I appreciate the effort you put into responding to my post. http://veg.ca/content/view/133/111/ is the main article I'm sourcing in my argument for the sustainability of a plant based diet vs that of a meat based one.
The question of "how much time/investment would be required to expand grain production to a level that could feed the entire world" isn't one I can answer. I have no idea what a farm costs, or what a factory that process' grain costs.
My argument isn't entirely based off of solving the entire planet's food problem. Instead, I'm suggesting that the production of meat is all-together dramatically wasteful. I'm saying that we could feed more people with the same fields we have now if 77% (here in Canada) of our grain wasn't fed to animals, who in turn can offer humanity only a pittance of the energy we put into them, the only benefit they offer being enhanced product flavor. That said, it's a medical fact that the human body can get all the nutrition it needs (even those pesky B vitamins and Omega Fatty Acids) through a fortified vegetable diet.
The US government buys over 6 billion dollars of corn per year, through subsidies, of which almost 70% is fed to livestock. Corn is the most subsidized crop in the US, mostly because it is feed to animals, which as I've said, are inherently wasteful when used for human nourishment. Subsidies also create an artificially low price for the export of agricultural goods, which can hurt developing nations who, without the aid of domestic subsidies, can't match the price of imported food from first world countries. This means that third world countries are forced to buy food from the West, rather than growing it themselves.
I haven't tried field corn. I imagine it's probably about as bad as you make it sound. Still, I believe my argument holds sound. I'm interested to hear what you think though.
When Im hungry I have to eat food so I can survive. My ancestors ate meat to survive. Meat is just fucking tasty. My NATURAL instinct to survive drives me to eat meat, there is nothing wrong in killing things to eat them. The ethics of killing something the right way is to me also stupid but usually the most humane way to BREED and to KILL is the one that makes the meat more tasteful. If you have doubts about eating meat Its cause It doesn't taste good, Most industrial manufactured and produced meat sucks. My country is KNOWN for its meat and in my HUMBLE opinion most of the meat (Cow meat) in the rest of the world sucks cause its not produced as well as its produced here by naturally feeding cows grass and let them grow in a real environment, not in a polluting feedlot. My advice dont worry about killing cows for food worry about raising them well and feeding them naturally and well.
On February 10 2011 08:33 agarangu wrote:Besides, have you heard about Jaguars? The have a really cruel way of killing their prey: rather than choking them to death as most felines do, they bite their head until their cranium crash. That's just an example, there are many cases of cruelty in the animal world.
I'm sure you think you've made a marvelous point by pointing out that animals can be quite cruel to one another but for the life of me I can't see what it might be.
Cruelty is natural. We have a lot of evidence in nature that supports that. I'm not saying that it's right to be cruel, but it happens and will continue to happen whether we want it or not, unless we are willing to stop predators in nature from being cruel.
You missed my point - which is that regardless of how a jaguar kills its prey - say on an average day one million jaguars kill one million pigs. But on top of this we have one billion pigs being tortured on factory farms. It would be better for (A) one million jaguars to kill one million pigs than for (B) one million jaguars to kill one million pigs and one billion pigs suffering. A is better than B, and if we have the opportunity to reduce B then we ought to.
And why not simply feed people who are starving with the grain and other food that we produce for the purposes of producing pigs? It would be a lot more economically and environmentally efficient. We just don't because third world environments are being destroyed simply so that cattle can be raised to feed first world countries.
On February 10 2011 12:14 Impervious wrote:
Cruelty isn't natural, predators don't kill prey with the intent to hurt them as much as possible. They're trying to kill them as fast as possible so they don't have to spend more energy on securing their prey.
Are you kidding me? Have you ever watched a cat kill a mouse? It toys with it.....
And that's far from the only example of that.....
I have cats, so yes. It's still not their intention to make the mouse suffer though. From a human perspective it's cruel, but animals don't have standards for right and wrong.
