FA+
Shop
1338
Views
Views
54
Favorites
Favorites
Category
Artwork (Digital) / General Furry Art
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 900 x 1100
File Size 1.47 MB
Report this content
More from Jive
How can you say your truth is better than ours?
Most people, when you tell them about what is actually on their plate, will tell you they "don't want to hear it." They'll say, "stop, it makes me feel bad," as if simply experiencing guilt is enough, and they have no further obligation to try to actually stop the harm their gluttonous whims require. Some will go so far as to actually plug their ears, laughing it off as if not questioning the morality of your actions when the lives of 2.5 million living, feeling beings a day are at stake is somehow cute and quaint. They will often act as if they're being silly or somehow childish, but they just can't help themselves. They want their acknowledgement to count for something when they take no action to change the reality they're forced to examine at the end of their fork.
Then there are those who get angry. They loudly insist they have no reason to feel guilty, that they're doing nothing out of the ordinary ... which is true. Many of these people have such a vested interest in fitting into a society where it's normal to eat carcasses that even the hint that this might be somehow morally inappropriate is considered an attack. Many others simply don't like being told they're hurting someone else ... and the feelings of guilt quickly turn to anger aimed at the cause of said guilt. How dare you make me consider my actions? I was comfortable, and you made me feel bad. You are, therefore, the bad guy.
There are also those who simply don't care. They pay others to torture and imprison other sentient beings for 15 minutes of pleasure 3 times a day, when it's completely unnecessary, and they're okay with that. When you tell them of the horrors caused by man's exploitation of animals in every way, they may flinch, but they pay no lip service to change. They'll say, "who cares, it's just a pig?" or "cows are stupid," but they've never spent a single second to get to know one of those very creatures on an individual basis. To them, "cows" are just pictures and images they've seen, and that's where beef comes from. Pork is made of pigs, sure, but what is a pig?
What kind of personality did the pig whose leg you're eating have? They were more intelligent than your dog. They were able to form complex social relationships with other pigs. Were they a boar or sow? Were they affectionate? Were they skittish? Did they prefer this kind of food or that? Were they afraid when it was their turn to die?
Humans try so hard to get you to just excuse their disgusting lack of compassion as petty foolishness or personal choice. They try to make you out to be silly, radical, too pushy, preachy, annoying, a wuss, too emotional ... they tell you you're not making a difference. They tell you what you're doing won't matter. They tell you you might as well quit trying because you can't save them all.
But there are so many lives to fight for, and so few doing the actual fighting, and every ounce of effort counts for something. How many animals live in nightmarish torment and die horrific and violent deaths to feed you? How many less would go through the same, if we simply stopped?
The largest part of this problem is not that there is violent opposition, but that the push for compassion is met with apathy. Stop ignoring the obvious. Videos and images from the inside of not only slaughterhouses but also the so-called "farms" that feed most large grocery stores are available. All you have to do is look for them. Ignorance is no longer an excuse ... lack of effort to educate oneself on a topic is not a good basis for morality.
Stop buying into this abusive system, stop funding exploitation and torture, and stop closing your eyes so you don't have to feel bad.
Most people, when you tell them about what is actually on their plate, will tell you they "don't want to hear it." They'll say, "stop, it makes me feel bad," as if simply experiencing guilt is enough, and they have no further obligation to try to actually stop the harm their gluttonous whims require. Some will go so far as to actually plug their ears, laughing it off as if not questioning the morality of your actions when the lives of 2.5 million living, feeling beings a day are at stake is somehow cute and quaint. They will often act as if they're being silly or somehow childish, but they just can't help themselves. They want their acknowledgement to count for something when they take no action to change the reality they're forced to examine at the end of their fork.
Then there are those who get angry. They loudly insist they have no reason to feel guilty, that they're doing nothing out of the ordinary ... which is true. Many of these people have such a vested interest in fitting into a society where it's normal to eat carcasses that even the hint that this might be somehow morally inappropriate is considered an attack. Many others simply don't like being told they're hurting someone else ... and the feelings of guilt quickly turn to anger aimed at the cause of said guilt. How dare you make me consider my actions? I was comfortable, and you made me feel bad. You are, therefore, the bad guy.
There are also those who simply don't care. They pay others to torture and imprison other sentient beings for 15 minutes of pleasure 3 times a day, when it's completely unnecessary, and they're okay with that. When you tell them of the horrors caused by man's exploitation of animals in every way, they may flinch, but they pay no lip service to change. They'll say, "who cares, it's just a pig?" or "cows are stupid," but they've never spent a single second to get to know one of those very creatures on an individual basis. To them, "cows" are just pictures and images they've seen, and that's where beef comes from. Pork is made of pigs, sure, but what is a pig?
What kind of personality did the pig whose leg you're eating have? They were more intelligent than your dog. They were able to form complex social relationships with other pigs. Were they a boar or sow? Were they affectionate? Were they skittish? Did they prefer this kind of food or that? Were they afraid when it was their turn to die?
Humans try so hard to get you to just excuse their disgusting lack of compassion as petty foolishness or personal choice. They try to make you out to be silly, radical, too pushy, preachy, annoying, a wuss, too emotional ... they tell you you're not making a difference. They tell you what you're doing won't matter. They tell you you might as well quit trying because you can't save them all.
But there are so many lives to fight for, and so few doing the actual fighting, and every ounce of effort counts for something. How many animals live in nightmarish torment and die horrific and violent deaths to feed you? How many less would go through the same, if we simply stopped?
The largest part of this problem is not that there is violent opposition, but that the push for compassion is met with apathy. Stop ignoring the obvious. Videos and images from the inside of not only slaughterhouses but also the so-called "farms" that feed most large grocery stores are available. All you have to do is look for them. Ignorance is no longer an excuse ... lack of effort to educate oneself on a topic is not a good basis for morality.
Stop buying into this abusive system, stop funding exploitation and torture, and stop closing your eyes so you don't have to feel bad.
Category Artwork (Digital) / General Furry Art
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 900 x 1100px
File Size 1.47 MB
Really? Because I have less than half of what I need to the point where I have to take medicine for it.
Chemistry, Physics, whatever the subject, something has to be provided that doesn't exist in plants, fungi, and pills. Humans happen to need both. We're not the only species to need both, and it's foolish to think we invented eating meat.
Boars are boars. Not the same species. I'm talking about the pigs in the farms. Those ones. Wild.
Chemistry, Physics, whatever the subject, something has to be provided that doesn't exist in plants, fungi, and pills. Humans happen to need both. We're not the only species to need both, and it's foolish to think we invented eating meat.
Boars are boars. Not the same species. I'm talking about the pigs in the farms. Those ones. Wild.
I guess all these vegans I know must be dead, then! Huh.
If you have a medical condition that dictates your diet, that's another discussion, but not many do. And if you do, I'm curious to know what it is. Seriously. Because I'd like to educate myself about them.
We didn't invent eating meat, of course. I didn't say that. Stop making me out to be foolish. We are, however, a species that KNOWS the consequences of our actions that CAN live without meat. we can consider morals, where lions cannot. you are not a lion.
Those pigs are not here for you. They are their own lives. Let them live out their natural lives, don't breed more. It's unnecessary exploitation to keep them around the way we do now.
If you have a medical condition that dictates your diet, that's another discussion, but not many do. And if you do, I'm curious to know what it is. Seriously. Because I'd like to educate myself about them.
We didn't invent eating meat, of course. I didn't say that. Stop making me out to be foolish. We are, however, a species that KNOWS the consequences of our actions that CAN live without meat. we can consider morals, where lions cannot. you are not a lion.
Those pigs are not here for you. They are their own lives. Let them live out their natural lives, don't breed more. It's unnecessary exploitation to keep them around the way we do now.
Okay, then, prove that we need meat. Show me scientific evidence. Since going vegan, my blood tests have been great. I get enough protein, iron, and B12. Vitamin D I get from SUNSHINE and mushrooms. Anything else I might be deficient in that you seem to think I can't get from a vegan diet?
Here is the American Dietetic Association's position statement on vegetarian and vegan diets.
http://www.eatright.org/About/Content.aspx?id=8357
Eating animal products really is unnecessary killing, and unnecessary killing is wrong.
http://www.vegankit.com
http://www.eatright.org/About/Content.aspx?id=8357
Eating animal products really is unnecessary killing, and unnecessary killing is wrong.
http://www.vegankit.com
eaglewing (sorry, FA sometimes weirds comments up)
Pipe the fuck down; you're making yourself look douchey.
Pipe the fuck down; you're making yourself look douchey.
Yeah, right? To be perfectly honest, I don't mind vegans. They have a good message, and when you do it smartly, it's a good way to live.
But, because I live in Bellingham, Washington, LIBERAL CENTRE OF THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST, I often get die-hard feminist, LGBTs, and - yes - vegans screaming their heads off at anyone who doesn't follow their lifestyles...it gets tiring...lol, sorry for being rude earlier. You're a good guy, and the next time I eat any meat, I'll greatly thank the being it came from.
But, because I live in Bellingham, Washington, LIBERAL CENTRE OF THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST, I often get die-hard feminist, LGBTs, and - yes - vegans screaming their heads off at anyone who doesn't follow their lifestyles...it gets tiring...lol, sorry for being rude earlier. You're a good guy, and the next time I eat any meat, I'll greatly thank the being it came from.
You don't need to respect opinions, you should merely respect the people holding them. I respect non-vegans as people, but I have no respect for speciesism. If you believe that it's okay to discriminate against others because they're a different species than you, well I may respect YOU, but I have no respect for such an opinion. BILLIONS are suffering and dying because of speciesism in our society.
I'm sure you probably don't respect racism or sexism, or views in favor of rape or child abuse, so you probably understand.
I'm sure you probably don't respect racism or sexism, or views in favor of rape or child abuse, so you probably understand.
Not Vegan, (yet, at least) but this is really great! I love pigs and cows so much and it's really depressing when I see people just dismissing what they're eating. I'm not 100% against eating meat but I just wish people would have a LITTLE respect for what they're consuming. I mean, yes, we as humans have evolved to eat both meat and plants. That's awesome! But people, especially in more western countries, just seem to become such cold, uncaring jerks. The "holier than thou" attitude taught by some religions definitely doesn't help. The whole "animals have no souls" "we're not animals, we're HUMANS" or just the simple factor of "animals were put on the earth for us to eat" it just makes my stomach churn. How can our species be so intelligent yet so cruel and idiotic? :C
But really, this is a beautiful piece. I love that lil pig's fattening jowls (my favorite part of the piggy face to pet and rub). ♥
But really, this is a beautiful piece. I love that lil pig's fattening jowls (my favorite part of the piggy face to pet and rub). ♥
I can't understand thinking animals were only put here for us. like ... have they even looked at the animals they're eating? how can you look at a cow and conclude that they don't know they're going to die or that it's somehow okay to ignore the terrible way we treat pigs and birds before killing them? I just can't grasp that.
thank you for the compliments, though, oh jeez. that's high praise as far as I'm concerned, I love your artwork. and yes, pigs are the cutest fattyfat fat faces.
thank you for the compliments, though, oh jeez. that's high praise as far as I'm concerned, I love your artwork. and yes, pigs are the cutest fattyfat fat faces.
Vegans tend to do a lot of wishful thinking and appeal to emotion without actually
you know
considering what would actually HAPPEN if nobody ate animals.
It's a matter of logistics. Take all the pork and beef and eggs and cheese and lamb and chicken and fish and whatnot out of the world equation and what do you get?
Lots and lots of lower class families who can't afford the high cost of a vegan diet.
Many many MANY dead children who have starved to death because they don't have the convenience of grocery stores or food stamps in their country. Oh well.
Lots and lots MORE environmental damage due to the sudden insane demand for cropland. Goodbye Rainforest. Seriously.
Higher demand for pesticides. Great.
Employment suddenly shifts dramatically. We need so many more farmers now. Goodbye doctors, engineers, computer scientists, etcetc.
Oops another dust bowl. Except this time it's in several countries.
Overpopulation of invasive species. GOD DAMMIT STOP EATING OUR CROPS WE NEED THOSE TO LIVE!
Species extinction. Too many species have become too widely overpopulated and are taking resources from the smaller weaker species. How ironic!
The list goes on.
So yeah, It'd be great if we could all just live in peace and harmony and not have to make a choice between:
our own well being, our environment, and the lives of cute animals
but
that's kind of not how things work. Sorry. : (
you know
considering what would actually HAPPEN if nobody ate animals.
It's a matter of logistics. Take all the pork and beef and eggs and cheese and lamb and chicken and fish and whatnot out of the world equation and what do you get?
Lots and lots of lower class families who can't afford the high cost of a vegan diet.
Many many MANY dead children who have starved to death because they don't have the convenience of grocery stores or food stamps in their country. Oh well.
Lots and lots MORE environmental damage due to the sudden insane demand for cropland. Goodbye Rainforest. Seriously.
Higher demand for pesticides. Great.
Employment suddenly shifts dramatically. We need so many more farmers now. Goodbye doctors, engineers, computer scientists, etcetc.
Oops another dust bowl. Except this time it's in several countries.
Overpopulation of invasive species. GOD DAMMIT STOP EATING OUR CROPS WE NEED THOSE TO LIVE!
Species extinction. Too many species have become too widely overpopulated and are taking resources from the smaller weaker species. How ironic!
The list goes on.
So yeah, It'd be great if we could all just live in peace and harmony and not have to make a choice between:
our own well being, our environment, and the lives of cute animals
but
that's kind of not how things work. Sorry. : (
At the risk of going through a long winded spiel of each other listing prices in our local fucking grocery store
which will go literally nowhere
I'm willing to just drop that one off the list. Since it's like the least terrible concern there is anyways and only really applies to some Americans.
which will go literally nowhere
I'm willing to just drop that one off the list. Since it's like the least terrible concern there is anyways and only really applies to some Americans.
Excuse me for copy pasting but:
At the risk of going through a long winded spiel of each other listing prices in our local fucking grocery store
which will go literally nowhere
I'm willing to just drop that one off the list. Since it's like the least terrible concern there is anyways and only really applies to some Americans.
At the risk of going through a long winded spiel of each other listing prices in our local fucking grocery store
which will go literally nowhere
I'm willing to just drop that one off the list. Since it's like the least terrible concern there is anyways and only really applies to some Americans.
"Lots and lots of lower class families who can't afford the high cost of a vegan diet."
vegan diets have traditionally been the cheapest diets. that's why peasants/the impoverished rarely ate meat in most cultures. the only reason meat is cheap now is because of corporate subsidies and horrific "care" for the animals in question allowing costs to be shaved to just about anything.
for the record, I eat less than 50 dollars' worth of groceries a week. all the non-veg*ns I know spend far more. You just don't buy the splurge items. It's easy.
"Many many MANY dead children who have starved to death because they don't have the convenience of grocery stores or food stamps in their country. Oh well."
oops, except we feed enough grain to our cattle and pigs meant for food to feed the entire world, so this doesn't make sense. the more people go vegan, the less need for meat, and the less we use resources that could go otherwise to feeding the hungry.
"Lots and lots MORE environmental damage due to the sudden insane demand for cropland. Goodbye Rainforest. Seriously."
eeeexcept that the rainforest is being bulldozed to graze cattle already, and cattle take far more land than crops do to produce the same amount of caloric value. doesn't hold water.
"Higher demand for pesticides. Great."
polyculture raises yield, requires less labor, and uses no chemical pesticides or fertilizers.
"Employment suddenly shifts dramatically. We need so many more farmers now. Goodbye doctors, engineers, computer scientists, etcetc. "
Have you seen unemployment rates? Most people are NOT doctors, engineers, or computer scientists. They're high school grads or GED recipients or college dropouts or MAYBE they got a BA. But most people with a BA in computer science are having trouble finding jobs. the market is saturated. I know a lot of people who work at mcdonald's who'd much rather be planting/harvesting/processing fruits and veggies. This is a stupid argument.
"Oops another dust bowl. Except this time it's in several countries."
No? Only if you plant and grow and harvest stupidly?
"Overpopulation of invasive species. GOD DAMMIT STOP EATING OUR CROPS WE NEED THOSE TO LIVE!"
I don't understand how planting crops is going to cause this? especially when we could do away with literally over two thirds the amount of corn ALONE that we grow if we didn't feed it to cattle and pigs.
"Species extinction. Too many species have become too widely overpopulated and are taking resources from the smaller weaker species. How ironic!"
explain why this would happen.
Throughout most of human history, we have mostly farmed for crops, not raised animals intensively the way we do now. None of your supposed problems with veganism hold any water. In fact, most of them are SOLVED by veganism and sustainable farming practices.
vegan diets have traditionally been the cheapest diets. that's why peasants/the impoverished rarely ate meat in most cultures. the only reason meat is cheap now is because of corporate subsidies and horrific "care" for the animals in question allowing costs to be shaved to just about anything.
for the record, I eat less than 50 dollars' worth of groceries a week. all the non-veg*ns I know spend far more. You just don't buy the splurge items. It's easy.
"Many many MANY dead children who have starved to death because they don't have the convenience of grocery stores or food stamps in their country. Oh well."
oops, except we feed enough grain to our cattle and pigs meant for food to feed the entire world, so this doesn't make sense. the more people go vegan, the less need for meat, and the less we use resources that could go otherwise to feeding the hungry.
"Lots and lots MORE environmental damage due to the sudden insane demand for cropland. Goodbye Rainforest. Seriously."
eeeexcept that the rainforest is being bulldozed to graze cattle already, and cattle take far more land than crops do to produce the same amount of caloric value. doesn't hold water.
"Higher demand for pesticides. Great."
polyculture raises yield, requires less labor, and uses no chemical pesticides or fertilizers.
"Employment suddenly shifts dramatically. We need so many more farmers now. Goodbye doctors, engineers, computer scientists, etcetc. "
Have you seen unemployment rates? Most people are NOT doctors, engineers, or computer scientists. They're high school grads or GED recipients or college dropouts or MAYBE they got a BA. But most people with a BA in computer science are having trouble finding jobs. the market is saturated. I know a lot of people who work at mcdonald's who'd much rather be planting/harvesting/processing fruits and veggies. This is a stupid argument.
"Oops another dust bowl. Except this time it's in several countries."
No? Only if you plant and grow and harvest stupidly?
"Overpopulation of invasive species. GOD DAMMIT STOP EATING OUR CROPS WE NEED THOSE TO LIVE!"
I don't understand how planting crops is going to cause this? especially when we could do away with literally over two thirds the amount of corn ALONE that we grow if we didn't feed it to cattle and pigs.
"Species extinction. Too many species have become too widely overpopulated and are taking resources from the smaller weaker species. How ironic!"
explain why this would happen.
Throughout most of human history, we have mostly farmed for crops, not raised animals intensively the way we do now. None of your supposed problems with veganism hold any water. In fact, most of them are SOLVED by veganism and sustainable farming practices.
Some of your arguments seem to be based on the way things were long ago.
In the 1800's (not that long ago) the ENTIRE WORLD population wasn't even a whole billion.
We have nearly 7 times the amount of people now.
Of course vegan diet is the TRADITIONAL cheap diet. Peasants/impoverished ate vegan because it was cheaper then. It was cheaper then because unlike nowadays, you didn't go to the grocery store and buy meat. To eat meat, you had to give yourself another mouth to feed/raise the livestock yourself. Which obviously, was much more expensive. Not to mention, meat spoils faster/moreso than veggies. Freezers hadn't been invented yet. You had to salt, smoke, or pickle your meat which was a trial in itself. Veggies and fruit could just be dried.
But like I said to Beatles and laserhanon, I'm totally willing to drop that one for you regardless. Like, I know that it still IS cheaper to eat vegan in some countries and I know this is an issue that really only applies to some Americans and other 1st world countries and whatnot.
Actually, we have enough food to feed the entire world right now. And that isn't counting the theoretical grains not given to livestock. Again, it's a matter of logistics. It's like when people say "omfg america has enough food to feed way more than it's population greedy americans......." It's not a matter of greed. It's a matter of there being an ocean surrounding us. An ocean that takes a lot of resources to cross. Resources which require some kind of monetary exchange in order to support the families of the workers that handle and produce them. You can't just pile a ton of food on a bunch of ships that run on free energy with thousands of employees working for free to go take it all to Africa just cuz. That'd be great, but again. The world doesn't work that way. :/
It's kind of hard to perfectly manage and distribute things in a giant world economy of several billion individuals. It's not about greed or murder or being corrupt.
It takes less land to raise livestock than to grow crops. And we'd be using a L O T of cropland if nobody ate meat. Like
more land than we have. Now you COULD theoretically use greenhouses with multiple stories which is an interesting thing they are working on now. But that's a whole other logistics issue that wouldn't really be possible in a world with no meat. Greenhouses are pretty expensive. especially greenhouses with multiple stories and artificial sunlight.
Polyculture is another neat idea but definitely not a perfect solution to our food production sustainability issues. It is extremely difficult to design a working ecosystem with a subset of the full range of organisms found in the natural environment. Also harvesting the food requires a LOT more labor than with a monoculture farm. Obviously.
Sorry, but that doesn't really cut it in a world without meat. Not even close.
You don't seem to get it. In a world without meat, we NEED more farmers. We need a ridiculous amount of crops suddenly.
That's great that some of your friends would like to be farmers. I was raised on a farm, and there's some things that are nice about it. Unfortunately most people DON'T like working their fingers to the bone in the hot sun and dirt for not very good pay. Especially not the women. With the exception of me I guess lmfao.
But the point is, there become a very high desperate demand for very low paid employees who aren't required to get an education. That isn't good on an economy no matter how you look at it. "But everyone is WORKING!" Yeah, but not enough to support anyone other than themselves.
"No? Only if you plant and grow and harvest stupidly?"
Right, because everyone in other countries are going to give a shit about crop rotation and salt levels while they are trying to afford food for their dying children. I'm sure America would be okay, but come on. Sometimes it isn't a matter of stupidity.
Planting crops doesn't cause overpopulation of deer and kangaroos and rabbits and wild hogs. The lack of hunting does. Venison is still meat right? No more hunting. Or would you rather people still hunt and trap and kill them in order to protect their crops but NOT eat them? That's a little confusing.
