Vegan? Ja oder nein?
Wer weiß, wie Salz entstanden ist, der weiß auch, dass in Salz Reste von Krustentieren, Muscheln etc enthalten ist. Somit sich also tierische Stoffe darin abgelagert haben.
Vegan bedeutet doch aber, dass es komplett ohne tierische Stoffe ist. Ist Salz also tatsächlich vegan?
Apfelsaft ist übrigens auch nur vegan, wenn die Trübung nicht unter Hilfe von Gelatine beseitigt ist. Ist aber bei veganem Apfelsaft auch kontrolliert worden, ob sich nicht eventuell doch eine oder mehrere Maden in den Äpfeln versteckt haben?
Ist vegane Ernährung tatsächlich das Non Plus Ultra für uns Menschen? Ist es tatsächlich für alle Altersgruppen zu empfehlen? Wenn ich im Biologieunterricht richtig aufgepasst habe, würde ich sagen: Nein ist es nicht, da der Mensch zur Gattung der Allesfresser gehört und er somit wichtige tierische Bestandteile in der Nahrung tatsächlich benötigt.
(1 votes)
Loading...
Even if residues of shells should have been deposited in salt, it is vegan. Whether mankind consumes salt does not change the fact that these animals have died before our time of natural death.
In animal products, on the other hand, we are the ones who decide to keep other animals in mass, to let them live a good life and to put them in the end.
No, it’s not a Non Plus Ultra.
This may work if you know exactly how to do what and implement, for example, but that has something to do with the prevention of danger or deficiencies.
Who wants to do it, of course, is nothing to do with it and is personal to every person.
But it’s not a better diet.
Is it really a personal decision if it leads to damage to third parties?
Sure.
‘I’ could personally decide if ‘I’d like to eat vegan and you couldn’t sue me. If I chose it myself. Accordingly, it is of course a personal decision. It wasn’t for damage to third parties.
The discussion is over for me.
Call Youtube channel if you want to alert people with disproportionate examples of something.
Imagine: Someone very brutally beats his dog & justifies it with his joy.
Not to leave a single person his free choice for veganism is just as unethical in my eyes as if a vegan wants to tell me my kind of diet. A person who decides freely in terms of himself has the right to do so both ethically and legally. It always becomes problematic from the point of missioning, no matter what direction. I prefer to eat Big Tasty Bacon as typical vegan dishes. That must also be accepted by the vegan, as I also have his diet.
So with “personal decision” you did not refer to the ethical, but to the law in Germany?
Das stimmt so nicht, denn Veganismus ist per Definition das hier:
Das von dir beschriebene Szenario steht nicht mit “Ausbeutung & Grausamkeiten” in Verbindung. Denn den Muscheln & Krustentieren ist nicht geschadet. Also ist Salz vegan.
Ist mir & mittlerweile den meisten Veganern bekannt, deshalb achte ich darauf.
Ich möchte auf folgende Passage aus der Definition verweisen:
Das töten dieser Insekten ist nahezu alternativlos, aber das ist keine Rechtfertigung zusätzlichen vermeidbaren Schaden an Tieren anzurichten.
Die Maden werden ja auch nicht qualvoll herangezüchtet, wie das i.d.R. für die Tiere der Fall ist, wenn man ein Steak isst.
Was meinst du mit “Non Plus Ultra”. Die Erde wird durch Veganismus nicht zum Paradies, aber auf jeden fall deutlich besser.
Wenn man es richtig macht, ja. Jüngere Leute sind leider oft uniformiert, aber das ist ein Problem, was sich lösen lässt.
Der Homo Sapiens ist sehr flexibel im Bezug auf seine Ernährung, weshalb er auch die Welt bevölkern konnte. Er konnte sowohl in den Eissteppen Sibiriens, als auch im Jungel Afrikas überleben, wo die Nahrungsvielfallt jeweils extrem unterschiedlich war.
Tatsächlich ist das nicht so, da alle für den Menschen nötigen Nährstoffe in Tieren sich auch anderweitig finden lassen. Das ist eine Position sämtlicher seriöser Ernährungsgesellschaften, die das mit Untersuchungen & Studien nachweisen konnten. Siehe hier:
So, in your opinion, what the industry offers as a vegan has emerged without the exploitation of animals, and accordingly corresponds to the principles of veganism?
Hmmm…. then you should consider why so many “E”‘s are in vegan bread spread and how we want to feed the world of peas and tofu in the future. Veganism does not lead to a better world – it seduces people to run behind a wrong ideal. As history shows (Fleisch is a piece of vitality, take an egg more etc.) such temporal slogans without long-term research are completely pointless and condemned to fail. Not the diet, but the human being is the problem.
80% of the global soybean is animal feed & less than 2% go into replacement products. So, soya already feeds the world, only indirectly.
Why do you see that differently?
Besides, this is not about vegan-labeled products, but about the phenomenon itself. You can also make your own bread spread.
Slogans didn’t talk. I did not quote anything, but only summarized my findings in my own words.
Apart from the fact that there has been ethical vegetarianism since antiquity & Veganism is only its consistent continuation.
Oxford University says something else.
Then why do all reputable nutrition companies recommend a more environmentally friendly eating behavior?
Why has it already been shown in the past that other collective eating behaviour can prevent disorders? For example, in Denmark during the First World War, where severely reduced meat consumption prevented famine.
Salt is salt. If the salt from the supermarket is not vegan enough, just cook yourself.
If vegan diet is nonplusultra for humans, humans would not be a omnivore. At least infants should drink breast milk and this is not vegan.
Even cows sometimes swallow some bugs. So don’t worry about a worm in an apple.
According to the official definition already:
Whether human beings are an animal comes to the definition. No, but according to biology yes.
But even if one assumes it (if I personally do), then breast milk would nevertheless be vegan as it does not “Experience & cruelty” the mother means (if, of course, she is voluntary).
I’m pretty sure there can’t be a really strict vegan diet.
I don’t even want to talk about sensuality, so you can fight yourself in a good way.
I actually lived vegetarian for a few months first, then vegan. But by many vegans who want to propagate radically and aggressively their veganism and want to force other people to live vegans (the militant vegan), I started to eat meat again in protest. Just to provoke vegans. In addition, meat is just leaking! Now I’m radically ANTIVEGAN
Vegan is an ethical ecological and health dead end.
Vegan diet is a malnutrition.
So do I. If the doctor tells a 70-year-old vegan to eat meat because of the blood values, it says everything. And that is actually out of life.
I talked to various doctors & it is generally known that doctors hardly learn anything about nutrition in their studies. A fact that is often criticized.
And a case says nothing about a whole phenomenon. There are also people who could cure themselves through a vegan diet.
Humans need nutrients & not foods in themselves. There’s an option to eat meat to get to it, but not the only one. The doctor did not know the other options.
Really?
In fact, happened to me in the family
There are 3 main types of salt: boiling salt, stone salt and sea salt!
I think that stone salt that 250 million years ago has evolved into a mountain from the evaporation of seawater or mineral rich groundwater, is relatively vegan!? o_O
But just ö relatively vegan.
So if mineral water is not vegan enough for yourself, then you have a big problem!