Brian May to become Vegan!!!!!!!!!!!

Zebonka12 wrote: "Yep. In people over the age of 60, veganism is actually very, very lethal. Brian probably has about eight months left.


By the time he's done being a vegan, he'll probably look like THIS:

http://www.frightstudios.com/image/maskscat/fullmasks/zombie_full_fleshbig.jpg

so I'd get the farewell cards together folks. This is a day of mourning."

LOL! Great post! :D

rhyeking wrote:

[QUOTE]Trees are just as alive as animals.[/QUOTE]

No, they are not.  Animals have interactive abilities, and can exercise stimulus and response.  Trees are alive, but they can only take in outside stimulus.  They cannot respond.

That said, plenty of people build concrete homes as a viable alternative to cutting down trees.  These are often the kinds of people who generate their own power, too.

These choices have nothing to do with being self-serving.  They want to make socially-conscious choices, without having to benefit at the expense of something or someone else.  This is the very opposite of being self-serving.

Sir GH wrote: No, they are not.  Animals have interactive abilities, and can exercise stimulus and response.  Trees are alive, but they can only take in outside stimulus.  They cannot respond. ==================================== Plants most certainly can, and do, respond.  An excerpt from a great article I read last year in the New York Times: But before we cede the entire moral penthouse to “committed vegetarians” and “strong ethical vegans,” we might consider that plants no more aspire to being stir-fried in a wok than a hog aspires to being peppercorn-studded in my Christmas clay pot. This is not meant as a trite argument or a chuckled aside. Plants are lively and seek to keep it that way. The more that scientists learn about the complexity of plants — their keen sensitivity to the environment, the speed with which they react to changes in the environment, and the extraordinary number of tricks that plants will rally to fight off attackers and solicit help from afar — the more impressed researchers become, and the less easily we can dismiss plants as so much fiberfill backdrop, passive sunlight collectors on which deer, antelope and vegans can conveniently graze. It’s time for a green revolution, a reseeding of our stubborn animal minds. Read the whole thing: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/22/science/22angi.html?_r=3

juan1921 wrote: Actually, humans weren't designed as anything. We're the product of millions of years of evolution, conditioned by lots of factors.
=======

I was using a common metaphor, as you probably guessed. As to whether or not evolution, supposing that it is not controlled by any preconception whatsoever, amounts to design we can debate.

Sir GH wrote: rhyeking wrote:

Trees are just as alive as animals.[/QUOTE]

No, they are not.  Animals have interactive abilities, and can exercise stimulus and response.  Trees are alive, but they can only take in outside stimulus.  They cannot respond.[/QUOTE]
=======

I'm afraid that just isn't true. Trees are known to communicate chemically, which is not really too different from what many animals including humans do in many ways.

GratefulFan wrote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/22/science/22angi.html?_r=3

Awesome article.  Lots learned.

ThomasQuinn wrote:

[QUOTE]I'm afraid that just isn't true. Trees are known to communicate chemically, which is not really too different from what many animals including humans do in many ways.[/QUOTE]

Then I stand corrected.

But this should not be a reason to condemn vegans for not including plants in their lifestyle choices.  At least vegans are trying to make a difference, unlike the critic who is likely making none.  That'd be like condemning Mandela for not curing AIDS.

I have no problem with vegetarianism. If people want to do it, it's their choice.


Personally I would never become a vegetarian. I come from a family of doctors who do not look kindly upon vegetarianism, and two of my relatives had to resume eating meat for health reasons. Plus, I love eating meat. :D

My relatives' experiences aside, it is entirely possible to live on a Vegetarian diet. I'm sure people can even do so on a Vegan diet, however I imagine it would be incredibly difficult; and while people can do whatever they want, my personal opinion is that a Vegan diet is far too unbalanced. One of my friends is a Vegan, and I can't help but feel sorry for her children who miss out on alot of really fun food.