These species reproduce RAPIDLY and are extremely dangerous in high numbers. Left alone, they WILL overpopulate. It's not safe for people, and it's not healthy for the animals. and again, that corn doesn't really matter in a world without meat.
Um I already explained? Some species get overpopulated and take resources from smaller, weaker (or just less rapidly reproducing) species. It's happened before.
Invasive species get introduced or something. They take over and kill all of another species, or take their habitat, or eat all their food. It's not the first time.
"Throughout most of human history-" stop. 'most of human history' isn't relevant here. Like I said. We have a lot more people now.
Things are different.
I have like.. 32 or so pets? Most are traditional "livestock" animals. I don't eat any of them. My best friend is a Goose. Of course I'd like a world where nobody eats meat...theoretically.
I'm not saying we should LOL EAT MEAT YUMMY!!!
I'm just saying, it's not realistic. It really isn't. Not at all. It's a bunch of wishful thinking because you love animals. Understandable. But not Logical.
In the 1800's (not that long ago) the ENTIRE WORLD population wasn't even a whole billion.
We have nearly 7 times the amount of people now.
Of course vegan diet is the TRADITIONAL cheap diet. Peasants/impoverished ate vegan because it was cheaper then. It was cheaper then because unlike nowadays, you didn't go to the grocery store and buy meat. To eat meat, you had to give yourself another mouth to feed/raise the livestock yourself. Which obviously, was much more expensive. Not to mention, meat spoils faster/moreso than veggies. Freezers hadn't been invented yet. You had to salt, smoke, or pickle your meat which was a trial in itself. Veggies and fruit could just be dried.
But like I said to Beatles and laserhanon, I'm totally willing to drop that one for you regardless. Like, I know that it still IS cheaper to eat vegan in some countries and I know this is an issue that really only applies to some Americans and other 1st world countries and whatnot.
Actually, we have enough food to feed the entire world right now. And that isn't counting the theoretical grains not given to livestock. Again, it's a matter of logistics. It's like when people say "omfg america has enough food to feed way more than it's population greedy americans......." It's not a matter of greed. It's a matter of there being an ocean surrounding us. An ocean that takes a lot of resources to cross. Resources which require some kind of monetary exchange in order to support the families of the workers that handle and produce them. You can't just pile a ton of food on a bunch of ships that run on free energy with thousands of employees working for free to go take it all to Africa just cuz. That'd be great, but again. The world doesn't work that way. :/
It's kind of hard to perfectly manage and distribute things in a giant world economy of several billion individuals. It's not about greed or murder or being corrupt.
It takes less land to raise livestock than to grow crops. And we'd be using a L O T of cropland if nobody ate meat. Like
more land than we have. Now you COULD theoretically use greenhouses with multiple stories which is an interesting thing they are working on now. But that's a whole other logistics issue that wouldn't really be possible in a world with no meat. Greenhouses are pretty expensive. especially greenhouses with multiple stories and artificial sunlight.
Polyculture is another neat idea but definitely not a perfect solution to our food production sustainability issues. It is extremely difficult to design a working ecosystem with a subset of the full range of organisms found in the natural environment. Also harvesting the food requires a LOT more labor than with a monoculture farm. Obviously.
Sorry, but that doesn't really cut it in a world without meat. Not even close.
You don't seem to get it. In a world without meat, we NEED more farmers. We need a ridiculous amount of crops suddenly.
That's great that some of your friends would like to be farmers. I was raised on a farm, and there's some things that are nice about it. Unfortunately most people DON'T like working their fingers to the bone in the hot sun and dirt for not very good pay. Especially not the women. With the exception of me I guess lmfao.
But the point is, there become a very high desperate demand for very low paid employees who aren't required to get an education. That isn't good on an economy no matter how you look at it. "But everyone is WORKING!" Yeah, but not enough to support anyone other than themselves.
"No? Only if you plant and grow and harvest stupidly?"
Right, because everyone in other countries are going to give a shit about crop rotation and salt levels while they are trying to afford food for their dying children. I'm sure America would be okay, but come on. Sometimes it isn't a matter of stupidity.
Planting crops doesn't cause overpopulation of deer and kangaroos and rabbits and wild hogs. The lack of hunting does. Venison is still meat right? No more hunting. Or would you rather people still hunt and trap and kill them in order to protect their crops but NOT eat them? That's a little confusing.
These species reproduce RAPIDLY and are extremely dangerous in high numbers. Left alone, they WILL overpopulate. It's not safe for people, and it's not healthy for the animals. and again, that corn doesn't really matter in a world without meat.
Um I already explained? Some species get overpopulated and take resources from smaller, weaker (or just less rapidly reproducing) species. It's happened before.
Invasive species get introduced or something. They take over and kill all of another species, or take their habitat, or eat all their food. It's not the first time.
"Throughout most of human history-" stop. 'most of human history' isn't relevant here. Like I said. We have a lot more people now.
Things are different.
I have like.. 32 or so pets? Most are traditional "livestock" animals. I don't eat any of them. My best friend is a Goose. Of course I'd like a world where nobody eats meat...theoretically.
I'm not saying we should LOL EAT MEAT YUMMY!!!
I'm just saying, it's not realistic. It really isn't. Not at all. It's a bunch of wishful thinking because you love animals. Understandable. But not Logical.
(note: some of this is taken from another discussion because I didn't feel like retyping all of it for the same objections.)
Of course vegan diet is the TRADITIONAL cheap diet. Peasants/impoverished ate vegan because it was cheaper then. It was cheaper then because unlike nowadays, you didn't go to the grocery store and buy meat. To eat meat, you had to give yourself another mouth to feed/raise the livestock yourself. Which obviously, was much more expensive. Not to mention, meat spoils faster/moreso than veggies. Freezers hadn't been invented yet. You had to salt, smoke, or pickle your meat which was a trial in itself. Veggies and fruit could just be dried.
Meat is only cheaper now because it has been subsidized by the government. The USDA has a well established history of hiring people from the industry it supposedly regulates. This is public information. Google "USDA revolving door."
Fruits and veggies should be cheaper. Meat should cost more. They don't because the government organization designated to regulate that market is run by people from the meat industry, and they had taxpayer money to large factory farms to abuse animals en masse and sell shit-soaked meat to the American public.
I'm going to just recommend reading "Slaughterhouse" by Gail Eisnitz. She worked with those in the industry and USDA both, and it's well written. "Food Politics" by Marion Nestle also gets into this issue, but it's very dry and kind of a boring read. "King Corn" is a good documentary on the topic. None of them are written from a vegan perspective.
Actually, we have enough food to feed the entire world right now. And that isn't counting the theoretical grains not given to livestock. Again, it's a matter of logistics. It's like when people say "omfg america has enough food to feed way more than it's population greedy americans......." It's not a matter of greed. It's a matter of there being an ocean surrounding us. An ocean that takes a lot of resources to cross. Resources which require some kind of monetary exchange in order to support the families of the workers that handle and produce them. You can't just pile a ton of food on a bunch of ships that run on free energy with thousands of employees working for free to go take it all to Africa just cuz. That'd be great, but again. The world doesn't work that way. :/
It's kind of hard to perfectly manage and distribute things in a giant world economy of several billion individuals. It's not about greed or murder or being corrupt.
Actually, it's not entirely about logistics. It's about money. If we have the resources to cross that ocean to fight in neverending wars and maintain a military presence in almost every other country in the world, we can feed the hungry.
Additionally, you assume the local peoples cannot care for themselves. Many of these people are kept down on purpose because the area has resources someone wants. For example, people in Somalia and coastal African countries used to feed themselves by fishing. Fish populations have declined drastically, however, because the demand for fish has risen globally.
"According to a Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimate, over 70% of the world’s fish species are either fully exploited or depleted." (source)
Here's another article that goes into detail about specific countries: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environme.....ica-mauritania
The solution is not simply to send these people food. It is to also stop the over-fishing of the ocean, which requires less demand for fish.
Many people associate India with water shortages. This isn't an accident. Coca Cola took it all. This is a common MO for them. There's a whole wiki page on the topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critic.....Cola#Water_use
The correct response to this is not to ship water in and still allow coca cola to take water from them. You have to stop Coke from stealing their water to solve the problem properly.
It takes less land to raise livestock than to grow crops. And we'd be using a L O T of cropland if nobody ate meat. Like
more land than we have. Now you COULD theoretically use greenhouses with multiple stories which is an interesting thing they are working on now. But that's a whole other logistics issue that wouldn't really be possible in a world with no meat. Greenhouses are pretty expensive. especially greenhouses with multiple stories and artificial sunlight.
This is blatantly false. The amount of land it takes to grow the crops to feed food animals is huge.
"The total number of cattle and calves in the U.S. on January 1, 2013, was 89.3 million head." http://agebb.missouri.edu/mkt/bull12c.htm
"120,000,000- Number of pigs marketed in the United States each year" http://www.ansc.purdue.edu/faen/Pork%20Facts.html
Since we are actually a major exporter of those grains to other countries *mostly to feed to animals for slaughter that are often imported here,* this system is incredibly wasteful. This spurs the grossly inflated amount of grains and legumes we produce, thereby fueling this idea that lesser yields would lead to starvation.
Let me give you a specific example, from IA and WA. Information taken from this link, all information official industy/gov't estimates: http://www.cias.wisc.edu/curriculum.....modii_seca.htm
"Since 2004, however, the portion of the corn crop used for ethanol has more than tripled to 27 to 30 percent in 2009 and 2008 and the portion used directly for feed has dropped to about 40 to 45 percent. A substantial portion of the by-products of ethanol production (distillers’ grains) are fed to livestock, so the corn used for ethanol also contributes to animal feed."
Of 2,862,031 acres of grain/seed corn, let's say 40% (low estimate) was used to feed livestock. We'll add another 15% (extremely low estimate) of that for byproducts from ethanol, also fed to livestock. That leaves us with 55% of 2,862.031 acres (round down to 1,860,320) fed to livestock. Add to that silage corn (another 704,513 acres), which is *all* fed to livestock, and land devoted to growing alfalfa (1,657,958 acres), also entirely fed to livestock, and you have approximately 4,222,791 acres devoted to feeding livestock alone. Keep in mind, this is a low estimate, especially since it doesn't count soy (I left it out because a lesser amount goes to feed cattle than the above crops) or the amount of exports fed to livestock.
This is only for *two* states. The waste of this is incredible. If those 4 million-plus acres were devoted to growing fruits, veggies, legumes, nuts, seeds, and human-grade edible grains, we would be looking at a ridiculous amount of food produced.
In addition, cattle are grazed on BLM land (meaning Bureau of Land Management) intended to be preserved for its natural beauty and indigenous species as well as downed rainforest. In fact, cattle grazing in the rainforest is one of the leading causes of deforestation. http://phys.org/news/2011-09-defore.....on-cattle.html
Polyculture is another neat idea but definitely not a perfect solution to our food production sustainability issues. It is extremely difficult to design a working ecosystem with a subset of the full range of organisms found in the natural environment. Also harvesting the food requires a LOT more labor than with a monoculture farm. Obviously.
Sorry, but that doesn't really cut it in a world without meat. Not even close.
You're just asserting this as fact. Polyculture is a pretty widely practiced farming technique that can be used to feed just about everyone. We have enough food, as it is, to feed humanity a totally vegan diet and have no hungry mouths. Your arguments simply fall through, here.
Here are some case studies, all over 150 acres, and one up to 1500 acres: http://www.vegetables.cornell.edu/r.....se_studies.htm
As you can see, all of them reported less fuel costs, less herbicide/pesticide costs, and even less labor costs, resulting in higher profits. Yields did not suffer and--unlike monoculture plots--these did not experience crop failures because of the biodiversity involved. Yields aren't covered precisely, but there are other sites for that.
You don't seem to get it. In a world without meat, we NEED more farmers. We need a ridiculous amount of crops suddenly.
That's great that some of your friends would like to be farmers. I was raised on a farm, and there's some things that are nice about it. Unfortunately most people DON'T like working their fingers to the bone in the hot sun and dirt for not very good pay. Especially not the women. With the exception of me I guess lmfao.
But the point is, there become a very high desperate demand for very low paid employees who aren't required to get an education. That isn't good on an economy no matter how you look at it. "But everyone is WORKING!" Yeah, but not enough to support anyone other than themselves.
Your statement is sexist, firstly. I know plenty of women who love working in the dirt. Gardens are pretty popular.
Aside from that, the thousands upon thousands of unemployed people would probably love to be farmers, even if it's temporary. This is a ridiculous side point, though, anyway. We don't need THAT many farmers just to grow crops. We'd need farm HELP, but many people would do that job as temporary work rather than work at a fast food joint or grocery store that doesn't pay shit and doesn't let you get outside.
You talk like we're not already abusing undocumented immigrants and the impoverished and uneducated in that fashion. What the hell stops a farmer or farm hand from being educated? It's not their employment. That has more to do with the lack of real help for the poor to get into good schools and complete nonexistence of a real upward trend, socially and economically. Again, read "Slaughterhouse." or "Fast Food Nation" by Eric Schlosser. Again, not written from a vegan PoV.
Right, because everyone in other countries are going to give a shit about crop rotation and salt levels while they are trying to afford food for their dying children. I'm sure America would be okay, but come on. Sometimes it isn't a matter of stupidity.
Actually, look up the work of Vandana Shiva. I said nothing about other people being stupid. The way we CURRENTLY plant is stupid. Western monoculture is the problem I referred to.
Planting crops doesn't cause overpopulation of deer and kangaroos and rabbits and wild hogs. The lack of hunting does. Venison is still meat right? No more hunting. Or would you rather people still hunt and trap and kill them in order to protect their crops but NOT eat them? That's a little confusing.
These species reproduce RAPIDLY and are extremely dangerous in high numbers. Left alone, they WILL overpopulate. It's not safe for people, and it's not healthy for the animals. and again, that corn doesn't really matter in a world without meat.
Invasive species should be eliminated as humanely and quickly as possible when they're a detriment, however... I will point out that hunting actually usually leads to a population boom if an animal is not invasive. the correct solution is to reintroduce predators and build fences around your crops. Also, build green bridges.
These are topics I'm well versed in. Nothing you've said here holds water as a legitimate objection to a PERSONAL VEGAN DIET as something that's morally more sound. Unless you are a poor, starving african, you need to stop speaking for them.
Of course vegan diet is the TRADITIONAL cheap diet. Peasants/impoverished ate vegan because it was cheaper then. It was cheaper then because unlike nowadays, you didn't go to the grocery store and buy meat. To eat meat, you had to give yourself another mouth to feed/raise the livestock yourself. Which obviously, was much more expensive. Not to mention, meat spoils faster/moreso than veggies. Freezers hadn't been invented yet. You had to salt, smoke, or pickle your meat which was a trial in itself. Veggies and fruit could just be dried.
Meat is only cheaper now because it has been subsidized by the government. The USDA has a well established history of hiring people from the industry it supposedly regulates. This is public information. Google "USDA revolving door."
Fruits and veggies should be cheaper. Meat should cost more. They don't because the government organization designated to regulate that market is run by people from the meat industry, and they had taxpayer money to large factory farms to abuse animals en masse and sell shit-soaked meat to the American public.
I'm going to just recommend reading "Slaughterhouse" by Gail Eisnitz. She worked with those in the industry and USDA both, and it's well written. "Food Politics" by Marion Nestle also gets into this issue, but it's very dry and kind of a boring read. "King Corn" is a good documentary on the topic. None of them are written from a vegan perspective.
Actually, we have enough food to feed the entire world right now. And that isn't counting the theoretical grains not given to livestock. Again, it's a matter of logistics. It's like when people say "omfg america has enough food to feed way more than it's population greedy americans......." It's not a matter of greed. It's a matter of there being an ocean surrounding us. An ocean that takes a lot of resources to cross. Resources which require some kind of monetary exchange in order to support the families of the workers that handle and produce them. You can't just pile a ton of food on a bunch of ships that run on free energy with thousands of employees working for free to go take it all to Africa just cuz. That'd be great, but again. The world doesn't work that way. :/
It's kind of hard to perfectly manage and distribute things in a giant world economy of several billion individuals. It's not about greed or murder or being corrupt.
Actually, it's not entirely about logistics. It's about money. If we have the resources to cross that ocean to fight in neverending wars and maintain a military presence in almost every other country in the world, we can feed the hungry.
Additionally, you assume the local peoples cannot care for themselves. Many of these people are kept down on purpose because the area has resources someone wants. For example, people in Somalia and coastal African countries used to feed themselves by fishing. Fish populations have declined drastically, however, because the demand for fish has risen globally.
"According to a Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimate, over 70% of the world’s fish species are either fully exploited or depleted." (source)
Here's another article that goes into detail about specific countries: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environme.....ica-mauritania
The solution is not simply to send these people food. It is to also stop the over-fishing of the ocean, which requires less demand for fish.
Many people associate India with water shortages. This isn't an accident. Coca Cola took it all. This is a common MO for them. There's a whole wiki page on the topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critic.....Cola#Water_use
The correct response to this is not to ship water in and still allow coca cola to take water from them. You have to stop Coke from stealing their water to solve the problem properly.
It takes less land to raise livestock than to grow crops. And we'd be using a L O T of cropland if nobody ate meat. Like
more land than we have. Now you COULD theoretically use greenhouses with multiple stories which is an interesting thing they are working on now. But that's a whole other logistics issue that wouldn't really be possible in a world with no meat. Greenhouses are pretty expensive. especially greenhouses with multiple stories and artificial sunlight.
This is blatantly false. The amount of land it takes to grow the crops to feed food animals is huge.
"The total number of cattle and calves in the U.S. on January 1, 2013, was 89.3 million head." http://agebb.missouri.edu/mkt/bull12c.htm
"120,000,000- Number of pigs marketed in the United States each year" http://www.ansc.purdue.edu/faen/Pork%20Facts.html
Since we are actually a major exporter of those grains to other countries *mostly to feed to animals for slaughter that are often imported here,* this system is incredibly wasteful. This spurs the grossly inflated amount of grains and legumes we produce, thereby fueling this idea that lesser yields would lead to starvation.
Let me give you a specific example, from IA and WA. Information taken from this link, all information official industy/gov't estimates: http://www.cias.wisc.edu/curriculum.....modii_seca.htm
"Since 2004, however, the portion of the corn crop used for ethanol has more than tripled to 27 to 30 percent in 2009 and 2008 and the portion used directly for feed has dropped to about 40 to 45 percent. A substantial portion of the by-products of ethanol production (distillers’ grains) are fed to livestock, so the corn used for ethanol also contributes to animal feed."
Of 2,862,031 acres of grain/seed corn, let's say 40% (low estimate) was used to feed livestock. We'll add another 15% (extremely low estimate) of that for byproducts from ethanol, also fed to livestock. That leaves us with 55% of 2,862.031 acres (round down to 1,860,320) fed to livestock. Add to that silage corn (another 704,513 acres), which is *all* fed to livestock, and land devoted to growing alfalfa (1,657,958 acres), also entirely fed to livestock, and you have approximately 4,222,791 acres devoted to feeding livestock alone. Keep in mind, this is a low estimate, especially since it doesn't count soy (I left it out because a lesser amount goes to feed cattle than the above crops) or the amount of exports fed to livestock.
This is only for *two* states. The waste of this is incredible. If those 4 million-plus acres were devoted to growing fruits, veggies, legumes, nuts, seeds, and human-grade edible grains, we would be looking at a ridiculous amount of food produced.
In addition, cattle are grazed on BLM land (meaning Bureau of Land Management) intended to be preserved for its natural beauty and indigenous species as well as downed rainforest. In fact, cattle grazing in the rainforest is one of the leading causes of deforestation. http://phys.org/news/2011-09-defore.....on-cattle.html
Polyculture is another neat idea but definitely not a perfect solution to our food production sustainability issues. It is extremely difficult to design a working ecosystem with a subset of the full range of organisms found in the natural environment. Also harvesting the food requires a LOT more labor than with a monoculture farm. Obviously.
Sorry, but that doesn't really cut it in a world without meat. Not even close.
You're just asserting this as fact. Polyculture is a pretty widely practiced farming technique that can be used to feed just about everyone. We have enough food, as it is, to feed humanity a totally vegan diet and have no hungry mouths. Your arguments simply fall through, here.
Here are some case studies, all over 150 acres, and one up to 1500 acres: http://www.vegetables.cornell.edu/r.....se_studies.htm
As you can see, all of them reported less fuel costs, less herbicide/pesticide costs, and even less labor costs, resulting in higher profits. Yields did not suffer and--unlike monoculture plots--these did not experience crop failures because of the biodiversity involved. Yields aren't covered precisely, but there are other sites for that.
You don't seem to get it. In a world without meat, we NEED more farmers. We need a ridiculous amount of crops suddenly.
That's great that some of your friends would like to be farmers. I was raised on a farm, and there's some things that are nice about it. Unfortunately most people DON'T like working their fingers to the bone in the hot sun and dirt for not very good pay. Especially not the women. With the exception of me I guess lmfao.
But the point is, there become a very high desperate demand for very low paid employees who aren't required to get an education. That isn't good on an economy no matter how you look at it. "But everyone is WORKING!" Yeah, but not enough to support anyone other than themselves.
Your statement is sexist, firstly. I know plenty of women who love working in the dirt. Gardens are pretty popular.
Aside from that, the thousands upon thousands of unemployed people would probably love to be farmers, even if it's temporary. This is a ridiculous side point, though, anyway. We don't need THAT many farmers just to grow crops. We'd need farm HELP, but many people would do that job as temporary work rather than work at a fast food joint or grocery store that doesn't pay shit and doesn't let you get outside.
You talk like we're not already abusing undocumented immigrants and the impoverished and uneducated in that fashion. What the hell stops a farmer or farm hand from being educated? It's not their employment. That has more to do with the lack of real help for the poor to get into good schools and complete nonexistence of a real upward trend, socially and economically. Again, read "Slaughterhouse." or "Fast Food Nation" by Eric Schlosser. Again, not written from a vegan PoV.
Right, because everyone in other countries are going to give a shit about crop rotation and salt levels while they are trying to afford food for their dying children. I'm sure America would be okay, but come on. Sometimes it isn't a matter of stupidity.
