their foods just to obtain B12 and survive. And if you already have to get some of the artificial stuff in your foot you might as well go all natural and get responsible sources for Milk and Honey that don't actually come from industrialized farming (which I agree is pretty fucked).

 

That and world famine are my only caveats with the Vegan diet.

[Misanthrope]

3 hours ago, squirrl said:

The biggest problem comes down to if it's ok for one person, it's OK for everyone. If everyone wants animal products for every meal every day then factory farms become a necessity. If you don't agree with the *unnecessary* slavery and murder of many species of living beings which inhabit the planet for the sake of "a tasty snack" then it's not a fallacy.

That's more of an over population problem that can't be solved in a humane way very easily. In short over the last 200 years we've become incredibly efficient at producing large amounts of foods. Along with modern medicine it has overcrowded us beyond the capacity for most populated areas.

 

One of the things that surprise me the most is that many people that are for the ethical treatment of animals are also against GMO crops that actually might be our best bet to move past the more inefficient animal and animal produce diet and not basically sentence half of the world population to die of starvation while doing so since organic farming is just not efficient enough for the amount of people we have.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

5 hours ago, squirrl said:

The biggest problem comes down to if it's ok for one person, it's OK for everyone. If everyone wants animal products for every meal every day then factory farms become a necessity. If you don't agree with the *unnecessary* slavery and murder of many species of living beings which inhabit the planet for the sake of "a tasty snack" then it's not a fallacy.

That is, of course, not true. Animal exploitation isn't more "necessary" than human exploitation. In fact, slavery was the norm for most of the history of humanity, and it still survives illegally as a means to lower production costs for unethical producers. However, laws forbidding it were passed and enforced, and profits had to come from increases in productivity of free labor.

Similarly, animal exploitation will be the norm as long as it's tolerated. If collectively, as a society, we decide that it's no longer acceptable, we can always outlaw these preactices. In the short run, this would mean more expensive animal products. So be it, animal products can be a luxury (as they have always been in poorer societies, including past stages of currently rich societies). Let the world go vegan by poverty, if they must. However, luxury goods come with high margins. High margins provide the incentives for research on productivity boosts within the existing regulation ( @Misanthrope provided a current example of such developments, even in the current legal framework). In time, you can get affordable animal products without the forbidden practices. Profits, research, mass production. Same as it ever was.

 

It's not a matter of animal cruelty being a necessity of animal products' consumption. It's a matter of convincing a majority of society that eliminating those practices is worth the price hike for the current generation. You want to convince people of giving up meat/diary/etc? Try to convince them of simply paying more for it^[*]. You'll see how far we are from it but, at least, you will be fighting the correct battle.

 

[*] And I don't mean paying for the lame attempt at conscience-cleansing that are those overpriced "free range chicken", etc - when you see the requirements they have to fulfill to qualify, you realize it's not that hard to be horrible, yet still get the label  

[SCHISCHKA]

this is one of the logical failings of vegans. There is no harm to the honey bee in eating their pollen. A common explanation of veganism i get is they do not want to digest animal proteins, but in honey there is no animal protein. Honey is over 90% sugar and the rest are good stuff like vitamins.

The other logical failing of vegans are they ignore the amount of insects we accidentally eat and the scale of forests that are being torn down to grow new fad crops.

[SCHISCHKA]

2 hours ago, Misanthrope said:

literally deadly

about ten years ago a toddler died in Auckland from a vitamin deficiency. Parents were into some food fad but it was not veganism, it was something else. Doctors said if they brought the child to them 24 hours earlier they could have cured the child with a banana. My point is our grandparents lived to their 90s without modern fad diets; they ate plenty of butter, dairy, cheese, and grains.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

52 minutes ago, SCHISCHKA said:

this is one of the logical failings of vegans. There is no harm to the honey bee in eating their pollen. A common explanation of veganism i get is they do not want to digest animal proteins, but in honey there is no animal protein. Honey is over 90% sugar and the rest are good stuff like vitamins.

The other logical failing of vegans are they ignore the amount of insects we accidentally eat and the scale of forests that are being torn down to grow new fad crops.

That's more vegetarians than vegans. You can see some posts above: vegans go beyond meat and reject all animal products on the basis of rejecting animal exploitations. It's not honey that's bad, provided you synthesize it somehow (the fact that some of them also oppose "artificial" food is a different matter. Does "cooking" qualify as artificial? ). Farming bees and taking their honey is what they oppose (like eggs, milk, etc. - although they may add the "healthy" argument in those cases).

[SCHISCHKA]

4 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

That's more vegetarians than vegans. You can see some posts above: vegans go beyond meat and reject all animal products on the basis of rejecting animal exploitations. It's not honey that's bad, provided you synthesize it somehow (the fact that some of them also oppose "artificial" food is a different matter. Does "cooking" qualify as artificial? ). Farming bees and taking their honey is what they oppose (like eggs, milk, etc. - although they may add the "healthy" argument in those cases).

I have asked about milk & eggs in the past as these products are a gift from the animal which we can return back to them by giving the animal predator free space and a healthy supply of food. Iv been told milk and eggs are not vegan; I dont know how human milk fits in there.

