Talk:Criticisms of veganism
(Moral/Ethical)
The philosophy of veganism is typically not one of reduction to the absurd, but rather a utilitarian argument which includes animals in its maximization calculus. Also, though the 'bloodyness' of vegetarianism may be less than that of meat-eaters, the suffering that dairy and egg producing animals experience between birth and death equally horrifies most vegans when compared to slaughterhouse practices. Here, suffering is the major part of the utility equation.
Organic food consumption is often correlated with veganism as it lessens killing through pesticide use, utilizes fewer petroleum products, and ironically enough, can allow for Vitamin B12 to remain intact in vegetal foods. That existence creates proxy killing is only instituting reductio ad absurdum itself, and the typical utility agrument would find that our existence is valid, but can only be morally just if suffering is lessened.
(Nutritional)
Other than the aforementioned elimination of B12 deficiency by consuming organic foods (if the definition of organic the consumer and the producer are shared) longitudinal studies which track vegan and non-vegan health typically do take into consideration other health factors, such as smoking. Perhaps some anecdotal reports do not take this into account, but it is likely that any study published in a peer-reviewed journal would take this into consideration, otherwise it would not be published.
VfD[edit]
This page was nominated for deletion on Feb 21 2005. The debate is available at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Criticisms of veganism. Rhobite 06:58, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
Oops[edit]
I just edited some of the text without reading the discussion. I also may have subverted the "intent" of critisms by inserting counter points. Did I do wrong? TheChin! 19:47, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)