Actually, look up the work of Vandana Shiva. I said nothing about other people being stupid. The way we CURRENTLY plant is stupid. Western monoculture is the problem I referred to.
Planting crops doesn't cause overpopulation of deer and kangaroos and rabbits and wild hogs. The lack of hunting does. Venison is still meat right? No more hunting. Or would you rather people still hunt and trap and kill them in order to protect their crops but NOT eat them? That's a little confusing.
These species reproduce RAPIDLY and are extremely dangerous in high numbers. Left alone, they WILL overpopulate. It's not safe for people, and it's not healthy for the animals. and again, that corn doesn't really matter in a world without meat.
Invasive species should be eliminated as humanely and quickly as possible when they're a detriment, however... I will point out that hunting actually usually leads to a population boom if an animal is not invasive. the correct solution is to reintroduce predators and build fences around your crops. Also, build green bridges.
These are topics I'm well versed in. Nothing you've said here holds water as a legitimate objection to a PERSONAL VEGAN DIET as something that's morally more sound. Unless you are a poor, starving african, you need to stop speaking for them.
"Fruits and veggies should be cheaper. Meat should cost more."
More wishful thinking. WHY meat is cheaper is kind of irrelevant. I don't mean that in a cruel way like"OMG ANIMAL ABUSE DOESN'T MATTER GRR" but it's just not really the point here? This had started off as a topic about how some lower class (Americans) can't afford vegan. Or even just 'well treated' meat. Now you're just adding more logistical problems to the pile. So now we'd have to rework entire government departments too? On top of everything else? hoo boy.
"Invasive species should be eliminated as humanely and quickly as possible when they're a detriment."
"reintroduce predators and build fences around your crops. Also, build green bridges."
"The way we CURRENTLY plant is stupid. Western monoculture is the problem I referred to"
I don't know about you, but rabbits, moles, birds and turtles have never really given a flying fuck about my crop fences. lmfao.
Also, when we "remove" these species when they become a "detriment" can we eat them then? Or is it too still immoral so we just bury them somewhere with a cute little headstone and some flowers. "here lies a cute animal".....?
furthermore, you don't seem to understand that things cost money.. Or maybe you do and you just feel like money doesn't matter because animals LIVES!! and all that. But money still exists regardless of your moral stance, and it's still an issue. Just like polyculture and multistory greenhouses and all this other shit, It'd be great but these things cost a lot of MONEY.
You can't just put a ton of flawlessly done, high maintenance biodomes all over the planet. That'd be the best for animals and the environment, but who's going to pay for it? (answer: a few extreme volunteers possibly such as yourself who would MAYBE be able to oneday raise enough funds for...one? lmao..)
"If we have the resources to cross that ocean to fight in neverending wars and maintain a military presence in almost every other country in the world, we can feed the hungry."
Oh lord even more issues to the pile. So now we have to get rid of war and have world peace and find new jobs for the hundreds upon thousands of soldiers who make good money.. Oh wait, they can be farmers, right! Geez. Wishful thinking extravaganza.
"Your statement is sexist, firstly. I know plenty of women who love working in the dirt."
lmfao please don't start. I didn't say all women, I said some or most. I happen to be a woman who not only was raised on a farm, but works in the construction and carpentry industry because I enjoy it. So yeah, some women do like it. A LOT of women don't. I don't know about you, but every single female I know irl would much RATHER (keyword:rather) get a job that isn't dirty or physically strenuous in THAT way. Can we just not even go here because this is stupid and irrelevant.
"What the hell stops a farmer or farm hand from being educated? It's not their employment."
I didn't say they'd be KEPT from becoming educated. I said they wouldn't be required to.
" the thousands upon thousands of unemployed people would probably love to be farmers, even if it's temporary."
unless you mean hundreds of thousands, that isn't many.
"This is a ridiculous side point, though, anyway. We don't need THAT many farmers just to grow crops. We'd need farm HELP"
But we're talking about a theoretical vegan world here. No meat, cheese, eggs, fish, honey.. not to mention leather or wool or animal materials/fabrics (which is a whole OTHER gigantic issue that I don't want to even think about holy shit) Yeah. We'd need a lot of farmers. :I We're not just growing food.
"These are topics I'm well versed in. Nothing you've said here holds water as a legitimate objection to a PERSONAL VEGAN DIET-"
YES.
YES.
THIS IS WHAT I WANTED YOU TO LEAD TO.
A PERSONAL VEGAN DIET
IS GOOD.
As in you know
on an individual basis.
As in
having SOME people be vegans makes a difference and helps in a lot of ways.
Having EVERYONE be a vegan destroys the planet. Our "theoretical world without meat".
So if that's the case maybe you should
you know
stop harping on it and just leave it alone and let it be an individual's personal choice.
Problem solved. everyone go home. The war against meat is over. everybody wins. hallelujah amen.
More wishful thinking. WHY meat is cheaper is kind of irrelevant. I don't mean that in a cruel way like"OMG ANIMAL ABUSE DOESN'T MATTER GRR" but it's just not really the point here? This had started off as a topic about how some lower class (Americans) can't afford vegan. Or even just 'well treated' meat. Now you're just adding more logistical problems to the pile. So now we'd have to rework entire government departments too? On top of everything else? hoo boy.
"Invasive species should be eliminated as humanely and quickly as possible when they're a detriment."
"reintroduce predators and build fences around your crops. Also, build green bridges."
"The way we CURRENTLY plant is stupid. Western monoculture is the problem I referred to"
I don't know about you, but rabbits, moles, birds and turtles have never really given a flying fuck about my crop fences. lmfao.
Also, when we "remove" these species when they become a "detriment" can we eat them then? Or is it too still immoral so we just bury them somewhere with a cute little headstone and some flowers. "here lies a cute animal".....?
furthermore, you don't seem to understand that things cost money.. Or maybe you do and you just feel like money doesn't matter because animals LIVES!! and all that. But money still exists regardless of your moral stance, and it's still an issue. Just like polyculture and multistory greenhouses and all this other shit, It'd be great but these things cost a lot of MONEY.
You can't just put a ton of flawlessly done, high maintenance biodomes all over the planet. That'd be the best for animals and the environment, but who's going to pay for it? (answer: a few extreme volunteers possibly such as yourself who would MAYBE be able to oneday raise enough funds for...one? lmao..)
"If we have the resources to cross that ocean to fight in neverending wars and maintain a military presence in almost every other country in the world, we can feed the hungry."
Oh lord even more issues to the pile. So now we have to get rid of war and have world peace and find new jobs for the hundreds upon thousands of soldiers who make good money.. Oh wait, they can be farmers, right! Geez. Wishful thinking extravaganza.
"Your statement is sexist, firstly. I know plenty of women who love working in the dirt."
lmfao please don't start. I didn't say all women, I said some or most. I happen to be a woman who not only was raised on a farm, but works in the construction and carpentry industry because I enjoy it. So yeah, some women do like it. A LOT of women don't. I don't know about you, but every single female I know irl would much RATHER (keyword:rather) get a job that isn't dirty or physically strenuous in THAT way. Can we just not even go here because this is stupid and irrelevant.
"What the hell stops a farmer or farm hand from being educated? It's not their employment."
I didn't say they'd be KEPT from becoming educated. I said they wouldn't be required to.
" the thousands upon thousands of unemployed people would probably love to be farmers, even if it's temporary."
unless you mean hundreds of thousands, that isn't many.
"This is a ridiculous side point, though, anyway. We don't need THAT many farmers just to grow crops. We'd need farm HELP"
But we're talking about a theoretical vegan world here. No meat, cheese, eggs, fish, honey.. not to mention leather or wool or animal materials/fabrics (which is a whole OTHER gigantic issue that I don't want to even think about holy shit) Yeah. We'd need a lot of farmers. :I We're not just growing food.
"These are topics I'm well versed in. Nothing you've said here holds water as a legitimate objection to a PERSONAL VEGAN DIET-"
YES.
YES.
THIS IS WHAT I WANTED YOU TO LEAD TO.
A PERSONAL VEGAN DIET
IS GOOD.
As in you know
on an individual basis.
As in
having SOME people be vegans makes a difference and helps in a lot of ways.
Having EVERYONE be a vegan destroys the planet. Our "theoretical world without meat".
So if that's the case maybe you should
you know
stop harping on it and just leave it alone and let it be an individual's personal choice.
Problem solved. everyone go home. The war against meat is over. everybody wins. hallelujah amen.
Government interference is relevant to EVERYTHING. You don't understand how much everything is broken if you don't understand that changing the entire system is necessary for reasons OTHER than veganism. I'm too tired to have this argument anymore, because you're missing my point over and over.
Rabbits and turtles definitely stay out of my fence. It's not hard. Bird nets are cheap and easy to use.
Animals killed out of necessity due to human stupidity and mistake (ie, species introduced to foreign environments because we were at the time too dumb to know better) can be eaten. Stop trying to make me out as overly sentimental or stupid. I'm not responding to childish insults.
Soldier isn't a legitimate job when your military is huge and violent and oppresses the entire world. Stop defaulting to "wishful thinking." this is a discussion of WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN, not HOW THINGS ARE.
Women can be sexist. Any statement that blankets most of a gender is sexist. I'm sorry, but it's true. Come on. Most women I know personally would love to garden as a full time job, and organic veggies/fruit here sell for a LOT. I can agree it's irrelevant, but you made the statement in the first place.
Why does EVERYONE need to REQUIRE education? School, especially as it now exists, does not benefit everyone or even most.
So I'm not allowed to say we need to stop oppressing innocent foreign civilians and killing sentient beings when unnecessary, but you can say everyone needs a college education? Who is going to pay for it? Oh, well, we need to reform the student debt system and our public education sector before that can happen. Gee, isn't that wishful thinking?
Official unemployment rates in the US are about 7-8% (low because that only counts people ON UNEMPLOYMENT CURRENTLY). With 3.13 million americans, that's
at least 2.1 million people left without work. I shouldn't have to do this homework for you to believe me. Stop arguing semantics.
Besides, we don't NEED that many farmers to feed everyone. I already made that clear. As someone who grows much of his own food, I can tell you that
You don't need leather, you don't need that much plant based food to replace meat/dairy/eggs. You don't even NEED sweeteners like honey.
Give me evidence veganism "destroys the planet." Stop asserting asinine things without proof.
Your "personal choice" kills animals. So tell me again how all these starving children mean I shouldn't advocate a vegan diet.
These are all just excuses and semantics. I've proven my point about how they'd work, provided sources, and had a polite discussion, and you've done nothing more than go "nuh uh!" Please provide me with sources for your information. I'm not arguing about today's political scene or anything like that. I'm not advocating anything that extreme. Millions of people are veg*n. MOst of the world NOW is veg*n.
I'm not going to reply to another comment like this. If you're not going to actually engage with facts, I'm not going to bother to fend off more of your objections. I think I've covered most of them.
Rabbits and turtles definitely stay out of my fence. It's not hard. Bird nets are cheap and easy to use.
Animals killed out of necessity due to human stupidity and mistake (ie, species introduced to foreign environments because we were at the time too dumb to know better) can be eaten. Stop trying to make me out as overly sentimental or stupid. I'm not responding to childish insults.
Soldier isn't a legitimate job when your military is huge and violent and oppresses the entire world. Stop defaulting to "wishful thinking." this is a discussion of WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN, not HOW THINGS ARE.
Women can be sexist. Any statement that blankets most of a gender is sexist. I'm sorry, but it's true. Come on. Most women I know personally would love to garden as a full time job, and organic veggies/fruit here sell for a LOT. I can agree it's irrelevant, but you made the statement in the first place.
Why does EVERYONE need to REQUIRE education? School, especially as it now exists, does not benefit everyone or even most.
So I'm not allowed to say we need to stop oppressing innocent foreign civilians and killing sentient beings when unnecessary, but you can say everyone needs a college education? Who is going to pay for it? Oh, well, we need to reform the student debt system and our public education sector before that can happen. Gee, isn't that wishful thinking?
Official unemployment rates in the US are about 7-8% (low because that only counts people ON UNEMPLOYMENT CURRENTLY). With 3.13 million americans, that's
at least 2.1 million people left without work. I shouldn't have to do this homework for you to believe me. Stop arguing semantics.
Besides, we don't NEED that many farmers to feed everyone. I already made that clear. As someone who grows much of his own food, I can tell you that
You don't need leather, you don't need that much plant based food to replace meat/dairy/eggs. You don't even NEED sweeteners like honey.
Give me evidence veganism "destroys the planet." Stop asserting asinine things without proof.
Your "personal choice" kills animals. So tell me again how all these starving children mean I shouldn't advocate a vegan diet.
These are all just excuses and semantics. I've proven my point about how they'd work, provided sources, and had a polite discussion, and you've done nothing more than go "nuh uh!" Please provide me with sources for your information. I'm not arguing about today's political scene or anything like that. I'm not advocating anything that extreme. Millions of people are veg*n. MOst of the world NOW is veg*n.
I'm not going to reply to another comment like this. If you're not going to actually engage with facts, I'm not going to bother to fend off more of your objections. I think I've covered most of them.
I always found it kinda funny that vegans came up with a word for non-vegans. How specifically do you define carnist? Are there different levels? Are there people out there with meat-only diets?
Also, probably the completely wrong place to mention that Johnsonville does bacon jerky now.
Also, probably the completely wrong place to mention that Johnsonville does bacon jerky now.
"Carnism is the invisible belief system, or ideology, that conditions people to eat certain animals. Carnism is essentially the opposite of veganism; “carn” means “flesh” or “of the flesh” and “ism” denotes a belief system. Most people view eating animals as a given, rather than a choice; in meat-eating cultures around the world people typically don’t think about why they find the flesh of some animals disgusting and the flesh of other animals appetizing, or why they eat any animals at all. But when eating animals is not a necessity for survival, as is the case in much of the world today, it is a choice - and choices always stem from beliefs." [x]
"The term vegan was coined in England in 1944 by Donald Watson, co-founder of the British Vegan Society, to mean "non-dairy vegetarian"; the society also opposed the consumption of eggs. In 1951 the society extended the definition of veganism to mean "the doctrine that man should live without exploiting animals," and in 1960 H. Jay Dinshah started the American Vegan Society, linking veganism to the Jain concept of ahimsa, the avoidance of violence against living things." [x]
since we're arguing semantics now
"The term vegan was coined in England in 1944 by Donald Watson, co-founder of the British Vegan Society, to mean "non-dairy vegetarian"; the society also opposed the consumption of eggs. In 1951 the society extended the definition of veganism to mean "the doctrine that man should live without exploiting animals," and in 1960 H. Jay Dinshah started the American Vegan Society, linking veganism to the Jain concept of ahimsa, the avoidance of violence against living things." [x]
since we're arguing semantics now
Plants have been discovered to have a system which tranports information throughout their entire body, which is able to shoot info about stressors to the roots or leaves or anywhere in the plant body, similar to an extremely simple decentralized nervous system: http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/10598926
Plants do have a different biological setup than animals, so there is a possibility that what scientists have found will one day be recognized as a plant nervous system. Plants 'feel' in the sense that they are able to react to stimuli, and they have a complex array of responses, which shows they are not a simple organism. The question is do plants suffer, in the sense do they feel pain and experience suffering? We don't know yet (just like there was a time when people didn't believe that animals could suffer) but it shouldn't be that difficult to accept that plants are more than simplistic organisms with rudimentary stimuli-responses. They're more complex than most people realize, and a rudimentary system resembling a nervous system is not to scoff at. Most invertabrates have decentralized and rudimentary nervous systems, yet there are plenty of people who would claim they feel pain and suffer.
It's just something to think about.
Plants do have a different biological setup than animals, so there is a possibility that what scientists have found will one day be recognized as a plant nervous system. Plants 'feel' in the sense that they are able to react to stimuli, and they have a complex array of responses, which shows they are not a simple organism. The question is do plants suffer, in the sense do they feel pain and experience suffering? We don't know yet (just like there was a time when people didn't believe that animals could suffer) but it shouldn't be that difficult to accept that plants are more than simplistic organisms with rudimentary stimuli-responses. They're more complex than most people realize, and a rudimentary system resembling a nervous system is not to scoff at. Most invertabrates have decentralized and rudimentary nervous systems, yet there are plenty of people who would claim they feel pain and suffer.
It's just something to think about.
There is an obvious difference between a sentient animal and a plant. The idea that animals cannot suffer is patently and blatantly silly, as philosophers of the day acknowledged. Where Sartre postulated the theory of animals being little more than machines, many other philosophers of his age refuted this, including Descartes.
Decentralized nervous systems lack a brain. Without a brain, as far as we're able to tell, pain does not process as such. Plants possibly having some rudimentary form of stressor-avoidance does not equate them to sentient animals obviously capable of suffering mental and physical pain and abuse.
Decentralized nervous systems lack a brain. Without a brain, as far as we're able to tell, pain does not process as such. Plants possibly having some rudimentary form of stressor-avoidance does not equate them to sentient animals obviously capable of suffering mental and physical pain and abuse.
Carnist is actually a very specific word. It refers to someone who loves some species (dogs, cats, parakeets) while eating others that are basically equivalent to or exceed those in intelligence, emotional capacity, etc. (pigs, cows, chickens)
For more detail, there's actually a book. But I sincerely doubt you're actually interested.
For more detail, there's actually a book. But I sincerely doubt you're actually interested.
Then I'd put the debate forward as redefining the term "animal abuse". Most slaughterhouse practices tend to be on the unpleasant side; there's a reason there's outrage every time someone does an exposé on the news. The better idea would be to put forth more stringent legislation on the process to minimize pain and suffering.
As a separate point, there tends to be a bit of imbalance with the way people personify animals; people don't tend to make pets out of cattle, and very few people raise a stir when you swat a spider on the wall.
As a separate point, there tends to be a bit of imbalance with the way people personify animals; people don't tend to make pets out of cattle, and very few people raise a stir when you swat a spider on the wall.
that doesn't work. the usda is corrupt from the inside out. the book slaughterhouse by gail a. eisnitz really gets into this issue in a way I cannot.
the point is this: non-human animals should not be here for the sole purpose of serving man. period. we do not have a right to their lives simply because we can take them. period. that's the point I've been trying to make. I don't want to fight within a system of exploitation and killing. I want that system demolished.
the point is this: non-human animals should not be here for the sole purpose of serving man. period. we do not have a right to their lives simply because we can take them. period. that's the point I've been trying to make. I don't want to fight within a system of exploitation and killing. I want that system demolished.
No.
Beating pigs to death with pipes (a common practice) is torture.
Smashing baby piglets' heads against concrete floors to kill them (which is usually not instant-also industry standard, called "thumping") is torture.
Keeping pigs in a container that doesn't allow them to turn around or lie down comfortably is torture.
Clipping tails without anesthesia and injecting them with chemicals to stop massive tumors many of them get from killing them just so you can reap the benefits is torture.
don't try to whitewash it, please.
Beating pigs to death with pipes (a common practice) is torture.
Smashing baby piglets' heads against concrete floors to kill them (which is usually not instant-also industry standard, called "thumping") is torture.
Keeping pigs in a container that doesn't allow them to turn around or lie down comfortably is torture.
Clipping tails without anesthesia and injecting them with chemicals to stop massive tumors many of them get from killing them just so you can reap the benefits is torture.
don't try to whitewash it, please.
“You need protein.”
Yes it can be found in meats, nuts, vitamins ect
“I need to eat.”
Of course you do, you don’t have to eat meat, and you don’t die without it
“People used to do it, it was all they had.”
Yes, but not in mass quantities, although I’m sure it was still cruel to the animal, and I would not promote that, it does not compare to the slaughter houses. People have the option now.
“We’re carnivores”
Omnivores* we can consume just about anything, like rabbits they can eat meat, almost all herbivores can eat meat, but they process it poorly
“Wild animals do it.”
They eat raw meat, go right ahead and try it; you’ll throw up all over your self. They can consume it and digest. The also pick off the weakest, smallest or sickest.
“Cows, pigs, chickens will over populate!”
Not if they are stopped being re-populated solely for slaughtering
“Its expensive”
It can be, or it can be done cheaply
“It’s painless until they kill the animals.”
Um no, they grind chickens whole, take newborn cows from mothers for veal, let hooves and utters get infected, pigs are hung to strangle and much more.
Examples: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzS8p727gvM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5oTCA9V3eNs
I guess its natural to defend your view? But using those just aren't correct.. (the ones above I've heard recently, and read some in this post)
If anyone who is apposing veganism got this far, just watch the videos, look at the perspective just for ten or twenty minutes? I really feel like you don’t understand what vegans stand for.
Yes it can be found in meats, nuts, vitamins ect
“I need to eat.”
Of course you do, you don’t have to eat meat, and you don’t die without it
“People used to do it, it was all they had.”
Yes, but not in mass quantities, although I’m sure it was still cruel to the animal, and I would not promote that, it does not compare to the slaughter houses. People have the option now.
“We’re carnivores”
Omnivores* we can consume just about anything, like rabbits they can eat meat, almost all herbivores can eat meat, but they process it poorly
“Wild animals do it.”
They eat raw meat, go right ahead and try it; you’ll throw up all over your self. They can consume it and digest. The also pick off the weakest, smallest or sickest.
“Cows, pigs, chickens will over populate!”
Not if they are stopped being re-populated solely for slaughtering
“Its expensive”
It can be, or it can be done cheaply
“It’s painless until they kill the animals.”
Um no, they grind chickens whole, take newborn cows from mothers for veal, let hooves and utters get infected, pigs are hung to strangle and much more.
Examples: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzS8p727gvM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5oTCA9V3eNs
I guess its natural to defend your view? But using those just aren't correct.. (the ones above I've heard recently, and read some in this post)
If anyone who is apposing veganism got this far, just watch the videos, look at the perspective just for ten or twenty minutes? I really feel like you don’t understand what vegans stand for.
Having recently gone vegan due to my partner in life, I just want to personally thank you for being strong and not afraid to post images like this. Honestly, its absolutely ridiculous that vegans would get so much hate comments on a site that "loves" animals. But that's another story. Like it was mentioned before, its a strange thing the moment someone says "I choose to be vegan because I don't want to be the reason for another living beings pain" that every one who does eat meat gets defensive and brings up the welfare of plants.