Economics and animal husbandry are not subjects that vegans appear to be well read, or experienced with. Their morality appears to be purely emotion, not health or fact based. This is just my experience and opinion. This reminds me of the vegan blogger that visited NZ and went viral for having an emotional moment watching sheep being loaded onto a ferry. It was stated on the news fearing for her life. It was so irrational, to think that your life is in danger because you were in a viral video for crying about live sheep transportation.

[Sauron]

17 hours ago, squirrl said:

MMMM tasty!

I did specifically mention the quantity and not the type of food. 

Then you have no idea about the logistics and difference between different types of crop. Not everything is as easy to cultivate en mass as hay, nor does everything have the same space and resource requirements.

[Sauron]

18 hours ago, jeffery7466 said:

@Sauron @Supermangik 

One thing I would say is that diets are heavily influenced by our respective culture, which in term is very much like an ideology.

But then, being from a certain culture and preferring certain foods doesn't mean I'm inherently against eating other things.

[Misanthrope]

1 hour ago, Sauron said:

But then, being from a certain culture and preferring certain foods doesn't mean I'm inherently against eating other things.

Over time it might physiologically affect you though: check the rates of lactose intolerance among Asian descent for example

[AshleyAshes]

3 hours ago, Misanthrope said:

Over time it might physiologically affect you though: check the rates of lactose intolerance among Asian descent for example

Uhm... But that's the opposite.  A lactose intolerance in adult humans is normal.  The majority of humans are 'lactose intolerant'.  Continued tolerance to lactose in adulthood is a mutation, seen most strongly in those of western European descent, though the mutation is seen globally in much smaller numbers.

 

You can't attribute the dietary habits in Asia to be a 'cause of lactose intolerance' because that is in no way how lactose intolerance works.

[Misanthrope]

4 minutes ago, AshleyAshes said:

Uhm... But that's the opposite.  A lactose intolerance in adult humans is normal.  The majority of humans are 'lactose intolerant'.  Continued tolerance to lactose in adulthood is a mutation, seen most strongly in those of western European descent, though the mutation is seen globally in much smaller numbers.

 

You can't attribute the dietary habits in Asia to be a 'cause of lactose intolerance' because that is in no way how lactose intolerance works.

I understand that the opposite happened but it's no coincidence that lactose tolerance was developed in cultures where farming was more vital than agriculture like the colder North regions.

 

I know it might be confusing but my point that both adaptation and culture can influence of physiology: I have no doubts that humans could eventually develop to be fully vegetarian, specially know that we can also directly modify our crops to better suit our needs in a more immediate way.

 

If culture dictates that we should all be Vegetarian or even Vegan, we'll eventually be just that and it will be just another step in our evolution.

[AshleyAshes]

3 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

I understand that the opposite happened but it's no coincidence that lactose tolerance was developed in cultures where farming was more vital than agriculture like the colder North regions.

 

I know it might be confusing but my point that both adaptation and culture can influence of physiology: I have no doubts that humans could eventually develop to be fully vegetarian, specially know that we can also directly modify our crops to better suit our needs in a more immediate way.

 

If culture dictates that we should all be Vegetarian or even Vegan, we'll eventually be just that and it will be just another step in our evolution.

This in no way changes your example from being backwards. You literally said 'Over time it might physiologically affect you though: check the rates of lactose intolerance among Asian descent for example' which is in no way what you are now attempting to describe just one post later.  Nothing has 'affected their physiology' and you're even saying exactly that one post later.  It's simply a mutation not commonly present because there were weak evolutionary pressures towards that mutation.

 

The closest statement that would actually fit the fact would be to say that over time there could be ZERO affect on your physiology because not mutating is an act of NOTHING happening.

[Misanthrope]

19 minutes ago, AshleyAshes said:

This in no way changes your example from being backwards -More stuff was said-

Right I made the mistake of not carefully considering an example. It's a shame that I often agree with you because you're just insufferably smug so I'm disengaging now.

[squirrl]

On 03/09/2017 at 4:28 PM, BuckGup said:

I'm just saying it is not a viable solution to have the whole world become vegan.

Overnight, Absolutely. Over time, not at all.

[lewdicrous]

On 9/2/2017 at 6:36 AM, Tsuki said:

but honey is derived from pollen, which is plant based.

(im pretty sure you're still right, but for arguments sake..)

Bees use the nectar found in flowers to produce honey, pollen is something completely different. (bees and other animals/insects spread the pollen found on certain plants for cross-pollination; that's how those plants reproduce)

 

https://honey.com/about-honey/how-honey-is-made

 

 

[MrDynamicMan]

The strongest argument to be made for veganism is that meat is a very ineffecient food, a pound of meat is like 100 pounds of grain and 1000 gallons kf water.

 

basically, we waste too much food feeding food.

[BuckGup]

4 hours ago, squirrl said:

Overnight, Absolutely. Over time, not at all.

no

[Tsuki]

12 hours ago, lewdicrous said:

Bees use the nectar found in flowers to produce honey, pollen is something completely different. (bees and other animals/insects spread the pollen found on certain plants for cross-pollination; that's how those plants reproduce)

 

https://honey.com/about-honey/how-honey-is-made

 

 

fair enough lol  you're right. i got my pollen and nectar mixed up again

 

but my question stands, if honey is made from pollen Nectar which comes from plants, and by itself would be vegan, wouldnt honey bee vegan too?