I absolutely agree with you in that it would be better if the suffering didn't happen, and we should attempt to reduce it as much as we can, even if it's impossible to stop it.
But I would not feed a human with pig food, simply because he is a human and humans have different protein requirements. It is true that they could eat what pigs eat and survive, but not without weakening their bodies, because they need meat. The fact that vegans are finding alternatives to meat proves that they do, and even if it's true that people from third world countries could live well without it, it would be a lot more expensive than simply giving them meat, I would not be more economically efficient as you said.
Cruelty isn't natural, predators don't kill prey with the intent to hurt them as much as possible. They're trying to kill them as fast as possible so they don't have to spend more energy on securing their prey. Humans are also the only creatures on Earth to judge good things from bad and as such are the only ones with an inclanation to behave differently.
For your second part, you'd really rather have people die from hunger than to give them "pigs" food? I've put "pigs" in quotes since it's really just the same ingredients that make their way into bread.
Your definition of cruelty based on intention is hilarious. Even is they don't mean to, killing some javelina by destroying their skull is cruel, and completely unnecessary since they could kill them by breaking their neck, expending less energy and with the animal felling a lot less pain.
You're saying it's hilarious, but you're not providing compelling evidence that suggests it is.
You can say that you find the jaguars' way of killing cruel, you can't however say that makes the jaguar a cruel creature, since it doesn't intend to be cruel at all. Stepping on a cats' tail by accident makes it a regrettable lack of attention, stepping on a cats' tail with the intention of hurting it makes it cruel. Knowing the consequences of an action and still going through with it, is what makes someone's intentions cruel.
On February 10 2011 12:14 Impervious wrote:
Cruelty isn't natural, predators don't kill prey with the intent to hurt them as much as possible. They're trying to kill them as fast as possible so they don't have to spend more energy on securing their prey.
Are you kidding me? Have you ever watched a cat kill a mouse? It toys with it.....
And that's far from the only example of that.....
If have cats, so yes. The cat however isn't playing with the mouse with the intent of torturing it. From a human point of view it's cruel, but right and wrong doesn't exist in the animal world.
You missed my point. You are saying that they are cruel because they have the intention of causing pain, but there's no way you could know their intentions, unless you are some kind of a mind reader (or Jesus Christ). Since you can't prove that they have the intention of causing pain, you can't use that definition of cruel. You also can't tell if casing pain makes them fell pleasure. So you can only judge their actions, and their actions are cruel just as much as cat playing with a mouse is cruel.
The image is a bit childish, especially since I've already explained in previous posts that lettuce is in no way comparable to living, breathing and thinking creatures. It seems like you've run out of useful things to say and are now just trying to provoke me. It's a pretty transparent attempt though and it isn't working.
The comparison with Jesus Christ is also very classy
Your entire argument saying that animals are intentionally cruel is baseless and pointless. You're saying that I can't read the mind of animals and as such can't prove that they're not intentionally cruel, how does that proof that they're cruel? The fact that you're implying that animals can judge their own actions as good or bad is only speaking in favor of animal rights.
Dude are you even reading what I'm writing? Please do it again before reading this + Show Spoiler +
Your entire argument saying that animals are intentionally cruel is baseless and pointless.
Are you serious?
Since you can't prove that they have the intention of causing pain, you can't use that definition of cruel. You also can't tell if casing pain makes them fell pleasure.
That means, I'm not saying that animals have the intention of causing pain. On the contrary, I'm saying that it is impossible to judge people or animals by their intentions, since there no way to know them or prove them for that matter. So, you can only judge actions or events, and it is cruel that a pig gets crushed, just like a car accident is cruel.
That's right.
And plants are living organisms as well. They reproduce, interact with the environment and even communicate when they are in danger. [I can't find the link with the study about it, I will post it when I do].
So you feel like you're killing the lettuce every time you eat one agarangu? and you have no problem with it? Because frankly your whole argument boils down to agreeing with killing vegetables.