So more power to you for posting this and I will always support you.
Also, a little fun can be seen here with this Bingo card which I am sure you will appreciate: http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5295.....ce8c89c4_o.jpg
So more power to you for posting this and I will always support you.
Also, a little fun can be seen here with this Bingo card which I am sure you will appreciate: http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5295.....ce8c89c4_o.jpg
Ah yes, this is a complex issue isn't it.
I spent three years of my life as a vegetarian, a year and a half or so as a vegan, hoping it would both aid in my myriad of boring and in the end fatal health issues and because I was quite the PETA nazi for a time when I finally realized that.
Why?
I'd done my research.
I grew up raising and befriending animals that I would eventually eat and I realized, 'why'.
Why wasn't I just supporting small farmers that treated animals well.
Now, I admit I care for animals more than I care for human beings, I probably have a legitimate psychological problem because, aside from a select few friends and {sometimes} infants under six months old, I have no drive, no will, no reason to care or empathize for other people. Their lives mean nothing to me, their suffering means nothing to me and why should it? I don't know these people, I don't love these people. I would eat these humans just as fast as I would a hen if given the chance it's all flesh.
I care for the suffering of animals of course, it's why I buy small scale and research where my food comes from when I can, I'm spiritual {Though never religious} and I give thanks to everything I eat, animal or plant. I've raised infant mice torn from their dens by domestic animals, baby birds with broken wings pulled from the mouths of cats.
Cows, Pigs, Chickens, Horses, Reindeer, this, that, the other thing, Humans.
All the same thing, the same mish-mash of meat and bone and keratin. I've eaten animals I raised as pets, my eyes down to the third are open but that's just it, I am lucky to still be here and I will do as I please while I am.
So yes I kill and I consume because I am selfish, but I am self aware enough to realize I am selfish.
And I am self aware enough to see animals better even than I see people.
The problem is that my nature leaves me with little guilt for the culling of well treated animals and zero for the lives of people.
In short, I'm selfish, I don't care, and politically I'm against mandatory vegetarianism because it would break a few constitutional rights.
But it doesn't matter, your stance won't change my stance won't change, I'm only rambling here now because 'why the hell not'
So people can go ahead and not care with their eyes closed and I'll go ahead and wallow in my dispassionate lack of care with my eyes open.
{Though I do admit to avoiding red meats and anything too processed as the latter aggravates some of my conditions and the former both aggravates some of my conditions {When cooked} and is simply rarely appealing to me {when cooked}. Raw red meat however, appeals.}
If you can give me a reason based in cold logic and facts as to why I shouldn't consume meat, I may be inclined to listen however.
Emotions mean nothing to me unless they come from a select few but facts...
Ah, facts stir me to action.
I spent three years of my life as a vegetarian, a year and a half or so as a vegan, hoping it would both aid in my myriad of boring and in the end fatal health issues and because I was quite the PETA nazi for a time when I finally realized that.
Why?
I'd done my research.
I grew up raising and befriending animals that I would eventually eat and I realized, 'why'.
Why wasn't I just supporting small farmers that treated animals well.
Now, I admit I care for animals more than I care for human beings, I probably have a legitimate psychological problem because, aside from a select few friends and {sometimes} infants under six months old, I have no drive, no will, no reason to care or empathize for other people. Their lives mean nothing to me, their suffering means nothing to me and why should it? I don't know these people, I don't love these people. I would eat these humans just as fast as I would a hen if given the chance it's all flesh.
I care for the suffering of animals of course, it's why I buy small scale and research where my food comes from when I can, I'm spiritual {Though never religious} and I give thanks to everything I eat, animal or plant. I've raised infant mice torn from their dens by domestic animals, baby birds with broken wings pulled from the mouths of cats.
Cows, Pigs, Chickens, Horses, Reindeer, this, that, the other thing, Humans.
All the same thing, the same mish-mash of meat and bone and keratin. I've eaten animals I raised as pets, my eyes down to the third are open but that's just it, I am lucky to still be here and I will do as I please while I am.
So yes I kill and I consume because I am selfish, but I am self aware enough to realize I am selfish.
And I am self aware enough to see animals better even than I see people.
The problem is that my nature leaves me with little guilt for the culling of well treated animals and zero for the lives of people.
In short, I'm selfish, I don't care, and politically I'm against mandatory vegetarianism because it would break a few constitutional rights.
But it doesn't matter, your stance won't change my stance won't change, I'm only rambling here now because 'why the hell not'
So people can go ahead and not care with their eyes closed and I'll go ahead and wallow in my dispassionate lack of care with my eyes open.
{Though I do admit to avoiding red meats and anything too processed as the latter aggravates some of my conditions and the former both aggravates some of my conditions {When cooked} and is simply rarely appealing to me {when cooked}. Raw red meat however, appeals.}
If you can give me a reason based in cold logic and facts as to why I shouldn't consume meat, I may be inclined to listen however.
Emotions mean nothing to me unless they come from a select few but facts...
Ah, facts stir me to action.
Although I'd say it's not my goal here to convince only you, and that your disinclination to listen is something I cannot alter, I'm going to go into some depth with this comment. People often accuse me of appealing too much to emotional arguments, but there are plenty of rational reasons to adopt a vegan lifestyle. It'll be interesting to approach this from that side of things with the prior-stated assumption that all emotional appeals will be discarded.
Firstly, considering your inclination to facts, you should be aware that humans--although omnivorous--are likely not meant to eat very much animal-based protein at all, with the possible exception of shellfish and perhaps insects. Just look at how poorly our system handles too much of it. There's a long list of physical traits that imply humans (not our ancestors, specifically homo sapiens) mostly ate plant-based diets supplemented with what little meat they could get their hands on. Considering how difficult (not impossible) it is for humans to kill large mammals, early humans would not have had access to all the cow and pig flesh we do today. Birds are notoriously hard to capture and kill. Eggs are not reliably available as a protein source until domestication of some bird species. Milk, I imagine, would be nigh impossible to acquire without domesticated cattle. Today, however, we eat primarily meat and other rich foods.
In addition to this, human digestive tracts are several times our body length, we have grinding teeth, and our saliva is alkaline, all traits of primarily herbivorous creatures. Carnivorously-inclined animals also tend to have teeth that slice or rip meat, incredibly acidic stomach acid, and a wide-opening mouth for catching/killing prey ... none of which humans exhibit.
Secondly, you acknowledge that humans and non-humans are made of the same stuff. We're all flesh and blood and bone and organ and cartilage, which means those animals suffer exactly as you do. What makes your life worth more than theirs? Not to you, but objectively. That animal has just as much interest in keeping his life as you do your own. He would fight for it if he could. What right do you have, simply by being able to purchase this creature's life, to take it?
This is a bit of a philosophical line of discussion, but I thought I might throw it out there for shits. If this is too close to an emotional argument, we can drop it.
Thirdly, resource use. This sounds like it might be an emotional plea, but it's far from it. With over 6 billion human beings on the earth, we are testing the limits of the planet's resources. Scientists have predicted that without a planetary transition toward plant-based diets (no more than 5% animal proteins), we will experience global water shortages (source). No matter how an animal is kept, whether that is a factory farmed animal or no, they all must drink a lot of water. Given dairy cattle consume at least as much as beef cattle, this would mean milk is as bad as meat, if not worse.
In connection with this, animal agriculture (and specifically the waste from it) is one of the largest causes of greenhouse gases in the world. Methane and Nitrous Oxide, both far worse than the Carbon Dioxide coming from cars, both come from animal waste in huge amounts. Given that everyone selfishly wants to eat meat (this is not a personal jab, you acknowledged selfishness yourself as a cause of this), there have to be billions of animals killed a year to satisfy this urge. UN scientists are looking at ways to reduce emissions, such as feeding cattle certain things, but this is not an easily solved problem ... and in contrast, planting crops act as a carbon-sink, reducing total greenhouse gas emissions.
You may not care so much when it's only another human's life and property and home in jeopardy, but this is a problem that will affect everyone. We all need to do our part to reduce our footprint, even if we are misanthropes. It's going to come back to bite us all in the ass, if we don't.
I can go further into detail if you want on other topics, but I'm honestly tired. I've been fielding objections since submitting this. If you have specific questions, though, I can address those.
Would you be interested in book or documentary suggestions?
Firstly, considering your inclination to facts, you should be aware that humans--although omnivorous--are likely not meant to eat very much animal-based protein at all, with the possible exception of shellfish and perhaps insects. Just look at how poorly our system handles too much of it. There's a long list of physical traits that imply humans (not our ancestors, specifically homo sapiens) mostly ate plant-based diets supplemented with what little meat they could get their hands on. Considering how difficult (not impossible) it is for humans to kill large mammals, early humans would not have had access to all the cow and pig flesh we do today. Birds are notoriously hard to capture and kill. Eggs are not reliably available as a protein source until domestication of some bird species. Milk, I imagine, would be nigh impossible to acquire without domesticated cattle. Today, however, we eat primarily meat and other rich foods.
In addition to this, human digestive tracts are several times our body length, we have grinding teeth, and our saliva is alkaline, all traits of primarily herbivorous creatures. Carnivorously-inclined animals also tend to have teeth that slice or rip meat, incredibly acidic stomach acid, and a wide-opening mouth for catching/killing prey ... none of which humans exhibit.
Secondly, you acknowledge that humans and non-humans are made of the same stuff. We're all flesh and blood and bone and organ and cartilage, which means those animals suffer exactly as you do. What makes your life worth more than theirs? Not to you, but objectively. That animal has just as much interest in keeping his life as you do your own. He would fight for it if he could. What right do you have, simply by being able to purchase this creature's life, to take it?
This is a bit of a philosophical line of discussion, but I thought I might throw it out there for shits. If this is too close to an emotional argument, we can drop it.
Thirdly, resource use. This sounds like it might be an emotional plea, but it's far from it. With over 6 billion human beings on the earth, we are testing the limits of the planet's resources. Scientists have predicted that without a planetary transition toward plant-based diets (no more than 5% animal proteins), we will experience global water shortages (source). No matter how an animal is kept, whether that is a factory farmed animal or no, they all must drink a lot of water. Given dairy cattle consume at least as much as beef cattle, this would mean milk is as bad as meat, if not worse.
In connection with this, animal agriculture (and specifically the waste from it) is one of the largest causes of greenhouse gases in the world. Methane and Nitrous Oxide, both far worse than the Carbon Dioxide coming from cars, both come from animal waste in huge amounts. Given that everyone selfishly wants to eat meat (this is not a personal jab, you acknowledged selfishness yourself as a cause of this), there have to be billions of animals killed a year to satisfy this urge. UN scientists are looking at ways to reduce emissions, such as feeding cattle certain things, but this is not an easily solved problem ... and in contrast, planting crops act as a carbon-sink, reducing total greenhouse gas emissions.
You may not care so much when it's only another human's life and property and home in jeopardy, but this is a problem that will affect everyone. We all need to do our part to reduce our footprint, even if we are misanthropes. It's going to come back to bite us all in the ass, if we don't.
I can go further into detail if you want on other topics, but I'm honestly tired. I've been fielding objections since submitting this. If you have specific questions, though, I can address those.
Would you be interested in book or documentary suggestions?
I'll take these one at a time.
"Firstly, considering your inclination to facts, you should be aware that humans--although omnivorous--are likely not meant to eat very much animal-based protein at all, with the possible exception of shellfish and perhaps insects. Just look at how poorly our system handles too much of it. There's a long list of physical traits that imply humans (not our ancestors, specifically homo sapiens) mostly ate plant-based diets supplemented with what little meat they could get their hands on. Considering how difficult (not impossible) it is for humans to kill large mammals, early humans would not have had access to all the cow and pig flesh we do today. Birds are notoriously hard to capture and kill. Eggs are not reliably available as a protein source until domestication of some bird species. Milk, I imagine, would be nigh impossible to acquire without domesticated cattle. Today, however, we eat primarily meat and other rich foods.
In addition to this, human digestive tracts are several times our body length, we have grinding teeth, and our saliva is alkaline, all traits of primarily herbivorous creatures. Carnivorously-inclined animals also tend to have teeth that slice or rip meat, incredibly acidic stomach acid, and a wide-opening mouth for catching/killing prey ... none of which humans exhibit. "
lemme cut this one down into bits as well.
" There's a long list of physical traits that imply humans (not our ancestors, specifically homo sapiens) mostly ate plant-based diets supplemented with what little meat they could get their hands on."
Like the hard-core carnivores, we have fairly simple digestive systems well suited to the consumption of animal protein, which breaks down quickly. the human small intestine, at 23 feet, is a little under eight times body length (assuming a mouth-to-anus "body length" of three feet). This is about midway between cats (three times body length), dogs (3-1/2 times), and other well-known meat eaters on the one hand and plant eaters such as cattle (20 to 1) and horses (12 to 1) on the other. This tends to support the idea that we are omnivores.
Herbivores also have a variety of specialized digestive organs capable of breaking down cellulose, the main component of plant tissue. Humans find cellulose totally indigestible, and even plant eaters have to take their time with it. If you were a ruminant (cud eater), for instance, you might have a stomach with four compartments, enabling you to cough up last night's alfalfa and chew on it all over again.
Or you might have an enlarged cecum, a sac attached to the intestines, where rabbits and such store food until their intestinal bacteria have time to do their stuff. Digestion in such cases takes place by a process of fermentation — bacteria actually "eat" the cellulose and the host animal consumes what results, namely bacteria dung.
The story is roughly the same with teeth. We're equipped with an all-purpose set of ivories equally suited to liver and onions.
Good thing, too. I won't claim meat is the ideal source of protein, but on the whole it's better than plants. Sure, soybeans and other products of modern agriculture are pretty nutritious. But in the wild, much of the plant menu consists of leaves and stems, which are low in food value. True herbivores have to spend much of the day scrounging for snacks just to keep their strength up.
So make no mistake: we were born to eat meat.
That's not to say you have to!
There's no question that strictly from a health standpoint we'd all be a lot better off eating less meat (red meat especially) and more fruits and vegetables. But vegetarians aren't going to advance their cause by making ridiculous claims.
We have been happily eating meat for at least two million years, and probably much longer. The common view among anthropologists, in fact, is that increased meat consumption was a key element in the development of human culture, since getting and distributing the stuff requires cooperation.
As far back as it can be traced, clearly the archeological record indicates an omnivorous diet for humans that included meat. Our ancestry is among the hunter/gatherers from the beginning. Once domestication of food sources began, it included both animals and plants.
Salivary Glands?
These indicate we could be omnivores. Saliva and urine data vary, depending on diet, not taxonomic group.
Humans are classic examples of omnivores in all relevant anatomical traits. There is no basis in anatomy or physiology for the assumption that humans are pre-adapted to the vegetarian diet.
I agree however that most humans consume far too much meat, the suggested serving size for steak alone is the size of a checkbook if I recall properly.
--
Secondly, you acknowledge that humans and non-humans are made of the same stuff. We're all flesh and blood and bone and organ and cartilage, which means those animals suffer exactly as you do. What makes your life worth more than theirs? Not to you, but objectively. That animal has just as much interest in keeping his life as you do your own. He would fight for it if he could. What right do you have, simply by being able to purchase this creature's life, to take it?
This is a bit of a philosophical line of discussion, but I thought I might throw it out there for shits. If this is too close to an emotional argument, we can drop it.
--
gotta cut this down too sorry
--
We're all flesh and blood and bone and organ and cartilage, which means those animals suffer exactly as you do. What makes your life worth more than theirs?
--
My life is more important to me because, it is mine. My life is more important to me than theirs for the same reason the life of any human is worth more to me than theirs.
--
That animal has just as much interest in keeping his life as you do your own. He would fight for it if he could. What right do you have, simply by being able to purchase this creature's life, to take it?
--
Like I said, selfishness, I am capable, and so, I do. As I would if I were capable of eating other human beings. The emotions of a strange animal are irrelevant.
--
This is a bit of a philosophical line of discussion, but I thought I might throw it out there for shits. If this is too close to an emotional argument, we can drop it.
--
You're welcome to build on it but like I said, if I don't bear an emotional connection to any individual human or animal I simply don't care most of the time so long as there wasn't blatant cruelty going on, which is also irrelevant since, as I said, I source my meat.
--
Thirdly, resource use. This sounds like it might be an emotional plea, but it's far from it. With over 6 billion human beings on the earth, we are testing the limits of the planet's resources. Scientists have predicted that without a planetary transition toward plant-based diets (no more than 5% animal proteins), we will experience global water shortages (source). No matter how an animal is kept, whether that is a factory farmed animal or no, they all must drink a lot of water. Given dairy cattle consume at least as much as beef cattle, this would mean milk is as bad as meat, if not worse.
--
It's actually more like 7 billion which is admittedly intense, we need a new plague or something it's gross.
anyway.
--
Scientists have predicted that without a planetary transition toward plant-based diets (no more than 5% animal proteins), we will experience global water shortages (source). No matter how an animal is kept, whether that is a factory farmed animal or no, they all must drink a lot of water. Given dairy cattle consume at least as much as beef cattle, this would mean milk is as bad as meat, if not worse.
--
I suggest cutting cattle out of our diets entirely and I have for a long time, they're such resource guzzling animals to farm. Personally I'd put forward goats, rabbits and certain poultry birds. I put forward goat milk as a solution to cow's milk as well, for people who even like milk. I find it gross.
--
In connection with this, animal agriculture (and specifically the waste from it) is one of the largest causes of greenhouse gases in the world. Methane and Nitrous Oxide, both far worse than the Carbon Dioxide coming from cars, both come from animal waste in huge amounts. Given that everyone selfishly wants to eat meat (this is not a personal jab, you acknowledged selfishness yourself as a cause of this), there have to be billions of animals killed a year to satisfy this urge. UN scientists are looking at ways to reduce emissions, such as feeding cattle certain things, but this is not an easily solved problem ... and in contrast, planting crops act as a carbon-sink, reducing total greenhouse gas emissions.
--
See the above reason why I disapprove of cattle as a food species.
--
You may not care so much when it's only another human's life and property and home in jeopardy, but this is a problem that will affect everyone. We all need to do our part to reduce our footprint, even if we are misanthropes. It's going to come back to bite us all in the ass, if we don't.
--
Irrelevant to me. I'm terminally ill and will die any day or month now. I don't care what happens to anyone else once I'm gone and I'm sure the world will last a few more months.
--
Would you be interested in book or documentary suggestions?
--
If you can suggest any I haven't watched or read, and that don't emotionally pander I would adore some!
--
By the way I would like to put forward a gigantic thank you for handling all these comments the way you are, usually if I so much as glance at a vegetarian the wrong way I get hate mail and death threats, and since I've been following you for a while and respect you deeply as a person, it's very nice to see that you handle these things in a mature manner.
"Firstly, considering your inclination to facts, you should be aware that humans--although omnivorous--are likely not meant to eat very much animal-based protein at all, with the possible exception of shellfish and perhaps insects. Just look at how poorly our system handles too much of it. There's a long list of physical traits that imply humans (not our ancestors, specifically homo sapiens) mostly ate plant-based diets supplemented with what little meat they could get their hands on. Considering how difficult (not impossible) it is for humans to kill large mammals, early humans would not have had access to all the cow and pig flesh we do today. Birds are notoriously hard to capture and kill. Eggs are not reliably available as a protein source until domestication of some bird species. Milk, I imagine, would be nigh impossible to acquire without domesticated cattle. Today, however, we eat primarily meat and other rich foods.
In addition to this, human digestive tracts are several times our body length, we have grinding teeth, and our saliva is alkaline, all traits of primarily herbivorous creatures. Carnivorously-inclined animals also tend to have teeth that slice or rip meat, incredibly acidic stomach acid, and a wide-opening mouth for catching/killing prey ... none of which humans exhibit. "
lemme cut this one down into bits as well.
" There's a long list of physical traits that imply humans (not our ancestors, specifically homo sapiens) mostly ate plant-based diets supplemented with what little meat they could get their hands on."
Like the hard-core carnivores, we have fairly simple digestive systems well suited to the consumption of animal protein, which breaks down quickly. the human small intestine, at 23 feet, is a little under eight times body length (assuming a mouth-to-anus "body length" of three feet). This is about midway between cats (three times body length), dogs (3-1/2 times), and other well-known meat eaters on the one hand and plant eaters such as cattle (20 to 1) and horses (12 to 1) on the other. This tends to support the idea that we are omnivores.
Herbivores also have a variety of specialized digestive organs capable of breaking down cellulose, the main component of plant tissue. Humans find cellulose totally indigestible, and even plant eaters have to take their time with it. If you were a ruminant (cud eater), for instance, you might have a stomach with four compartments, enabling you to cough up last night's alfalfa and chew on it all over again.
Or you might have an enlarged cecum, a sac attached to the intestines, where rabbits and such store food until their intestinal bacteria have time to do their stuff. Digestion in such cases takes place by a process of fermentation — bacteria actually "eat" the cellulose and the host animal consumes what results, namely bacteria dung.
The story is roughly the same with teeth. We're equipped with an all-purpose set of ivories equally suited to liver and onions.
Good thing, too. I won't claim meat is the ideal source of protein, but on the whole it's better than plants. Sure, soybeans and other products of modern agriculture are pretty nutritious. But in the wild, much of the plant menu consists of leaves and stems, which are low in food value. True herbivores have to spend much of the day scrounging for snacks just to keep their strength up.
So make no mistake: we were born to eat meat.
That's not to say you have to!
There's no question that strictly from a health standpoint we'd all be a lot better off eating less meat (red meat especially) and more fruits and vegetables. But vegetarians aren't going to advance their cause by making ridiculous claims.
We have been happily eating meat for at least two million years, and probably much longer. The common view among anthropologists, in fact, is that increased meat consumption was a key element in the development of human culture, since getting and distributing the stuff requires cooperation.
As far back as it can be traced, clearly the archeological record indicates an omnivorous diet for humans that included meat. Our ancestry is among the hunter/gatherers from the beginning. Once domestication of food sources began, it included both animals and plants.