My biggest problem with Vegetarians/Vegans is that many (not all) are incredibly morally self-righteous. I have no problem if you don't eat meat, but don't pretend that you care more about animals than I do or that you are doing what you are doing for the good of the world. Too many people think caring about animals = not eating meat. It's nonsence. I eat meat, I love animals, and there is no contradiction. People have every right to be Vegan/Vegatarian; just don't pretend that you care more about aminals than non-meaters and that you are morally superior.

Hats off to Brian, we are all free to live as we see fit.

You would have to wonder though, what value Brian attaches to this decision on a personal level. Six decades of happily consuming meat and using product from animal skin, and then a sudden change.

Not many people in their 60's make lifestyle choices like this, it's usually a choice people make earlier on in life, when the choice can have some kind of an impact.

He might as well have given up chewing gum

Still though, more burgers for me. I'll give up meat in 30 years or so when I'm in my 60's, and my body can barley process it anyway,  just like Bri.

Love Brian to bits, I really do, but you can't help but get the feeling he is one of these guy's that loves the smell of his own farts.

ThomasQuinn wrote: 1) There is nothing wrong with vegetarianism. It's a perfectly possible way to have a healthy, balanced diet.

2) Vegans are f*cked up! It is not possible to get all the required nutrients from a vegan diet without taking dietary supplements, and I don't exactly consider pills as part of your dinner healthy. Humans were designed as omnivores - there are limited ways around this, avoiding meat in favour of dairy for instance, but pretending you're a herbivore is just plain unhealthy.
  Your second point is totally untrue.  I suggest you do some research. 

People refrain from eating meat for a lot of reasons.  I have been a veggie for a long time now, but do not think people should not eat meat.  I hate the way anaimals are for the most part mistreated, and do not want to participate in that mistreatment by buying meat.  Knowing that a calf may be contained in a cage for a year(a cage so small so small it cannot scratch itself) so the veal is lean and tender is cruel to my way of thinking.  I could not eat veal knowing how it came about and justify the cruelty coz it tastes good.  Pointing this out to meat lovers is often considered extreme.  I guess its better just not to know.
Its ironic how many meat eaters are disgusted by cruelty to cats and dogs though.  Just sayin

Amazon wrote:

[QUOTE]I eat meat, I love animals, and there is no contradiction.[/QUOTE]

Sure there is.  You can't unequivocally love animals and be in favour of certain animals being drugged and living in horrible conditions before they're killed for your consumption.  You may love animals, but you don't love *all* animals.  At best, you love the animals you don't eat, and you love tasting the animals you do eat.

I agree that vegetarianism isn't the only way to show love for animals, but unless the person doing the complaining about the vegetarian/vegan stance is someone whose life is devoted to the well-being of animals in one way or another, they have no right to complain about those who are making some kind of a difference.

Vegetarians and vegans absolutely do have the right to feel and state a moral superiority to those who do eat meat, because every day one less animal goes through the torture, creating one less animal to enter the supply and demand cycle.  They are doing their part.  Meat eaters are not, at least in that respect.  If a meat eater, for example, has spent time saving the habitat of some other kind of animal from human destruction, then we can have a debate over who is morally superior to whom.

I don't kill people, and I therefore consider myself morally superior in that respect to people who do.  Why should it be different for animals?

Joeker wrote: Roger Taylor:  I fuckin' beat my meat, so what?
===============================

OMG Roger said that!?!?!?!?!? :O

is there any video footage of him saying that?

not that i dont believe you, i just wanted to know

do u guys mean that u didnt know trees are just as alive as we are??!?!?!?! want proof, watch lord of the rings, the is an army of walkign trees! i have seen it AND heard it! thanks to lord of the rings :)

their also kind trees to, they can be like little taxi's, well, BIG taxis, we just hop on a branch and say "mush!" and off they go! :D they also help by giving us oxigen!

so plz dont kill the trees, their my friends :'(

SIR GH, very well put sir.

Great post yourself, Coops!  It does baffle me as well how some meat-eaters appear to be appalled by things like the seal hunt.

Also, great post (and reality check) by juan1921.