On February 10 2011 06:22 lixlix wrote: You try to push your beliefs on to others and you wonder why you are being attacked ? I have never seen meat eaters push vegetarians to consume meat and yet I am constantly bombarded by vegetarians/vegans who criticize my way of life.
This following statement just takes the cake.
"All veganism requires is a change in diet - it does not require going out and trampling on human rights. "
are you serious? Its just a change in diet right? you realize revolutions have started over much lesser offenses on human rights such as taxation on tea and gun ownership and you think that forcing people to go vegan is not an infringement of human rights?
There is a reason specie-cism (not sure thats even a word) is not in the same league as sexism or racism. Animals are not human. What are you going to implement next? you going to have some horses run the 100 meters or kangaroos doing the long jump?
Its not that animal rights don't matter, its that they don't matter as much as my human rights. An animal's right to not get killed is not as important as my right to grill its filet in butter made from its milk.
Dude what are you talking about? Since when did he say he advocated forcing people to go vegan? He never mentioned anything like that. He isn't saying we need to "implement" anything. And, although this is irrelevant, for what its worth i have heard lots of meat eaters pushing vegetarians to eat meat, saying things like "you don't know what you're missing" etc. But like i said that isn't what this article was about at all, you need to read a little more carefully. And you took that quote completely out of context, that statement--
"All veganism requires is a change in diet - it does not require going out and trampling on human rights"
was referring to people who say "we shouldn't care about the treatment of animals until every last human is treated well first".
He also wasn't really referring to animal "rights" per se, obviously animals are guaranteed very few or no rights under the law, depending on the country. The point i think was more about supporting at least somewhat ethical treatment of animals. And i don't really see how being opposed to the unnecessarily cruel treatment of animals equates to thinking they are either equal to humans or that they should act like humans and participate in track meets?
I just realized i sound exactly like Lincoln did arguing for the abolition of slavery while saying that the nergro was undeniably inferior to the white man and did not by any means deserve any semblance of equal rights under the law. However, Lincoln did maintain that they were just intelligent enough to deserve the absolute most basic level of rights, just enough rights to make slavery unethical. Its really the exact same language.
The comparison isn't that valid but its interesting to think about how throughout history there have been countless accounts of a direct inverse relationship in the quality of treatment and/or amount rights one deserves and their perceived level of intelligence. And also how the distinction of species skews that whole perception. There are people vehemently against aborting a 4 day old 10 cell embryo that has as much brain function or awareness as a rock just because it technically has human DNA. Yet many of those people have no problems eating a steak that was produced by the killing of a living, breathing, sensing, suffering animal. The topic of opposition to euthanasia poses a similar comparison.
I am an unapologetic meat eater but there are few things in the world i hate more than factory farming.
On February 11 2011 12:17 Cloud wrote: So you feel like you're killing the lettuce every time you eat one agarangu? and you have no problem with it? Because frankly your whole argument boils down to agreeing with killing vegetables.
Come on dude. Really?
I watched the video, and yet today I ate ham at dinner. And I have no problem with that. Why would I be concerned with the killing of a vegetable?
You vegans, on the other hand, feel so bad about animal killing and still you eat plants. I don't know, maybe because plants don't scream. You dare to judge and criticize people who eat meat as murderers, while you take the life away from innocent plants that help the environment so much. Growing plants with the sole purpose of selling them as food. Most of this plant are not healthy because of the dirty water farmers use to irrigate them, or the lack of water when this farmers get lazy. They are grown in terrain that is infested with insects, and they use chemicals on the plants that damage their leaves. Some of this plants have even been experimented with, in order to create new species. Those vegetables that survive this painful* process get to be in your kitchen (and mine).
Now tell me, is this different from what is shown in the video? How?
And I want to make clear that I eat plants and animal, and don't fell bad about it. Both could be treated better than they are, but if I don't eat ether of them I will die.