Salivary Glands?
These indicate we could be omnivores. Saliva and urine data vary, depending on diet, not taxonomic group.
Humans are classic examples of omnivores in all relevant anatomical traits. There is no basis in anatomy or physiology for the assumption that humans are pre-adapted to the vegetarian diet.
I agree however that most humans consume far too much meat, the suggested serving size for steak alone is the size of a checkbook if I recall properly.
--
Secondly, you acknowledge that humans and non-humans are made of the same stuff. We're all flesh and blood and bone and organ and cartilage, which means those animals suffer exactly as you do. What makes your life worth more than theirs? Not to you, but objectively. That animal has just as much interest in keeping his life as you do your own. He would fight for it if he could. What right do you have, simply by being able to purchase this creature's life, to take it?
This is a bit of a philosophical line of discussion, but I thought I might throw it out there for shits. If this is too close to an emotional argument, we can drop it.
--
gotta cut this down too sorry
--
We're all flesh and blood and bone and organ and cartilage, which means those animals suffer exactly as you do. What makes your life worth more than theirs?
--
My life is more important to me because, it is mine. My life is more important to me than theirs for the same reason the life of any human is worth more to me than theirs.
--
That animal has just as much interest in keeping his life as you do your own. He would fight for it if he could. What right do you have, simply by being able to purchase this creature's life, to take it?
--
Like I said, selfishness, I am capable, and so, I do. As I would if I were capable of eating other human beings. The emotions of a strange animal are irrelevant.
--
This is a bit of a philosophical line of discussion, but I thought I might throw it out there for shits. If this is too close to an emotional argument, we can drop it.
--
You're welcome to build on it but like I said, if I don't bear an emotional connection to any individual human or animal I simply don't care most of the time so long as there wasn't blatant cruelty going on, which is also irrelevant since, as I said, I source my meat.
--
Thirdly, resource use. This sounds like it might be an emotional plea, but it's far from it. With over 6 billion human beings on the earth, we are testing the limits of the planet's resources. Scientists have predicted that without a planetary transition toward plant-based diets (no more than 5% animal proteins), we will experience global water shortages (source). No matter how an animal is kept, whether that is a factory farmed animal or no, they all must drink a lot of water. Given dairy cattle consume at least as much as beef cattle, this would mean milk is as bad as meat, if not worse.
--
It's actually more like 7 billion which is admittedly intense, we need a new plague or something it's gross.
anyway.
--
Scientists have predicted that without a planetary transition toward plant-based diets (no more than 5% animal proteins), we will experience global water shortages (source). No matter how an animal is kept, whether that is a factory farmed animal or no, they all must drink a lot of water. Given dairy cattle consume at least as much as beef cattle, this would mean milk is as bad as meat, if not worse.
--
I suggest cutting cattle out of our diets entirely and I have for a long time, they're such resource guzzling animals to farm. Personally I'd put forward goats, rabbits and certain poultry birds. I put forward goat milk as a solution to cow's milk as well, for people who even like milk. I find it gross.
--
In connection with this, animal agriculture (and specifically the waste from it) is one of the largest causes of greenhouse gases in the world. Methane and Nitrous Oxide, both far worse than the Carbon Dioxide coming from cars, both come from animal waste in huge amounts. Given that everyone selfishly wants to eat meat (this is not a personal jab, you acknowledged selfishness yourself as a cause of this), there have to be billions of animals killed a year to satisfy this urge. UN scientists are looking at ways to reduce emissions, such as feeding cattle certain things, but this is not an easily solved problem ... and in contrast, planting crops act as a carbon-sink, reducing total greenhouse gas emissions.
--
See the above reason why I disapprove of cattle as a food species.
--
You may not care so much when it's only another human's life and property and home in jeopardy, but this is a problem that will affect everyone. We all need to do our part to reduce our footprint, even if we are misanthropes. It's going to come back to bite us all in the ass, if we don't.
--
Irrelevant to me. I'm terminally ill and will die any day or month now. I don't care what happens to anyone else once I'm gone and I'm sure the world will last a few more months.
--
Would you be interested in book or documentary suggestions?
--
If you can suggest any I haven't watched or read, and that don't emotionally pander I would adore some!
--
By the way I would like to put forward a gigantic thank you for handling all these comments the way you are, usually if I so much as glance at a vegetarian the wrong way I get hate mail and death threats, and since I've been following you for a while and respect you deeply as a person, it's very nice to see that you handle these things in a mature manner.
I'm going to preface this with a link, because all source I cite are from there. This article is really well written and well researched and comprehensive ... and to pull "new" facts out of my ass would be to ignore that the research has really already been done. I'm not lazy so much as this is the best argument I've seen on the matter, period, so I'll just refer to it. It's supported by multiple doctors and cites sources such as medical and research papers:
http://michaelbluejay.com/veg/natural.html
Now...
Like the hard-core carnivores, we have fairly simple digestive systems well suited to the consumption of animal protein, which breaks down quickly. the human small intestine, at 23 feet, is a little under eight times body length (assuming a mouth-to-anus "body length" of three feet). This is about midway between cats (three times body length), dogs (3-1/2 times), and other well-known meat eaters on the one hand and plant eaters such as cattle (20 to 1) and horses (12 to 1) on the other. This tends to support the idea that we are omnivores.
I'm not claiming humans are ruminants, which is the mistake most people make when having this discussion. We do not have multiple stomachs because we do not eat grass and other such plants. But our closest ancestors, chimps, are frugivores. They eat a diet composed of 95-99% fruit, seeds, buds, small leaves, etc. The other 1-5% is mostly termites. Our digestive system is very similar to theirs, and they were obviously not intended to eat meat on a regular basis.
A Harvard study (source) estimated that chimps eat less than 1% meat (not counting insects) ... usually far less. Rounding that number up to 1%, if it were beef we were talking about--which it isn't, but that's something most humans eat-- a human being could only consume about 8 grams a day before going over that single percent. That's 1/3 of an ounce. .02 lbs.
Termites and beef are obviously different. The nutrients from cooked flesh are in no way the same as those from raw insects. We could very well have evolved to eat insects and other easy to catch, small prey ... I'm not denying THAT. But justifying eating cows, chickens, and pigs is a stretch, to say the least.
Omnivore does not mean we eat whatever we want and that makes it healthy. It means we can eat a mixture of things without dying. That doesn't make our bodies fit for meat consumption or digestion ... only capable, which is a very different thing.
Herbivores also have a variety of specialized digestive organs capable of breaking down cellulose, the main component of plant tissue. Humans find cellulose totally indigestible, and even plant eaters have to take their time with it. If you were a ruminant (cud eater), for instance, you might have a stomach with four compartments, enabling you to cough up last night's alfalfa and chew on it all over again.
Again, let me preface by saying we are not herbivores, but that does not make us in any way nearly as carnivorous as we seem to believe.
We cannot digest cellulose, but that doesn't mean we get nothing from the foods that are cellulose based. We obviously derive nutrients from plant foods, despite their containing cellulose. We were obviously not meant to digest raw meat, either, but cooking meat breaks down proteins, making them nutritionally invalid. When you eat cooked meat, your body is unable to use much of the matter you're ingesting.
Many animals eat things that contain things their bodies don't put to use. That's why there's waste. Cellulose as an argument against a plant based diet is frivolous, because not making use of the ENTIRE ingested item is natural and normal.
I covered some of the stuff you said next in the first comments, I think... I'll skip to the next one.
The story is roughly the same with teeth. We're equipped with an all-purpose set of ivories equally suited to liver and onions.
Not really. Tooth placement in the jaw, as well as the size and shape of our teeth, very closely resemble herbivorous animals ... and basically in no way look like most carnivores'. Show me an aspect of our mouths that seems to lend itself to eating MEAT, especially as a major portion of our diet. There really aren't any. We are facultative omnivores at best... we likely ate insects and maybe fish/shellfish and scavenged when we found dead things.
Good thing, too. I won't claim meat is the ideal source of protein, but on the whole it's better than plants. Sure, soybeans and other products of modern agriculture are pretty nutritious. But in the wild, much of the plant menu consists of leaves and stems, which are low in food value. True herbivores have to spend much of the day scrounging for snacks just to keep their strength up.
Insects cover this niche. And as I stated above, we likely were mostly frugivores. We ate a lot of nuts and seeds (high in a variety of amino acids) too. Leaves and stems weren't on the menu all that often, especially if you refer to chimp diets ... we use closest relatives to discern dietary needs for many extinct and domesticated species (ie, the multitude of raw pet food forums and advice sites), but not for ourselves because we want to believe we're more carnivorous than is really the case.
We have been happily eating meat for at least two million years, and probably much longer. The common view among anthropologists, in fact, is that increased meat consumption was a key element in the development of human culture, since getting and distributing the stuff requires cooperation.
I always found this claim funny because the brain cannot make use of meat in any way. Actually, our brains run on glucose--found in many fruits, roots, and other plant foods (source)--and it has been postulated by anthropologists that actually our ability to cook and digest starchy, calorie-rice foods is what fueled our brain development.
This is far from a settled topic in the scientific community. The theory you mentioned is only one of many ... and the most popular, because people want to believe they are meat eaters, biologically.
To quote the article I mentioned at the beginning of this post:
Man's ability to digest starchy foods like the potato may explain our success on the planet, genetic work suggests. Compared with primates, humans have many more copies of a gene essential for breaking down calorie-rich starches, Nature Genetics reports.
And these extra calories may have been crucial for feeding the larger brains of humans, speculate the University of California Santa Cruz authors.
Previously, experts had wondered if meat in the diet was the answer. However, Dr Nathaniel Dominy and colleagues argue this is improbable.
"Even when you look at modern human hunter-gatherers, meat is a relatively small fraction of their diet. To think that, two to four million years ago, a small-brained, awkwardly bipedal animal could efficiently acquire meat, even by scavenging, just doesn't make a whole lot of sense."
As far back as it can be traced, clearly the archeological record indicates an omnivorous diet for humans that included meat. Our ancestry is among the hunter/gatherers from the beginning. Once domestication of food sources began, it included both animals and plants.
Domestication of animals isn't proof of our evolutionary dietary needs. Animal products are an easy source of food. Domestication indicates ease and ability, not biological imperative or need.
Salivary glands are covered on that site ... so I'll skip ahead again.
Humans are classic examples of omnivores in all relevant anatomical traits. There is no basis in anatomy or physiology for the assumption that humans are pre-adapted to the vegetarian diet.
I agree however that most humans consume far too much meat, the suggested serving size for steak alone is the size of a checkbook if I recall properly.
I've provided ample "basis in anatomy [and] physiology," I believe.
The serving size set by whom? The USDA? The USDA is run by officials from the meat industries. They have a long history of denying scientific proof of meat consumption being harmful to the public because they have a vested interest in meat sales. "Food Politics" by Marion Nestle gets into this very topic really specifically. It's a dry read, but a good one. "Slaughterhouse" by Gail A. Eisnitz is also a good one for that topic.
You could also just google "USDA revolving door" and get lots of information I'm sure.
My life is more important to me because, it is mine. My life is more important to me than theirs for the same reason the life of any human is worth more to me than theirs.
But why should your opinion matter when it comes to their life? They value their life more than they value yours, I'm sure, so this isn't an objectively worthy reason.
Like I said, selfishness, I am capable, and so, I do. As I would if I were capable of eating other human beings. The emotions of a strange animal are irrelevant.
Their emotions are irrelevant to you, but that does not make them irrelevant as a whole. Again, this is an emotional reaction, as you have an attachment to eating their flesh. I do not. I can see, objectively, that their life is worth something to them, and since I would ask that that urge be respected in myself, I will respect it in others. If you would not begrudge someone murdering you, then maybe this isn't relevant, but I have a feeling you would fight for your life if someone did.
I suggest cutting cattle out of our diets entirely and I have for a long time, they're such resource guzzling animals to farm. Personally I'd put forward goats, rabbits and certain poultry birds. I put forward goat milk as a solution to cow's milk as well, for people who even like milk. I find it gross.
Why?
We don't need milk to survive. In fact, dairy of all kinds is very bad for humans. It's estimated that over 60% of adult humans are lactose intolerant. Why do we need to replace something that isn't ours, isn't good for us, isn't even useful in the first place?
The amount of goats, rabbits, and poultry it would take to feed everyone in the US alone would still massively contribute to both greenhouse gas emissions and pollution of water and land surrounding the facilities necessary to raise that many animals. All living things require water, obviously ... the scientists factored that into their calculations. Getting rid of one exploited, wasteful species in favor of another makes no sense when we're perfectly capable of getting rid of both.
Irrelevant to me. I'm terminally ill and will die any day or month now. I don't care what happens to anyone else once I'm gone and I'm sure the world will last a few more months.
I can't understand this view, so I won't even really reply. Selfish, I can understand, but harmful when it's not necessary out of pure stubborn will is something I will never get. Not meant as an insult, but this is so foreign to me that I have no reply.
Book/documentary recommendations:
"Food Politics" by Marion Nestle (very dry and factual)
"Slaughterhouse" by Gail A. Eisnitz (a little more emotional, but good with hard facts and data)
If you're interested in some that go into detail about other aspects of the food industry and the way we use non-human animals, I'd highly recommend "Eternal Treblinka," but that might register as an emotional case on your radar ... not sure. It draws a very distinct line between our treatment of non-humans and the prevalence of human exploitation, genocide, and other such niceties throughout human history, with an especially detailed focus on the genocide of native americans and the holocaust. It's a very interesting read.
Out of curiosity, do you deny that animals are sentient and feel emotions? I don't think we got into that.
You don't have to thank me for maturity... I've put up with enough immature bullshit on this picture alone to put me off such tactics in an actual, serious discussion. when I get mad, I might lash out with sarcasm, but I've been specifically trying to avoid that here.
But you're welcome, in any case. Thank you for taking this seriously as a topic instead of mocking my values as silly and sentimental.
http://michaelbluejay.com/veg/natural.html
Now...
Like the hard-core carnivores, we have fairly simple digestive systems well suited to the consumption of animal protein, which breaks down quickly. the human small intestine, at 23 feet, is a little under eight times body length (assuming a mouth-to-anus "body length" of three feet). This is about midway between cats (three times body length), dogs (3-1/2 times), and other well-known meat eaters on the one hand and plant eaters such as cattle (20 to 1) and horses (12 to 1) on the other. This tends to support the idea that we are omnivores.
I'm not claiming humans are ruminants, which is the mistake most people make when having this discussion. We do not have multiple stomachs because we do not eat grass and other such plants. But our closest ancestors, chimps, are frugivores. They eat a diet composed of 95-99% fruit, seeds, buds, small leaves, etc. The other 1-5% is mostly termites. Our digestive system is very similar to theirs, and they were obviously not intended to eat meat on a regular basis.
A Harvard study (source) estimated that chimps eat less than 1% meat (not counting insects) ... usually far less. Rounding that number up to 1%, if it were beef we were talking about--which it isn't, but that's something most humans eat-- a human being could only consume about 8 grams a day before going over that single percent. That's 1/3 of an ounce. .02 lbs.
Termites and beef are obviously different. The nutrients from cooked flesh are in no way the same as those from raw insects. We could very well have evolved to eat insects and other easy to catch, small prey ... I'm not denying THAT. But justifying eating cows, chickens, and pigs is a stretch, to say the least.
Omnivore does not mean we eat whatever we want and that makes it healthy. It means we can eat a mixture of things without dying. That doesn't make our bodies fit for meat consumption or digestion ... only capable, which is a very different thing.
Herbivores also have a variety of specialized digestive organs capable of breaking down cellulose, the main component of plant tissue. Humans find cellulose totally indigestible, and even plant eaters have to take their time with it. If you were a ruminant (cud eater), for instance, you might have a stomach with four compartments, enabling you to cough up last night's alfalfa and chew on it all over again.
Again, let me preface by saying we are not herbivores, but that does not make us in any way nearly as carnivorous as we seem to believe.
We cannot digest cellulose, but that doesn't mean we get nothing from the foods that are cellulose based. We obviously derive nutrients from plant foods, despite their containing cellulose. We were obviously not meant to digest raw meat, either, but cooking meat breaks down proteins, making them nutritionally invalid. When you eat cooked meat, your body is unable to use much of the matter you're ingesting.
Many animals eat things that contain things their bodies don't put to use. That's why there's waste. Cellulose as an argument against a plant based diet is frivolous, because not making use of the ENTIRE ingested item is natural and normal.
I covered some of the stuff you said next in the first comments, I think... I'll skip to the next one.
The story is roughly the same with teeth. We're equipped with an all-purpose set of ivories equally suited to liver and onions.
Not really. Tooth placement in the jaw, as well as the size and shape of our teeth, very closely resemble herbivorous animals ... and basically in no way look like most carnivores'. Show me an aspect of our mouths that seems to lend itself to eating MEAT, especially as a major portion of our diet. There really aren't any. We are facultative omnivores at best... we likely ate insects and maybe fish/shellfish and scavenged when we found dead things.
Good thing, too. I won't claim meat is the ideal source of protein, but on the whole it's better than plants. Sure, soybeans and other products of modern agriculture are pretty nutritious. But in the wild, much of the plant menu consists of leaves and stems, which are low in food value. True herbivores have to spend much of the day scrounging for snacks just to keep their strength up.
Insects cover this niche. And as I stated above, we likely were mostly frugivores. We ate a lot of nuts and seeds (high in a variety of amino acids) too. Leaves and stems weren't on the menu all that often, especially if you refer to chimp diets ... we use closest relatives to discern dietary needs for many extinct and domesticated species (ie, the multitude of raw pet food forums and advice sites), but not for ourselves because we want to believe we're more carnivorous than is really the case.
We have been happily eating meat for at least two million years, and probably much longer. The common view among anthropologists, in fact, is that increased meat consumption was a key element in the development of human culture, since getting and distributing the stuff requires cooperation.
I always found this claim funny because the brain cannot make use of meat in any way. Actually, our brains run on glucose--found in many fruits, roots, and other plant foods (source)--and it has been postulated by anthropologists that actually our ability to cook and digest starchy, calorie-rice foods is what fueled our brain development.
This is far from a settled topic in the scientific community. The theory you mentioned is only one of many ... and the most popular, because people want to believe they are meat eaters, biologically.
To quote the article I mentioned at the beginning of this post:
Man's ability to digest starchy foods like the potato may explain our success on the planet, genetic work suggests. Compared with primates, humans have many more copies of a gene essential for breaking down calorie-rich starches, Nature Genetics reports.
And these extra calories may have been crucial for feeding the larger brains of humans, speculate the University of California Santa Cruz authors.
Previously, experts had wondered if meat in the diet was the answer. However, Dr Nathaniel Dominy and colleagues argue this is improbable.
"Even when you look at modern human hunter-gatherers, meat is a relatively small fraction of their diet. To think that, two to four million years ago, a small-brained, awkwardly bipedal animal could efficiently acquire meat, even by scavenging, just doesn't make a whole lot of sense."
As far back as it can be traced, clearly the archeological record indicates an omnivorous diet for humans that included meat. Our ancestry is among the hunter/gatherers from the beginning. Once domestication of food sources began, it included both animals and plants.
Domestication of animals isn't proof of our evolutionary dietary needs. Animal products are an easy source of food. Domestication indicates ease and ability, not biological imperative or need.
Salivary glands are covered on that site ... so I'll skip ahead again.
Humans are classic examples of omnivores in all relevant anatomical traits. There is no basis in anatomy or physiology for the assumption that humans are pre-adapted to the vegetarian diet.
I agree however that most humans consume far too much meat, the suggested serving size for steak alone is the size of a checkbook if I recall properly.
I've provided ample "basis in anatomy [and] physiology," I believe.
The serving size set by whom? The USDA? The USDA is run by officials from the meat industries. They have a long history of denying scientific proof of meat consumption being harmful to the public because they have a vested interest in meat sales. "Food Politics" by Marion Nestle gets into this very topic really specifically. It's a dry read, but a good one. "Slaughterhouse" by Gail A. Eisnitz is also a good one for that topic.
You could also just google "USDA revolving door" and get lots of information I'm sure.
My life is more important to me because, it is mine. My life is more important to me than theirs for the same reason the life of any human is worth more to me than theirs.
But why should your opinion matter when it comes to their life? They value their life more than they value yours, I'm sure, so this isn't an objectively worthy reason.
Like I said, selfishness, I am capable, and so, I do. As I would if I were capable of eating other human beings. The emotions of a strange animal are irrelevant.
Their emotions are irrelevant to you, but that does not make them irrelevant as a whole. Again, this is an emotional reaction, as you have an attachment to eating their flesh. I do not. I can see, objectively, that their life is worth something to them, and since I would ask that that urge be respected in myself, I will respect it in others. If you would not begrudge someone murdering you, then maybe this isn't relevant, but I have a feeling you would fight for your life if someone did.
I suggest cutting cattle out of our diets entirely and I have for a long time, they're such resource guzzling animals to farm. Personally I'd put forward goats, rabbits and certain poultry birds. I put forward goat milk as a solution to cow's milk as well, for people who even like milk. I find it gross.
Why?
We don't need milk to survive. In fact, dairy of all kinds is very bad for humans. It's estimated that over 60% of adult humans are lactose intolerant. Why do we need to replace something that isn't ours, isn't good for us, isn't even useful in the first place?
The amount of goats, rabbits, and poultry it would take to feed everyone in the US alone would still massively contribute to both greenhouse gas emissions and pollution of water and land surrounding the facilities necessary to raise that many animals. All living things require water, obviously ... the scientists factored that into their calculations. Getting rid of one exploited, wasteful species in favor of another makes no sense when we're perfectly capable of getting rid of both.
Irrelevant to me. I'm terminally ill and will die any day or month now. I don't care what happens to anyone else once I'm gone and I'm sure the world will last a few more months.
I can't understand this view, so I won't even really reply. Selfish, I can understand, but harmful when it's not necessary out of pure stubborn will is something I will never get. Not meant as an insult, but this is so foreign to me that I have no reply.
Book/documentary recommendations:
"Food Politics" by Marion Nestle (very dry and factual)
"Slaughterhouse" by Gail A. Eisnitz (a little more emotional, but good with hard facts and data)
If you're interested in some that go into detail about other aspects of the food industry and the way we use non-human animals, I'd highly recommend "Eternal Treblinka," but that might register as an emotional case on your radar ... not sure. It draws a very distinct line between our treatment of non-humans and the prevalence of human exploitation, genocide, and other such niceties throughout human history, with an especially detailed focus on the genocide of native americans and the holocaust. It's a very interesting read.
Out of curiosity, do you deny that animals are sentient and feel emotions? I don't think we got into that.
You don't have to thank me for maturity... I've put up with enough immature bullshit on this picture alone to put me off such tactics in an actual, serious discussion. when I get mad, I might lash out with sarcasm, but I've been specifically trying to avoid that here.
But you're welcome, in any case. Thank you for taking this seriously as a topic instead of mocking my values as silly and sentimental.
Oh man I hope I don't botch any of this up I'm sick as a dog but here we go.
--
I'm not claiming humans are ruminants, which is the mistake most people make when having this discussion. We do not have multiple stomachs because we do not eat grass and other such plants. But our closest ancestors, chimps, are frugivores. They eat a diet composed of 95-99% fruit, seeds, buds, small leaves, etc. The other 1-5% is mostly termites. Our digestive system is very similar to theirs, and they were obviously not intended to eat meat on a regular basis.
A Harvard study (source) estimated that chimps eat less than 1% meat (not counting insects) ... usually far less. Rounding that number up to 1%, if it were beef we were talking about--which it isn't, but that's something most humans eat-- a human being could only consume about 8 grams a day before going over that single percent. That's 1/3 of an ounce. .02 lbs.
Termites and beef are obviously different. The nutrients from cooked flesh are in no way the same as those from raw insects. We could very well have evolved to eat insects and other easy to catch, small prey ... I'm not denying THAT. But justifying eating cows, chickens, and pigs is a stretch, to say the least.
Omnivore does not mean we eat whatever we want and that makes it healthy. It means we can eat a mixture of things without dying. That doesn't make our bodies fit for meat consumption or digestion ... only capable, which is a very different thing.
--
But our closest ancestors, chimps, are frugivores. They eat a diet composed of 95-99% fruit, seeds, buds, small leaves, etc. The other 1-5% is mostly termites. Our digestive system is very similar to theirs, and they were obviously not intended to eat meat on a regular basis.
--
When Jane Goodall first observed wild chimpanzees hunting and eating meat nearly 40 years ago, skeptics suggested that their behavior was aberrant and that the amount of meat eaten was trivial. Today, we know that chimpanzees everywhere eat mainly fruit, but are also predators in their forest ecosystems. In some sites the quantity of meat eaten by a chimpanzee community may approach one ton annually.
http://www-bcf.usc.edu/~stanford/chimphunt.html
I concede the rest on lack of research on my part.
--
We were obviously not meant to digest raw meat, either, but cooking meat breaks down proteins, making them nutritionally invalid. When you eat cooked meat, your body is unable to use much of the matter you're ingesting.
--
We were obviously not meant to digest raw meat, either
--
I agree with cooking breaking down proteins, Studies have demonstrated that Vitamin B-12 is heat sensitive and normal cooking can destroy as much as 89% of it. however that problem is indeed solved by eating raw meat.
and raw meat is more popular then you think!
ceviche: marinated raw fish (Central and South America)
hoe: thinly sliced raw beef or seafood (Korean)
carne cruda: finely minced raw beef (Italian)
sashimi: thinly sliced raw fish (Japanese)
carpaccio: thin sliced raw beef with vinaigrette (Italian)
steak tartare: mined raw beef with capers, seasoning, and egg yolk on top (Eastern Europe)
conch: raw snails
kibbeh nayeh: minced raw beef or lamb mixed with bulgur and spices (Aleppo)
poke: raw yellowfin tuna or octopus with soy sauce, sesame oil, seaweed and chili pepper (Hawaiian)
oysters: raw oysters
chee kufta: “raw meat patty” made with raw lamb or beef (Armenian and Turkish)
crudo: raw fish, lemon juice, olive oil sea salt (Italian)
kitfo: “steak tartar” with spiced chili powder, and herbed butter sauce (Ethiopian)
poisson cru: raw tuna with lime juice, scallions, coconut milk, cucumbers, tomato, and shredded coconut (French Polynesian)
mett: raw minced pork (German)
sakura: raw horse meat
yukhoe: raw “hoe” mixed with asian spices and sauces (Korean)
kuai: finely cut strips of raw meat or fish (Chinese)
gored gored: Minced beef marinated in spices and ghee (Ethiopian)
But you cannot just go and eat any seafood or meat and expect yourself to stay healthy. The conditions the animal is raised in and the feed it is fed are probably the most important when sourcing meat to eat raw and cooked.
Raw meat is not bad for you, Raw meat taken from shitty {literally} conditions however, is.
I admit a lot of people are grossed out by eating raw meat, I prefer it when I can get it as such.
I'm rambling now.
--
But why should your opinion matter when it comes to their life? They value their life more than they value yours, I'm sure, so this isn't an objectively worthy reason.
--
I'm certain they do value their life more but I have the ability to eat them and they don't have the ability to do anything about it, and perhaps it is a subjective reason but again I don't care what other people do in their own diets so long as it isn't interfering with me.
--
Like I said, selfishness, I am capable, and so, I do. As I would if I were capable of eating other human beings. The emotions of a strange animal are irrelevant.
Their emotions are irrelevant to you, but that does not make them irrelevant as a whole. Again, this is an emotional reaction, as you have an attachment to eating their flesh. I do not. I can see, objectively, that their life is worth something to them, and since I would ask that that urge be respected in myself, I will respect it in others. If you would not begrudge someone murdering you, then maybe this isn't relevant, but I have a feeling you would fight for your life if someone did.
--
If you would not begrudge someone murdering you then maybe this isn't relevant, but I have a feeling you would fight for your life if someone did.
--
I have walked into situations with the intention of being murdered multiple times, and so, not relevant, I would not fight for my own life.
In the event that I am not killed before a certain age I have arranged a deal with a companion to end my life.
--
Why?
We don't need milk to survive. In fact, dairy of all kinds is very bad for humans. It's estimated that over 60% of adult humans are lactose intolerant. Why do we need to replace something that isn't ours, isn't good for us, isn't even useful in the first place?
The amount of goats, rabbits, and poultry it would take to feed everyone in the US alone would still massively contribute to both greenhouse gas emissions and pollution of water and land surrounding the facilities necessary to raise that many animals. All living things require water, obviously ... the scientists factored that into their calculations. Getting rid of one exploited, wasteful species in favor of another makes no sense when we're perfectly capable of getting rid of both.
--
Well frankly if people want to ingest it I say let them, it is their right under the constitution, I would think you of all people would agree that people do have certain rights and if that involves eating meat and drinking milk well, I'm sorry to say there's nothing to be done for it, you simply can't make such a huge change or decision for a population that doesn't want it. If every last person on earth wanted it however, I say go for it.
--
I can't understand this view, so I won't even really reply. Selfish, I can understand, but harmful when it's not necessary out of pure stubborn will is something I will never get. Not meant as an insult, but this is so foreign to me that I have no reply.
--
No offense taken my stubborn will is one of the few things I have left aside from my pride.
I won't go on about this though, it's an unimportant subject
--
Out of curiosity, do you deny that animals are sentient and feel emotions? I don't think we got into that.
--
ahh, not at all.
I keep as companions, a leopard gecko, three tanks of darkling beetles, three gerbils, a guinea pig, a cat, a dog, two domestic mice.
And a wild mouse, that was dug up from its den by a dog and which I fed with an eye dropper from infancy.
I grew up raising horses and reindeer {for food and transportation}
And there's this great joy in their eyes when they're happy, and it stirs even my heart into smiling, my adoration for them is absolutely endless.
But they are my animals, not strange ones.
And I would eat them if I had to, if they died and it was safe.
--
I will check those of which I have not seen!
--
But you're welcome, in any case. Thank you for taking this seriously as a topic instead of mocking my values as silly and sentimental.
--
Your values aren't silly at all.
My best friend, my very best friend in the entire world, is vegetarian, as is her fiance.
And I love her, I love her so much, even I can't deny that, we are so much more than friends, so much more than lovers.
And I am so grateful that she agreed to the things she has agreed to, I put her through more than she deserves...
--
I won't pretend to be entirely empty of emotion or sentimentality myself, I'm human for now, for God's sake my spirituality states that every being is in the grande scheme of things, no better or worse than any other, that we are all grand existences caught within temporary shells shuffling through existences.
But I definitely won't get into religion|Spirituality nobody wants to listen to that ahaha...
--
I'm not claiming humans are ruminants, which is the mistake most people make when having this discussion. We do not have multiple stomachs because we do not eat grass and other such plants. But our closest ancestors, chimps, are frugivores. They eat a diet composed of 95-99% fruit, seeds, buds, small leaves, etc. The other 1-5% is mostly termites. Our digestive system is very similar to theirs, and they were obviously not intended to eat meat on a regular basis.
A Harvard study (source) estimated that chimps eat less than 1% meat (not counting insects) ... usually far less. Rounding that number up to 1%, if it were beef we were talking about--which it isn't, but that's something most humans eat-- a human being could only consume about 8 grams a day before going over that single percent. That's 1/3 of an ounce. .02 lbs.
Termites and beef are obviously different. The nutrients from cooked flesh are in no way the same as those from raw insects. We could very well have evolved to eat insects and other easy to catch, small prey ... I'm not denying THAT. But justifying eating cows, chickens, and pigs is a stretch, to say the least.
Omnivore does not mean we eat whatever we want and that makes it healthy. It means we can eat a mixture of things without dying. That doesn't make our bodies fit for meat consumption or digestion ... only capable, which is a very different thing.
--
But our closest ancestors, chimps, are frugivores. They eat a diet composed of 95-99% fruit, seeds, buds, small leaves, etc. The other 1-5% is mostly termites. Our digestive system is very similar to theirs, and they were obviously not intended to eat meat on a regular basis.
--
When Jane Goodall first observed wild chimpanzees hunting and eating meat nearly 40 years ago, skeptics suggested that their behavior was aberrant and that the amount of meat eaten was trivial. Today, we know that chimpanzees everywhere eat mainly fruit, but are also predators in their forest ecosystems. In some sites the quantity of meat eaten by a chimpanzee community may approach one ton annually.
http://www-bcf.usc.edu/~stanford/chimphunt.html
I concede the rest on lack of research on my part.
--
We were obviously not meant to digest raw meat, either, but cooking meat breaks down proteins, making them nutritionally invalid. When you eat cooked meat, your body is unable to use much of the matter you're ingesting.
--
We were obviously not meant to digest raw meat, either
--
I agree with cooking breaking down proteins, Studies have demonstrated that Vitamin B-12 is heat sensitive and normal cooking can destroy as much as 89% of it. however that problem is indeed solved by eating raw meat.
and raw meat is more popular then you think!
ceviche: marinated raw fish (Central and South America)
hoe: thinly sliced raw beef or seafood (Korean)
carne cruda: finely minced raw beef (Italian)
sashimi: thinly sliced raw fish (Japanese)
carpaccio: thin sliced raw beef with vinaigrette (Italian)
steak tartare: mined raw beef with capers, seasoning, and egg yolk on top (Eastern Europe)
conch: raw snails
kibbeh nayeh: minced raw beef or lamb mixed with bulgur and spices (Aleppo)
poke: raw yellowfin tuna or octopus with soy sauce, sesame oil, seaweed and chili pepper (Hawaiian)
oysters: raw oysters
chee kufta: “raw meat patty” made with raw lamb or beef (Armenian and Turkish)
crudo: raw fish, lemon juice, olive oil sea salt (Italian)
kitfo: “steak tartar” with spiced chili powder, and herbed butter sauce (Ethiopian)
poisson cru: raw tuna with lime juice, scallions, coconut milk, cucumbers, tomato, and shredded coconut (French Polynesian)
mett: raw minced pork (German)
sakura: raw horse meat
yukhoe: raw “hoe” mixed with asian spices and sauces (Korean)
kuai: finely cut strips of raw meat or fish (Chinese)
gored gored: Minced beef marinated in spices and ghee (Ethiopian)
But you cannot just go and eat any seafood or meat and expect yourself to stay healthy. The conditions the animal is raised in and the feed it is fed are probably the most important when sourcing meat to eat raw and cooked.
Raw meat is not bad for you, Raw meat taken from shitty {literally} conditions however, is.
I admit a lot of people are grossed out by eating raw meat, I prefer it when I can get it as such.
I'm rambling now.
--
But why should your opinion matter when it comes to their life? They value their life more than they value yours, I'm sure, so this isn't an objectively worthy reason.
--
I'm certain they do value their life more but I have the ability to eat them and they don't have the ability to do anything about it, and perhaps it is a subjective reason but again I don't care what other people do in their own diets so long as it isn't interfering with me.
--
Like I said, selfishness, I am capable, and so, I do. As I would if I were capable of eating other human beings. The emotions of a strange animal are irrelevant.
Their emotions are irrelevant to you, but that does not make them irrelevant as a whole. Again, this is an emotional reaction, as you have an attachment to eating their flesh. I do not. I can see, objectively, that their life is worth something to them, and since I would ask that that urge be respected in myself, I will respect it in others. If you would not begrudge someone murdering you, then maybe this isn't relevant, but I have a feeling you would fight for your life if someone did.
--
If you would not begrudge someone murdering you then maybe this isn't relevant, but I have a feeling you would fight for your life if someone did.
--
I have walked into situations with the intention of being murdered multiple times, and so, not relevant, I would not fight for my own life.
In the event that I am not killed before a certain age I have arranged a deal with a companion to end my life.
--
Why?
We don't need milk to survive. In fact, dairy of all kinds is very bad for humans. It's estimated that over 60% of adult humans are lactose intolerant. Why do we need to replace something that isn't ours, isn't good for us, isn't even useful in the first place?
The amount of goats, rabbits, and poultry it would take to feed everyone in the US alone would still massively contribute to both greenhouse gas emissions and pollution of water and land surrounding the facilities necessary to raise that many animals. All living things require water, obviously ... the scientists factored that into their calculations. Getting rid of one exploited, wasteful species in favor of another makes no sense when we're perfectly capable of getting rid of both.
--
Well frankly if people want to ingest it I say let them, it is their right under the constitution, I would think you of all people would agree that people do have certain rights and if that involves eating meat and drinking milk well, I'm sorry to say there's nothing to be done for it, you simply can't make such a huge change or decision for a population that doesn't want it. If every last person on earth wanted it however, I say go for it.
--
I can't understand this view, so I won't even really reply. Selfish, I can understand, but harmful when it's not necessary out of pure stubborn will is something I will never get. Not meant as an insult, but this is so foreign to me that I have no reply.
--
No offense taken my stubborn will is one of the few things I have left aside from my pride.
I won't go on about this though, it's an unimportant subject
--
Out of curiosity, do you deny that animals are sentient and feel emotions? I don't think we got into that.
--
ahh, not at all.
I keep as companions, a leopard gecko, three tanks of darkling beetles, three gerbils, a guinea pig, a cat, a dog, two domestic mice.
And a wild mouse, that was dug up from its den by a dog and which I fed with an eye dropper from infancy.
I grew up raising horses and reindeer {for food and transportation}
And there's this great joy in their eyes when they're happy, and it stirs even my heart into smiling, my adoration for them is absolutely endless.
But they are my animals, not strange ones.
And I would eat them if I had to, if they died and it was safe.
--
I will check those of which I have not seen!
--
But you're welcome, in any case. Thank you for taking this seriously as a topic instead of mocking my values as silly and sentimental.
--
Your values aren't silly at all.
My best friend, my very best friend in the entire world, is vegetarian, as is her fiance.
And I love her, I love her so much, even I can't deny that, we are so much more than friends, so much more than lovers.
And I am so grateful that she agreed to the things she has agreed to, I put her through more than she deserves...
--
I won't pretend to be entirely empty of emotion or sentimentality myself, I'm human for now, for God's sake my spirituality states that every being is in the grande scheme of things, no better or worse than any other, that we are all grand existences caught within temporary shells shuffling through existences.
But I definitely won't get into religion|Spirituality nobody wants to listen to that ahaha...
Wow thank you enter button for as usual being right there when I don't need you.
In Conclusion.
You are probably correct on many things, and I do, honestly, earnestly hope that those who can, those who want to, do change.
But I can't or I'm not willing I don't know. Not in this existence.
In Conclusion.
You are probably correct on many things, and I do, honestly, earnestly hope that those who can, those who want to, do change.
But I can't or I'm not willing I don't know. Not in this existence.
I unfortunately don't have the time or mental fortitude right now to go through all of that and comment about every individual thing. My work and stress load has been pretty overwhelming recently, so I mostly comment to say sorry for cutting this shorter than it perhaps should have been.
although if you don't mind, I'd like to discuss something related, but that hasn't been addressed: you say your life is worth more because it is yours. That is a subjective, emotional reaction to an attachment that has no bearing on others... it is not an objective reality in any way. yet you claim to be moved by reason and value logic... logic implies objectivity, looking at something from a cold, scientific standpoint, without the film of emotional attachments. If that is the case, you should not value others' lives any less highly than your own because they are, objectively, the same. this is not to say that they are "worth" as much to you or even to some outside viewer with an objective eye... but that they experience things in a similar way to you. They see, hear, smell, taste. They feel, even if it is different and irrational to you. They can think, even if they might not be as quick as you.
if you acknowledge this in other human beings, you must acknowledge it for other animals, as per your previous statements of seeing humans as no better than non-humans.
I will leave the arguments alone, likely, because as I said: stress. but I do my best thinking in discussion form... and would be grateful if you could oblige me. if not, I understand.
although if you don't mind, I'd like to discuss something related, but that hasn't been addressed: you say your life is worth more because it is yours. That is a subjective, emotional reaction to an attachment that has no bearing on others... it is not an objective reality in any way. yet you claim to be moved by reason and value logic... logic implies objectivity, looking at something from a cold, scientific standpoint, without the film of emotional attachments. If that is the case, you should not value others' lives any less highly than your own because they are, objectively, the same. this is not to say that they are "worth" as much to you or even to some outside viewer with an objective eye... but that they experience things in a similar way to you. They see, hear, smell, taste. They feel, even if it is different and irrational to you. They can think, even if they might not be as quick as you.
if you acknowledge this in other human beings, you must acknowledge it for other animals, as per your previous statements of seeing humans as no better than non-humans.
I will leave the arguments alone, likely, because as I said: stress. but I do my best thinking in discussion form... and would be grateful if you could oblige me. if not, I understand.
I will leave the arguments alone, likely, because as I said: stress. but I do my best thinking in discussion form... and would be grateful if you could oblige me. if not, I understand.
--
That's fine, I don't actually like dragging these things on forever either, I get tired.
--
although if you don't mind, I'd like to discuss something related, but that hasn't been addressed: you say your life is worth more because it is yours. That is a subjective, emotional reaction to an attachment that has no bearing on others... it is not an objective reality in any way. yet you claim to be moved by reason and value logic... logic implies objectivity, looking at something from a cold, scientific standpoint, without the film of emotional attachments. If that is the case, you should not value others' lives any less highly than your own because they are, objectively, the same. this is not to say that they are "worth" as much to you or even to some outside viewer with an objective eye... but that they experience things in a similar way to you. They see, hear, smell, taste. They feel, even if it is different and irrational to you. They can think, even if they might not be as quick as you.
if you acknowledge this in other human beings, you must acknowledge it for other animals, as per your previous statements of seeing humans as no better than non-humans.
--
although if you don't mind, I'd like to discuss something related, but that hasn't been addressed: you say your life is worth more because it is yours. That is a subjective, emotional reaction to an attachment that has no bearing on others... it is not an objective reality in any way. yet you claim to be moved by reason and value logic... logic implies objectivity, looking at something from a cold, scientific standpoint, without the film of emotional attachments
--
I never said I was incapable of emotion {I can only wish}, I just need logic behind actions, it's logical of me to care, or 'be more emotional' over me, I am me, after all, there's only one existence in all the universes that I care for more than me, and we're practically one being anyway.
--
if you acknowledge this in other human beings, you must acknowledge it for other animals, as per your previous statements of seeing humans as no better than non-humans.
--
I acknowledge that animals can see, hear, smell, taste. and feel. But I don't care what they see, hear, smell, taste. and feel so long as they were raised with as little abuse as possible and they aren't My animals.
--
Forgive me if anything here seems strange or if I missed anything, for some reason as of late my eyes have begun to fail me and the tiny FA font is a text based hell.
--
That's fine, I don't actually like dragging these things on forever either, I get tired.
--
although if you don't mind, I'd like to discuss something related, but that hasn't been addressed: you say your life is worth more because it is yours. That is a subjective, emotional reaction to an attachment that has no bearing on others... it is not an objective reality in any way. yet you claim to be moved by reason and value logic... logic implies objectivity, looking at something from a cold, scientific standpoint, without the film of emotional attachments. If that is the case, you should not value others' lives any less highly than your own because they are, objectively, the same. this is not to say that they are "worth" as much to you or even to some outside viewer with an objective eye... but that they experience things in a similar way to you. They see, hear, smell, taste. They feel, even if it is different and irrational to you. They can think, even if they might not be as quick as you.
if you acknowledge this in other human beings, you must acknowledge it for other animals, as per your previous statements of seeing humans as no better than non-humans.
--
although if you don't mind, I'd like to discuss something related, but that hasn't been addressed: you say your life is worth more because it is yours. That is a subjective, emotional reaction to an attachment that has no bearing on others... it is not an objective reality in any way. yet you claim to be moved by reason and value logic... logic implies objectivity, looking at something from a cold, scientific standpoint, without the film of emotional attachments
--
I never said I was incapable of emotion {I can only wish}, I just need logic behind actions, it's logical of me to care, or 'be more emotional' over me, I am me, after all, there's only one existence in all the universes that I care for more than me, and we're practically one being anyway.
--
if you acknowledge this in other human beings, you must acknowledge it for other animals, as per your previous statements of seeing humans as no better than non-humans.
--
I acknowledge that animals can see, hear, smell, taste. and feel. But I don't care what they see, hear, smell, taste. and feel so long as they were raised with as little abuse as possible and they aren't My animals.
--
Forgive me if anything here seems strange or if I missed anything, for some reason as of late my eyes have begun to fail me and the tiny FA font is a text based hell.
wow I am tired, sorry let me correct this to make it clearer;
--
We're all flesh and blood and bone and organ and cartilage, which means those animals suffer exactly as you do. What makes your life worth more than theirs?
--
My life is more important to me because, it is mine. My life is more important to me than theirs for the same reason the life of any human is worth less to me than my own.
--
We're all flesh and blood and bone and organ and cartilage, which means those animals suffer exactly as you do. What makes your life worth more than theirs?
--
My life is more important to me because, it is mine. My life is more important to me than theirs for the same reason the life of any human is worth less to me than my own.
That took me way too long, but things have been crazy here recently.
A variety of fruits and veggies. Uhh, tomatoes, sweet potatoes, berries, melons, squash, beans, cucumbers, leafy greens, lettuce, cabbage ... various herbs/spices ... working on getting some fruit and nut trees ...
It's a long list.
A variety of fruits and veggies. Uhh, tomatoes, sweet potatoes, berries, melons, squash, beans, cucumbers, leafy greens, lettuce, cabbage ... various herbs/spices ... working on getting some fruit and nut trees ...
It's a long list.
I really like this post. I remember really liking another vegan art piece you posted a while back! I also have managed to completely cut out red meat and I rarely touch chicken anymore. I find I'm enjoying vegetables more and actually eating way newer foods I'd never tried that are super delicious (all roasted veggies are perfect).
Even if people aren't vegans, I think EVERYONE should pay attention to where their food comes from and get to know an animal that we often eat (like a pig or cow) to see that they're not just piles of brainless meat.
What makes me really angry is when people think it's "funny" or "edgy" to be so "LOL BACON" at vegans. Nothing pisses me off more.
Gosh, I didn't mean to make such a long comment! You go, keep standing up for what you believe in.
Even if people aren't vegans, I think EVERYONE should pay attention to where their food comes from and get to know an animal that we often eat (like a pig or cow) to see that they're not just piles of brainless meat.
What makes me really angry is when people think it's "funny" or "edgy" to be so "LOL BACON" at vegans. Nothing pisses me off more.
Gosh, I didn't mean to make such a long comment! You go, keep standing up for what you believe in.
I really don't understand what possesses omnivores to come here and get into arguments with you over veganism in comments.
I also think that good art generates a strong emotional response in people...and yours certainly does. Keep up the good work. I'd love to see more from you.
I also think that good art generates a strong emotional response in people...and yours certainly does. Keep up the good work. I'd love to see more from you.
RIGHT? Shit, man - you say 'vegetarian' and people go ape shit.
I get so many friends that are surprised I stayed a vegetarian after leaving my parents' house, as if it was being forced on me, and then they all try to sneak meat on me or tell me I'm "missing out" because I choose not to eat a steak or whatever.
I just.
Ugh.
UGH.
I get so many friends that are surprised I stayed a vegetarian after leaving my parents' house, as if it was being forced on me, and then they all try to sneak meat on me or tell me I'm "missing out" because I choose not to eat a steak or whatever.
I just.
Ugh.
UGH.
Same deal when I was a vegetarian, for a brief period in high school. Definitely think being vegan is much more offensive though -- probably because vegetarians are mostly seen as simply sensitive people, but vegans are dangerous and extreme. Not to dismiss your social troubles, though! I just find that vegetarianism is 'preferable'; I've received much more backlash and questioning as a vegan than as a vegetarian. Also have been asked, 'why not just be a vegetarian?' several times. Regardless.... it is frustrating to feel like you need to constantly fight and stand up for what you believe in, when it's something that is as simple as wishing to be peaceful and compassionate.
I don't give a shit about vegans eating what they want
I give a shit when they turn radical and use their diets to defend rape, sexism, the holocaust and abuse.
That's when I'll argue against veganism
One of the "icons" or "models" of veganism thinks that you should be RAPED if you eat meat.
I give a shit when they turn radical and use their diets to defend rape, sexism, the holocaust and abuse.
That's when I'll argue against veganism
One of the "icons" or "models" of veganism thinks that you should be RAPED if you eat meat.
and I give a shit when they try and put their pets on vegan/vegetarian diets, effectively causing them to have a slow, agonizing, painful death.
Nothing like the quick death of a captive bolt stungun
"Earthlings, my ass!" I was super pro-PETA as a kid, and I can recognize every single dumb PETA film clip when I see one, Earthlings is full of em!
Nothing like the quick death of a captive bolt stungun
"Earthlings, my ass!" I was super pro-PETA as a kid, and I can recognize every single dumb PETA film clip when I see one, Earthlings is full of em!
How in the hell does veganism advocate any of those things? Please don't use generalizations about vegans when it has no bearing on the discussion at hand.
as for the holocaust thing, you should read "Eternal Treblinka." it is perfectly acceptable to compare the holocaust to what non-human animals go through. This is acknowledged by not only survivors of the actual holocaust in many cases, but also the perpetrators. fun fact: the "final solution" death camps were inspired by american slaughterhouses!
as for the holocaust thing, you should read "Eternal Treblinka." it is perfectly acceptable to compare the holocaust to what non-human animals go through. This is acknowledged by not only survivors of the actual holocaust in many cases, but also the perpetrators. fun fact: the "final solution" death camps were inspired by american slaughterhouses!
I didn't say veganism advocated it, I said when VEGANS stop advocating it. It's usually the radicalvegans, those are the ones I don't like.
I'm not going to believe anybody or anything when they put "reasonable comparison to the holocaust" in the same sentence as "non-human animals"
Maybe I'd listen and concern myself more with the opinions of vegans/radvegans if they didn't have to resort to ignorant, petty guilt-trip tactics to get people to listen.
http://24.media.tumblr.com/fb4e868c.....rgfho1_500.png
When the only way they can get people to discuss things with them is when they lie and resort to that ^^^, is there really any wonder why people don't give a shit?
"fun fact: the "final solution" death camps were inspired by american slaughterhouses! "
Fun fact: The layout was inspired by slaughterhouses because it was shown to be the most space-effective method of housing that many people, it had nothing to do with the animals themselves.
I'm not going to believe anybody or anything when they put "reasonable comparison to the holocaust" in the same sentence as "non-human animals"
Maybe I'd listen and concern myself more with the opinions of vegans/radvegans if they didn't have to resort to ignorant, petty guilt-trip tactics to get people to listen.
http://24.media.tumblr.com/fb4e868c.....rgfho1_500.png
When the only way they can get people to discuss things with them is when they lie and resort to that ^^^, is there really any wonder why people don't give a shit?
"fun fact: the "final solution" death camps were inspired by american slaughterhouses! "
Fun fact: The layout was inspired by slaughterhouses because it was shown to be the most space-effective method of housing that many people, it had nothing to do with the animals themselves.
You don't get to declare what is a valid holocaust comparison. The book I mentioned is named for a quote from Isaac Bashevis Singer. He, as a survivor of The Holocaust, having been in the death camps himself, is on far more sure footing to make the comparison.
The slaughterhouses were not an effective way of "housing" anything. I'm talking about the way ours were laid out for efficient killing, not the feedlots on which the animals were kept.
You really should take a look at that book before spouting off things you aren't educated about. Hitler himself praised American eugenics movements as well as the way we treated the Native Americans. We were a very direct inspiration for his policies toward the groups he persecuted and murdered... and the book--again, written by the nephew of a Holocaust survivor and compiling the works of many animal welfare/rights activists who also either survived or even served to carry out the genocide and torment of millions--draws a direct line between our treatment of non-human animals of all kinds to our mass murder, enslavement, and torment of other humans. I can't possibly go into as many specifics, and I do not have the resources that the author does, so I can't possibly make the case for him in as compelling or informative a way.
How does that image lie? How is it out of line? Fox fur coats are made of foxes. Vegans are of the view that no one has a right to that fur other than the foxes who grow it. By that viewpoint, the image is completely valid. The only thing it points out is that fur is made of fur.
The slaughterhouses were not an effective way of "housing" anything. I'm talking about the way ours were laid out for efficient killing, not the feedlots on which the animals were kept.
You really should take a look at that book before spouting off things you aren't educated about. Hitler himself praised American eugenics movements as well as the way we treated the Native Americans. We were a very direct inspiration for his policies toward the groups he persecuted and murdered... and the book--again, written by the nephew of a Holocaust survivor and compiling the works of many animal welfare/rights activists who also either survived or even served to carry out the genocide and torment of millions--draws a direct line between our treatment of non-human animals of all kinds to our mass murder, enslavement, and torment of other humans. I can't possibly go into as many specifics, and I do not have the resources that the author does, so I can't possibly make the case for him in as compelling or informative a way.
How does that image lie? How is it out of line? Fox fur coats are made of foxes. Vegans are of the view that no one has a right to that fur other than the foxes who grow it. By that viewpoint, the image is completely valid. The only thing it points out is that fur is made of fur.
You do, though? Because one idiot agrees with you? What are your opinions on Gary Yourofsky? Just curious :)
"Every woman ensconced in fur should endure a rape so vicious that it scars them forever. While every man entrenched in fur should suffer an anal raping so horrific that they become disembowelled."
I hear he's some sort of vegan idol? What are your opinions on that?
"I'm talking about the way ours were laid out for efficient killing, not the feedlots on which the animals were kept.
You really should take a look at that book before spouting off things you aren't educated about. "
I'm educated about slaughterhouses, farms, etc. My dad fucking worked in them, he's told me all about them. It's why I laugh whenever some vegan spews "facts" that I know are 100% certified BULLSHIT.
"How does that image lie? How is it out of line? Fox fur coats are made of foxes. Vegans are of the view that no one has a right to that fur other than the foxes who grow it. By that viewpoint, the image is completely valid. The only thing it points out is that fur is made of fur. "
1. Baby foxes are not killed for fur coats.
2. Baby foxes are not ALIVE when their parents are killed for fur coats.
3. Hunting/trapping season starts in the winter months, when there ARE NO babies. Trapping/hunting is a conservation effort, it simply wouldn't make sense to kill your moneymakers as they're repopulating, and while they have shit-quality fur (as they often do in the summer/spring)
No babies are killed, they aren't alive. No "families" are killed, they don't exist.
"Every woman ensconced in fur should endure a rape so vicious that it scars them forever. While every man entrenched in fur should suffer an anal raping so horrific that they become disembowelled."
I hear he's some sort of vegan idol? What are your opinions on that?
"I'm talking about the way ours were laid out for efficient killing, not the feedlots on which the animals were kept.
You really should take a look at that book before spouting off things you aren't educated about. "
I'm educated about slaughterhouses, farms, etc. My dad fucking worked in them, he's told me all about them. It's why I laugh whenever some vegan spews "facts" that I know are 100% certified BULLSHIT.
"How does that image lie? How is it out of line? Fox fur coats are made of foxes. Vegans are of the view that no one has a right to that fur other than the foxes who grow it. By that viewpoint, the image is completely valid. The only thing it points out is that fur is made of fur. "
1. Baby foxes are not killed for fur coats.
2. Baby foxes are not ALIVE when their parents are killed for fur coats.
3. Hunting/trapping season starts in the winter months, when there ARE NO babies. Trapping/hunting is a conservation effort, it simply wouldn't make sense to kill your moneymakers as they're repopulating, and while they have shit-quality fur (as they often do in the summer/spring)
No babies are killed, they aren't alive. No "families" are killed, they don't exist.
No, I don't. But a survivor of the holocaust does.
Gary Yourofsky is a well spoken dude with some abhorrent views on what is acceptable discourse. I like his speeches, but I'm obviously put off by the mention of rape as punishment. It's an unacceptable thing to say, and I don't quote Yourofsky or recommend him to others because of it.
Plenty of non-vegans have said deplorable things to the same effect for lesser "crimes" (such as wearing the wrong clothes), but you wouldn't represent all of their peers by their one stupid statement. Especially when plenty of those peers shun them for it. Almost all the vegans I know deplore Yourofsky's view on that particular topic, as well as a few others.
I'm sure your dad experienced every meat industry plant ever. I'm sure he works in them all, now, right?
That's such bullshit. You want this book? I'll send it to you. I have it, just sitting here. Seriously. If you want it, I will mail it to you. Actually, I'll send this one AND "Slaughterhouse," which is an inside look on the industry, with everyone from slaughterhouse line workers to USDA officials weighing in. I do this for others anyway. If you refuse to educate yourself, we're done with that discussion.
As for the rest of it...
1) Baby foxes grow up to be big foxes. No one said those babies were gonna be killed right now.
2) I don't know what you mean by this? Many baby foxes will outlive their parents, so many will still be alive? No one's saying those babies will be orphaned. It says that nowhere on the image.
3) Again, you seem to be reacting to something that isn't there. No one said anything about foxes going extinct. Or babies being killed while they are babies.
I don't understand why you showed up bitching about a trapping image that has nothing to do with my posts, but sure, okay.
Gary Yourofsky is a well spoken dude with some abhorrent views on what is acceptable discourse. I like his speeches, but I'm obviously put off by the mention of rape as punishment. It's an unacceptable thing to say, and I don't quote Yourofsky or recommend him to others because of it.
Plenty of non-vegans have said deplorable things to the same effect for lesser "crimes" (such as wearing the wrong clothes), but you wouldn't represent all of their peers by their one stupid statement. Especially when plenty of those peers shun them for it. Almost all the vegans I know deplore Yourofsky's view on that particular topic, as well as a few others.
I'm sure your dad experienced every meat industry plant ever. I'm sure he works in them all, now, right?
That's such bullshit. You want this book? I'll send it to you. I have it, just sitting here. Seriously. If you want it, I will mail it to you. Actually, I'll send this one AND "Slaughterhouse," which is an inside look on the industry, with everyone from slaughterhouse line workers to USDA officials weighing in. I do this for others anyway. If you refuse to educate yourself, we're done with that discussion.
As for the rest of it...
1) Baby foxes grow up to be big foxes. No one said those babies were gonna be killed right now.
2) I don't know what you mean by this? Many baby foxes will outlive their parents, so many will still be alive? No one's saying those babies will be orphaned. It says that nowhere on the image.
3) Again, you seem to be reacting to something that isn't there. No one said anything about foxes going extinct. Or babies being killed while they are babies.
I don't understand why you showed up bitching about a trapping image that has nothing to do with my posts, but sure, okay.
I think we're done here. You're obviously not going to open your mind and will continue to keep your face in your Earthlings bullshit.
The funniest part about it is when vegans say that "not all vegans are preachy", I'm sorry but they are. It's constant guilt-tripping tactics and is the reason I had to unwatch you. I enjoyed your art, but the constant vegan pity tactics being shoved down my throat whenever I popped in here to check up on art got tiring.
So I think we're just going to go our separate ways :)
(FYI if someone is going to make an image against trapping/fur and isn't intending to have the message "babies are killed" in the image, perhaps they shouldn't use an image of baby foxes and include the word "family". I dunno, just a thought)
The funniest part about it is when vegans say that "not all vegans are preachy", I'm sorry but they are. It's constant guilt-tripping tactics and is the reason I had to unwatch you. I enjoyed your art, but the constant vegan pity tactics being shoved down my throat whenever I popped in here to check up on art got tiring.
So I think we're just going to go our separate ways :)
(FYI if someone is going to make an image against trapping/fur and isn't intending to have the message "babies are killed" in the image, perhaps they shouldn't use an image of baby foxes and include the word "family". I dunno, just a thought)
Okay, look. I didn't bring up Earthlings, Gary Yourofsky, or trapping. You did. I've been polite and accommodating, answering questions you posed honestly and openly.
The books I offered to send you were written by Charles Patterson, a Ph.D, historian, and author of many other books on varied topics... and Gail A. Eisnitz, the chief investigator for the Humane Farming Association, with the collaboration of slaughterhouse floor workers, USDA scientists and inspectors, and appointed government officials in both the USDA and FDA. Her work represents over two million hours of worker experience on the kill floor.
These are credible sources, and you are writing them off with a scoff and a reference to an entirely separate work from entirely different activists, and I'm the one who won't open his mind?
You "had to unwatch me" because of the "constant vegan pity tactics?" I went back three whole pages in my gallery. 36 images per page. That's over 100 images. And I found maybe three that can be termed vegan propaganda.
There's this one, and then there are these two:
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/10085874/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/9498938/
And that last one's dubiously vegan connected at best, considering the lack of description.
Stop your whining. How many pictures of people eating meat, bacon jokes, and stupid, whiny accusations of shoving my shit down peoples throats do I have to put up with before I can post 3 out of 108 images expressing my frustration?
Your whole comment is laughable. This conversation is over because you've done nothing but insult me and my beliefs, despite my being polite and open. Come back when you can discuss this without pulling red herrings out of your ass, okay?
The books I offered to send you were written by Charles Patterson, a Ph.D, historian, and author of many other books on varied topics... and Gail A. Eisnitz, the chief investigator for the Humane Farming Association, with the collaboration of slaughterhouse floor workers, USDA scientists and inspectors, and appointed government officials in both the USDA and FDA. Her work represents over two million hours of worker experience on the kill floor.
These are credible sources, and you are writing them off with a scoff and a reference to an entirely separate work from entirely different activists, and I'm the one who won't open his mind?
You "had to unwatch me" because of the "constant vegan pity tactics?" I went back three whole pages in my gallery. 36 images per page. That's over 100 images. And I found maybe three that can be termed vegan propaganda.
There's this one, and then there are these two:
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/10085874/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/9498938/
And that last one's dubiously vegan connected at best, considering the lack of description.
Stop your whining. How many pictures of people eating meat, bacon jokes, and stupid, whiny accusations of shoving my shit down peoples throats do I have to put up with before I can post 3 out of 108 images expressing my frustration?
Your whole comment is laughable. This conversation is over because you've done nothing but insult me and my beliefs, despite my being polite and open. Come back when you can discuss this without pulling red herrings out of your ass, okay?
>.>
<.<
Now that the big hubub has died down, I just want to say that I think you're a very strong person to post something like this and deal with all that bullshit up there.
Boyfriend and I have finally started talking about finding alternatives to beef. Soon, chicken. My only problem is that I have thyroid issues (thus, soy is a concern for me), and that meat is a lot cheaper in my area than the alternatives. Plus I've tried to go vegetarian before (when I was in middle school) and ended up in the hospital with my stomach being pumped, because my body just... stopped processing shit. :( Something to do with Vitamin K and leafy greens (which sucks because I LOVE salads ohmygosh), I don't remember because that was so long ago now. I know my blood-uncle had the same problem, so I'm pretty sure it's genetic.
That said, I do enjoy the taste of beef. I do. BUT there are alternatives that taste the same. Boca, for one, tastes exactly the same to me. I've even had a vegetarian friend tell me that she doesn't eat Boca because it tastes like meat. Only problem, like I said, is soy intake due to my thyroid issues. While no one tests Soy for anything (because big companies have told us IT'S SAFE, NO NEED TO TEST IT!), it has been shown to cause thyroid issues or aggravate those that already exist.
It's just really hard when meat's what you can afford personally due to locale, and you have concerns about most of the alternatives.
I'm not sure if I could ever go Vegan, but I have been watching where my animal products come from (cheese I try and get at local markets, and I can't eat eggs so that's no big deal, and I get honey locally too when it's in season from bee keepers who're trying to help raise the bee population).
<.<
Now that the big hubub has died down, I just want to say that I think you're a very strong person to post something like this and deal with all that bullshit up there.
Boyfriend and I have finally started talking about finding alternatives to beef. Soon, chicken. My only problem is that I have thyroid issues (thus, soy is a concern for me), and that meat is a lot cheaper in my area than the alternatives. Plus I've tried to go vegetarian before (when I was in middle school) and ended up in the hospital with my stomach being pumped, because my body just... stopped processing shit. :( Something to do with Vitamin K and leafy greens (which sucks because I LOVE salads ohmygosh), I don't remember because that was so long ago now. I know my blood-uncle had the same problem, so I'm pretty sure it's genetic.
That said, I do enjoy the taste of beef. I do. BUT there are alternatives that taste the same. Boca, for one, tastes exactly the same to me. I've even had a vegetarian friend tell me that she doesn't eat Boca because it tastes like meat. Only problem, like I said, is soy intake due to my thyroid issues. While no one tests Soy for anything (because big companies have told us IT'S SAFE, NO NEED TO TEST IT!), it has been shown to cause thyroid issues or aggravate those that already exist.
It's just really hard when meat's what you can afford personally due to locale, and you have concerns about most of the alternatives.
I'm not sure if I could ever go Vegan, but I have been watching where my animal products come from (cheese I try and get at local markets, and I can't eat eggs so that's no big deal, and I get honey locally too when it's in season from bee keepers who're trying to help raise the bee population).
If you can remember more specifics about that vitamin K thing, I might actually know what's up with that. I have an abnormal amount of experience with medical mumbo jumbo and veg*nism. But as I said above (which most people seem to have missed) every ounce of effort counts. So firstly, thank you for ANY effort you're putting forth.
Soy, though, is generally safe unless one has an allergy to it... but there's a catch. most of the non-organic soy products in the US (including boca) are GMO. A LOT of people react badly to GM soy, so it's very possible that has something to do with it. I know several people who have wound up hospitalized due to that exact thing.
That's actually WHY the large corporations are so hellbent on calling it safe (despite the fact that those same corporations benefit from the meat industry as well): it's patented. So they can make assloads of money off of it. NORMAL, non-GM soy is healthy and safe for most people. GM soy on the other hand ... no telling, because we're not really allowed to test it, not allowed to label it, not supposed to know it's even there.
Nasty stuff, and I'm sorry it's been a problem for you. Just more evidence that large companies like that don't have everyone's best interests in mind by any stretch of the imagination. They claim they want to feed the hungry, but they require money to do so... doesn't seem very philanthropic to me.
Like I said, I might be able to give some advice for alternate sources of nutrients that you can't get from certain things due to health issues. I'm not sure. I would never want to have anyone follow my advice without some serious medical testing and whatnot, because obviously, I can't see what's going on with your system, what problems you might have, etc. Plus, without the funds to deal with an experienced nutritionist (which is PRICEY), it's hard to know what you're doing in cases like that. and since most MDs don't know jack about nutrition, all you can get from them are details from tests to draw conclusions with yourself.
Soy, though, is generally safe unless one has an allergy to it... but there's a catch. most of the non-organic soy products in the US (including boca) are GMO. A LOT of people react badly to GM soy, so it's very possible that has something to do with it. I know several people who have wound up hospitalized due to that exact thing.
That's actually WHY the large corporations are so hellbent on calling it safe (despite the fact that those same corporations benefit from the meat industry as well): it's patented. So they can make assloads of money off of it. NORMAL, non-GM soy is healthy and safe for most people. GM soy on the other hand ... no telling, because we're not really allowed to test it, not allowed to label it, not supposed to know it's even there.
Nasty stuff, and I'm sorry it's been a problem for you. Just more evidence that large companies like that don't have everyone's best interests in mind by any stretch of the imagination. They claim they want to feed the hungry, but they require money to do so... doesn't seem very philanthropic to me.
Like I said, I might be able to give some advice for alternate sources of nutrients that you can't get from certain things due to health issues. I'm not sure. I would never want to have anyone follow my advice without some serious medical testing and whatnot, because obviously, I can't see what's going on with your system, what problems you might have, etc. Plus, without the funds to deal with an experienced nutritionist (which is PRICEY), it's hard to know what you're doing in cases like that. and since most MDs don't know jack about nutrition, all you can get from them are details from tests to draw conclusions with yourself.
I was basically just told "lol, you need to eat meat" so I went with that and never had a problem again. :\ So while I'd like to switch to vegetarian at least, I'm a bit... cautious, I guess? Due to that experience. Stomach pumping is most definitely NOT fun. :( Then again, I was also like 12, in a small southern (read: ignorant) town. You know, the kind that blames victims for being raped, and won't allow them to leave the mental wing of the hospital until they admit it was their fault.
I don't remember much about the vitamin K thing. I know that if I eat too many leafy greens, my body stops processing food and it basically sits and rots in my stomach.
Now, my thyroid... I should be on medication for it. I really should. But I do NOT have insurance, and I can most certainly not afford the monthly testing and medication I would need. When I was last tested, I needed a full milligram (thyroid medication typically only comes in micrograms) because my body's TSH was FIVE TIMES the amount it should have been. Thus, without the medication, I am very very leery of anything that could possibly affect it, and knowing that some studies had linked soy with aggravation of thyroid issues, I've tried my best to stay away. And so, being unable to afford that stuff, unable to afford healthy meat alternatives, I doubt I can afford a nutritionist. ._.
I don't remember much about the vitamin K thing. I know that if I eat too many leafy greens, my body stops processing food and it basically sits and rots in my stomach.
Now, my thyroid... I should be on medication for it. I really should. But I do NOT have insurance, and I can most certainly not afford the monthly testing and medication I would need. When I was last tested, I needed a full milligram (thyroid medication typically only comes in micrograms) because my body's TSH was FIVE TIMES the amount it should have been. Thus, without the medication, I am very very leery of anything that could possibly affect it, and knowing that some studies had linked soy with aggravation of thyroid issues, I've tried my best to stay away. And so, being unable to afford that stuff, unable to afford healthy meat alternatives, I doubt I can afford a nutritionist. ._.
I wish I had the willpower to go full vegan. I'm working on it, though! My major issue is that I eat out a lot, because I don't have time to sit and plan out ingredients for big meals - so I end up with stuff that's quick to make at home which is rarely vegan due to my food usually feeding 2 other people who are picky as heck and non-veg*n and of course fast food sucks in general for trying to eat vegan. I'm pretty lucky I managed to find a few places that have veg options, still not ideal though.
ramble ramble basically thanks for making these sorts of submissions, it really gives me the motivation to continue being vegetarian and to continue to work on being vegan.
ramble ramble basically thanks for making these sorts of submissions, it really gives me the motivation to continue being vegetarian and to continue to work on being vegan.
I know exactly what you mean. Eating out at all here is a pain. I think there are a total of two places with vegan entres in town that aren't just "salad." It's my dream to open a vegan restaurant but since I suck with managing money, that'll probably never happen. ahaha.
I usually wind up making something that's good warm OR cold (spinach pasta has been my recent favorite) and just eat leftovers rather than fast food... or fruit. I eat a lot of dates.
but thank you for the compliments! I appreciate it.
I usually wind up making something that's good warm OR cold (spinach pasta has been my recent favorite) and just eat leftovers rather than fast food... or fruit. I eat a lot of dates.
but thank you for the compliments! I appreciate it.
oh! you might also look into this: http://ble.at/coming-soon
social network for vegans to share information, and I bet a lot of that will be about small, local vegan restaurants... at least I HOPE so.
social network for vegans to share information, and I bet a lot of that will be about small, local vegan restaurants... at least I HOPE so.
Awesome, thank you! The places near me that serve vegan stuff are Roly Poly (their custom sandwiches can be made vegan and I think like 4/5 of their soups are vegan including an amazing mushroom soup) and the others are just like normal places like McD's and Burger King but with veggie patty options. I still feel weird if I order there because they fry everything in fat >_> Denny's has veg burger options too but I really dislike the brand they use. Not bad if someone drags you along to Denny's though.
If there were an Asian food store I'd be set because I used to go to a Buddhist temple that served only vegan dishes on Sundays and they taught me how to make some, like a cold vinegar-y seaweed soup and every type of kimchee under the sun. BUT ALAS.
Accurate representation of South Carolina dining options: http://www.furaffinity.net/view/9892960/
If there were an Asian food store I'd be set because I used to go to a Buddhist temple that served only vegan dishes on Sundays and they taught me how to make some, like a cold vinegar-y seaweed soup and every type of kimchee under the sun. BUT ALAS.
Accurate representation of South Carolina dining options: http://www.furaffinity.net/view/9892960/
I'm grateful to the animal for what he or she provided, but I'm still going to eat. I don't think I'm a superior species, but you're acting as if we're the most inferior. Simply calling us monsters is not going help your cause, and will probably make it worse. I have nothing against vegans, but those who force their opinions on others are scum.
You made a strawman, plain and simple. You labeled us all as greedy, pompous sadists who value ourselves more than anything. Ever adopt a dog who was 6 hours from being euthanized because high kill shelters are still legal in the south and you were saving the dog? Ever adopt a feral kitten who lost his mother and was barely old enough to be weaned off of milk, only to have him survive to this day? Ever buy poultry as a pet you treat like family? How about adopting a 13-year-old dog with one year to live because of cancer, to have him die in his sleep, making happy snorting sounds because he wasn't alone?
Medically I have to eat meat to survive. I'm allergic to any substitutes I have found, and found out the hard way after going vegetarian for two weeks, only to break out in hives and almost die. I'm grateful to the animal who gave its life for mine. I consider the animal that died to be heroic in a way.
You made a strawman, plain and simple. You labeled us all as greedy, pompous sadists who value ourselves more than anything. Ever adopt a dog who was 6 hours from being euthanized because high kill shelters are still legal in the south and you were saving the dog? Ever adopt a feral kitten who lost his mother and was barely old enough to be weaned off of milk, only to have him survive to this day? Ever buy poultry as a pet you treat like family? How about adopting a 13-year-old dog with one year to live because of cancer, to have him die in his sleep, making happy snorting sounds because he wasn't alone?
Medically I have to eat meat to survive. I'm allergic to any substitutes I have found, and found out the hard way after going vegetarian for two weeks, only to break out in hives and almost die. I'm grateful to the animal who gave its life for mine. I consider the animal that died to be heroic in a way.
Where did I call anyone a monster? You're making me out to be a screaming nitwit. Perhaps you could read some of the sources I've cited above, before jumping to a conclusion that is entirely false?
I've adopted and rescued and rehomed dozens of dogs, cats, and other animals, including barnyard and "exotic" animals. Mice, rats, gerbils, ferrets, chinchillas, rabbits, mini horses, pot bellied pigs, chickens, budgies, reptiles, fish... so step off your high horse and quit acting like a saint because you saved some critters. Congratulations, you meet the minimum standard for being a decent human being.
There is a difference in "forcing your opinions on others" and posting an image with a description that pisses people off. You found this. You came here. You replied. I didn't come hounding you into it. As I said above: I have posted 3 images of the last 108 that could even be considered vegan themed in any way. People submit images of themselves eating bacon and burgers and chicken strips daily, and I don't go seeking trouble with them. Quit whining.
I eat fruits, veggies, grains, nuts, seeds, legumes, etc. I eat no meat substitutes. Do you mind me asking what allergies you have? If it's soy, yes. You'll have to avoid soy. I know plenty of vegans with soy allergies. Nut ones too. There are a ton of vegans who are allergic to tree nuts, peanuts, soy... strawberries, corn, gluten... still able to go vegan.
I'm not writing off your health issues, because I don't know what trouble you have. If you'd like to discuss it in a sane and non-defensive manner, I'm perfectly willing.
Finally, the reason vegans are so adamant about this is because there are lives at stake. Lives that go through countless painful torturous treatments, abused and neglected and sick, and then we kill them, and it's not necessary to do this in any way. My morality rests solidly on the idea that unnecessarily causing pain is cruel and that killing for anything other than survival or self defense is wrong. Since it's been proven humans do not need meat in their diets to survive, killing other animals to eat them is unnecessary.
It's not like we're just throwing a tantrum over you doing something we don't like. Don't think we're self centered enough to want this just to get our way... it's about the animals. Not us.
I've adopted and rescued and rehomed dozens of dogs, cats, and other animals, including barnyard and "exotic" animals. Mice, rats, gerbils, ferrets, chinchillas, rabbits, mini horses, pot bellied pigs, chickens, budgies, reptiles, fish... so step off your high horse and quit acting like a saint because you saved some critters. Congratulations, you meet the minimum standard for being a decent human being.
There is a difference in "forcing your opinions on others" and posting an image with a description that pisses people off. You found this. You came here. You replied. I didn't come hounding you into it. As I said above: I have posted 3 images of the last 108 that could even be considered vegan themed in any way. People submit images of themselves eating bacon and burgers and chicken strips daily, and I don't go seeking trouble with them. Quit whining.
I eat fruits, veggies, grains, nuts, seeds, legumes, etc. I eat no meat substitutes. Do you mind me asking what allergies you have? If it's soy, yes. You'll have to avoid soy. I know plenty of vegans with soy allergies. Nut ones too. There are a ton of vegans who are allergic to tree nuts, peanuts, soy... strawberries, corn, gluten... still able to go vegan.
I'm not writing off your health issues, because I don't know what trouble you have. If you'd like to discuss it in a sane and non-defensive manner, I'm perfectly willing.
Finally, the reason vegans are so adamant about this is because there are lives at stake. Lives that go through countless painful torturous treatments, abused and neglected and sick, and then we kill them, and it's not necessary to do this in any way. My morality rests solidly on the idea that unnecessarily causing pain is cruel and that killing for anything other than survival or self defense is wrong. Since it's been proven humans do not need meat in their diets to survive, killing other animals to eat them is unnecessary.
It's not like we're just throwing a tantrum over you doing something we don't like. Don't think we're self centered enough to want this just to get our way... it's about the animals. Not us.
That is a lot of comments and far too many thinking that murder is A-ok. -sigh-
Anyways, I'm happy to see there are other vegan furs around. Makes this feel a lot less lonely. On the other hand this means FA is now just another ground to get harassed for not killing other living beings. Not sure how feel.
Keep up the good fight! Compassion for all living creatures is not extreme!
Anyways, I'm happy to see there are other vegan furs around. Makes this feel a lot less lonely. On the other hand this means FA is now just another ground to get harassed for not killing other living beings. Not sure how feel.
Keep up the good fight! Compassion for all living creatures is not extreme!
Vegan angry demon rabbit here.
People just think with their fat fucking faces is all. *shrug*
My grandfather died of colon cancer from eating too much meat. I'm not touching that shit.
And for the record, I'm a VERY FUCKING POOR AS ALL HELL artist for a "living," and I can afford to eat vegan. I don't want to hear that "I'm too poor" bullshit...
Quit being so fucking selfish and immature towards people who choose to live by their hearts and not their fucking selfish guts. It's people like you who shame me to be human. Get a fucking life and learn a little compassion and mercy. It takes more integrity and strength of character to be merciful than to kill something that did nothing wrong to you.
And as for that "we need meat to live" bullshit, compare the digestive system of a carnivore to a human. Then, compare one of an herbivore to a human. We have the intestines of herbivores.
Peanuts and almonds have more protein than a rotting slab of carcass. True carnivorous animals eat their meat RAW. Want to be like them? Then, eat it raw.
Didn't think that'd sound good, huh?
People just think with their fat fucking faces is all. *shrug*
My grandfather died of colon cancer from eating too much meat. I'm not touching that shit.
And for the record, I'm a VERY FUCKING POOR AS ALL HELL artist for a "living," and I can afford to eat vegan. I don't want to hear that "I'm too poor" bullshit...
Quit being so fucking selfish and immature towards people who choose to live by their hearts and not their fucking selfish guts. It's people like you who shame me to be human. Get a fucking life and learn a little compassion and mercy. It takes more integrity and strength of character to be merciful than to kill something that did nothing wrong to you.
And as for that "we need meat to live" bullshit, compare the digestive system of a carnivore to a human. Then, compare one of an herbivore to a human. We have the intestines of herbivores.
Peanuts and almonds have more protein than a rotting slab of carcass. True carnivorous animals eat their meat RAW. Want to be like them? Then, eat it raw.
Didn't think that'd sound good, huh?
Ever read, perchance, Carol Adams's The Sexual Politics of Meat? Convinced me to minimize my meat consumption (I haven't bought meat for myself outside of very infrequent eating out, and even then I select tofu or veggies if possible) and pricks my conscience every time I eat dairy.
No, but it's been on my "to read" list for a long, long time... I keep forgetting what's on it and just buying whatever I happen to find on sale when I go book shopping. Given that I might have more time to read soon, I think I'll bump that one to the top of my list. Thanks for the reminder/recommendation.
No problem! A warning, just in case (though it doesn't seem you'd need it, you can never be sure): the book contains some graphic descriptions of violence, but it makes its point powerfully.
I also saw above that you advocate human involvement and (IIRC) perhaps even meat-eating when humans have contributed to an imbalanced ecosystem (say, in order to kill off an invading species). If you're looking for a book that develops this sort of you-broke-it-you-fix-it approach in a philosophically rigorous way, I suggest Clare Palmer's "Animal Ethics in Context." :)
I also saw above that you advocate human involvement and (IIRC) perhaps even meat-eating when humans have contributed to an imbalanced ecosystem (say, in order to kill off an invading species). If you're looking for a book that develops this sort of you-broke-it-you-fix-it approach in a philosophically rigorous way, I suggest Clare Palmer's "Animal Ethics in Context." :)
Oh, I'm used to graphic descriptions of violence. I read way too many animal rights books not to be.
you know, I'm not sure how I feel about mass extermination of "pest" and invasive species, to be honest. In cases like rabbits in australia, what really needs to happen is a reintroduction of the major, large, indigenous predator there, which we cause to go extinct. Considering we're now talking about using cloning to bring back extinct species, I think thylacines would be an excellent candidate.
To put it into perspective, a part of me views the mass killing of an invasive species as I would view the mass genocide of a group of humans because they're in a geographical part of the world not their own... and since rabbits were brought to australia by human beings, it's not even like we'd be killing invaders... more like we're killing off those who were brought there accidentally and dumped.
additionally, there are plenty of invasive species that are in australia now that people aren't talking about doing this with... funny how it's the ones that are beneficial to humans (cattle grazing takes up HUGE areas of land in australia) or deemed cute (dingoes aren't native to australia, after all).
sorry to ramble, that was mostly me typing out my thoughts... I'm torn on this topic. but I will absolutely look into that book.
you know, I'm not sure how I feel about mass extermination of "pest" and invasive species, to be honest. In cases like rabbits in australia, what really needs to happen is a reintroduction of the major, large, indigenous predator there, which we cause to go extinct. Considering we're now talking about using cloning to bring back extinct species, I think thylacines would be an excellent candidate.
To put it into perspective, a part of me views the mass killing of an invasive species as I would view the mass genocide of a group of humans because they're in a geographical part of the world not their own... and since rabbits were brought to australia by human beings, it's not even like we'd be killing invaders... more like we're killing off those who were brought there accidentally and dumped.
additionally, there are plenty of invasive species that are in australia now that people aren't talking about doing this with... funny how it's the ones that are beneficial to humans (cattle grazing takes up HUGE areas of land in australia) or deemed cute (dingoes aren't native to australia, after all).
sorry to ramble, that was mostly me typing out my thoughts... I'm torn on this topic. but I will absolutely look into that book.
why people argue in topics like this? all i say is "Don't feed the troll" to some people that actually tried to reason their "why they do or dont eat meat" but egocentric people wont even look at other's people feelings or opinnons, so you should just ignore them. I personaly Like eating meat, And i'm into vore, So what can you expect? can you call my meat eating a fetish then?
I argue with people over topics like this because animals' lives are at stake. It's nothing to do with ego and everything to do with ethics.
Meat eating as a fetish is fine, but fetishization does not spare it from moral inspection. Vore in the sense that most mean is not physically possible in most real world scenarios, but if it were... would one's capability justify the act on an unwilling participant? Of course not. There are those with rape fetishes. There are those with cannibalism fetishes. There are those with homicide fetishes. That doesn't make those things okay in real life.
Meat eating as a fetish is fine, but fetishization does not spare it from moral inspection. Vore in the sense that most mean is not physically possible in most real world scenarios, but if it were... would one's capability justify the act on an unwilling participant? Of course not. There are those with rape fetishes. There are those with cannibalism fetishes. There are those with homicide fetishes. That doesn't make those things okay in real life.
To kind of clarify, you could easily recreate "meat" from plant-based matter and vore it all you want without hurting anyone. That I have no problem with. What *is* a problem is that you are taking a life to satisfy your own wants... not needs. Wants. That's the problem.
You cannot love something you kill for fun. I'm glad you "more likely eat fruits," but every single time you eat meat, you are consuming the dead and mutilated corpse of a once-living being that did not need to die. If you loved that animal, that individual or the species, you would not eat them. You would prefer them to live or prefer to spare them the torment of being born into a system that treats them like commodities.
Animal welfare does not address that the animals are autonomous, living, feeling beings with their own interests that we are treating as machines. These are products, and as long as they are allowed to be raised and sold for profit, they will continue to be money-making machines first and living creatures somewhere far down that line after "entertainment," "clothes," and "food."
We will not treat someone with proper respect if we do not view them as a someone.
Animal welfare does not address that the animals are autonomous, living, feeling beings with their own interests that we are treating as machines. These are products, and as long as they are allowed to be raised and sold for profit, they will continue to be money-making machines first and living creatures somewhere far down that line after "entertainment," "clothes," and "food."
We will not treat someone with proper respect if we do not view them as a someone.
I don't use real fur and I never had done that ever, I find Circuses boring... I am a little on the animal rights thing but it is 50/50
I don't kill animals..
I don't treat my house pets as machines
sometimes I just wished that somepeople just culd stop doing all this animal cruelty.. if there's someone being mean at animals near me I get extremly pissed of .. I wished I was more brave to just walk up to them and squirt lemon juice in their eyes..
Some people shuldn't be alowed to have nouse pets or even be near animals..
I don't kill animals..
I don't treat my house pets as machines
sometimes I just wished that somepeople just culd stop doing all this animal cruelty.. if there's someone being mean at animals near me I get extremly pissed of .. I wished I was more brave to just walk up to them and squirt lemon juice in their eyes..
Some people shuldn't be alowed to have nouse pets or even be near animals..
You don't treat your companion animals as machines, but all the animals that are eaten are treated that way. As are the animals made into leather, used for experiments (medical and otherwise), and forced to perform for entertainment purposes. Circuses that use animals are notoriously cruel, and many other countries have banned the use of animals in such places.
I don't mean to belabor the point, but the fact is, if you eat animals, you might not have slit their throats yourself, but those animals died for you. You paid the company who paid the man to do it, and without demand, this could stop. I hope it one day does, but I'm not sure if that will ever happen in my lifetime, and that breaks my heart to think about every day.
Lemon juice in the eyes is a sound idea, though. Do it quick and run! Then they can't see to catch you.
I don't mean to belabor the point, but the fact is, if you eat animals, you might not have slit their throats yourself, but those animals died for you. You paid the company who paid the man to do it, and without demand, this could stop. I hope it one day does, but I'm not sure if that will ever happen in my lifetime, and that breaks my heart to think about every day.
Lemon juice in the eyes is a sound idea, though. Do it quick and run! Then they can't see to catch you.
well, i'm against those, as well, but a lot of people frown upon that simply because they're uneducated about the actual way animals die in general. most cattle are killed by throat-slitting and blood draining that is horrific and, frankly, far more dangerous and painful than most halal methods. halal, if done correctly, is specifically supposed to reduce stress and pain on the animal; you have to understand that, historically, it was the less painful method of slaughter, because humanity lacked modern equipment with which to kill animals.
modern cattle and pigs are marched into a terrifying slaughterhouse where they watch and hear their companions die by the dozens before they face pretty much the same fate (throat slit, blood drained, dismembered), so is it really that different?
any unnecessary death is suffering. we do not need to kill animals to survive (obviously exceptions exist, ie far northern indigenous folks in north america, but i'm not talking about those), so killing them is cruel in itself. they don't want to die; why do we get to decide that doesn't matter?
modern cattle and pigs are marched into a terrifying slaughterhouse where they watch and hear their companions die by the dozens before they face pretty much the same fate (throat slit, blood drained, dismembered), so is it really that different?
any unnecessary death is suffering. we do not need to kill animals to survive (obviously exceptions exist, ie far northern indigenous folks in north america, but i'm not talking about those), so killing them is cruel in itself. they don't want to die; why do we get to decide that doesn't matter?
Comments