Feeding livestock pollutes the environment in so many ways and so massively it's almost comical. So those innocent plants that livestock eat aren't helping the world so much. Equaling plant pain to animal pain is an ignorant idea. Animals obviously feel pain orders of magnitude more than plants because of their much better developed survival mechanisms, and if you're equaling plants with animals so hurriedly, why don't you equal people with the rest of the animals too? Maybe it's ok to kill people too. The "x always try to impose their beliefs on us" argument is so cliché and is present in both sides of any discussion.
Funny how you not only assumed that I'm a vegetarian, but also a vegan.
On February 11 2011 10:54 Lexpar wrote: I appreciate the effort you put into responding to my post. http://veg.ca/content/view/133/111/ is the main article I'm sourcing in my argument for the sustainability of a plant based diet vs that of a meat based one.
The question of "how much time/investment would be required to expand grain production to a level that could feed the entire world" isn't one I can answer. I have no idea what a farm costs, or what a factory that process' grain costs.
My argument isn't entirely based off of solving the entire planet's food problem. Instead, I'm suggesting that the production of meat is all-together dramatically wasteful. I'm saying that we could feed more people with the same fields we have now if 77% (here in Canada) of our grain wasn't fed to animals, who in turn can offer humanity only a pittance of the energy we put into them, the only benefit they offer being enhanced product flavor. That said, it's a medical fact that the human body can get all the nutrition it needs (even those pesky B vitamins and Omega Fatty Acids) through a fortified vegetable diet.
The US government buys over 6 billion dollars of corn per year, through subsidies, of which almost 70% is fed to livestock. Corn is the most subsidized crop in the US, mostly because it is feed to animals, which as I've said, are inherently wasteful when used for human nourishment. Subsidies also create an artificially low price for the export of agricultural goods, which can hurt developing nations who, without the aid of domestic subsidies, can't match the price of imported food from first world countries. This means that third world countries are forced to buy food from the West, rather than growing it themselves.
I haven't tried field corn. I imagine it's probably about as bad as you make it sound. Still, I believe my argument holds sound. I'm interested to hear what you think though.
The problem with your argument is it assumes that you can just transport food being given to animals straight over to people, which you really can't. You can't throw a bunch of corn/soy/wheat at the wall and call it a day. The problem with your assertion is that consuming field corn isn't 1:1 - you have to process it, package it, etc, which reduces the efficiency. I think if we start looking at the total cost from farm -> doorstep of producing cereals and stuff, we'd find that it's not really that far off of manufacturing costs of producing meats dependent on your location ( i.e. obviously more efficient in the midwest compared to alaska ).
In my opinion, I think corn is subsidized to keep costs down because we still actually overproduce compared to our usage - but that's a totally different topic :-\
As far as your nutritional point, it's demonstrated that a balanced diet of primarily fruits and vegetables alongside a fair amount of meat products is substantially more healthy and less costly than all alternatives. None of vegan, fast-food, or entirely meat-driven diets are actually that great for you. All of those things require vast amounts of supplements to maintain a steady diet - supplements which are expensive to produce and purchase plus not exactly widely available to everyone.
Regardless, I think elements of your argument have merit but you take it too far. You're ignoring the total cost of producing products that still require large amounts of manufacturing to remain safe and desirable. I'd agree if you said something like "We should reduce the production of meat by 20% because we're over-saturating markets" but when you're saying "We shouldn't produce meat at all" then I think you're just going too far.
Moderation is really the best choice here. I eat fast foods here & there, but primarily do my shopping in stores I know produce meats and vegetables up to high standards, including not using factory farms. I also pay nearly twice the price of both compared to just shopping at my local Albertson's - even the veggies are insanely high priced :-\.
The moment humans, as a species, start showing too much compassion to all other life forms, is the moment we start going extinct. I'm glad most people are not overzealous vegans with misplaced affections.
Also, as someone who claims that animals should be treated without discrimination, where do you draw the line? Is it o.k. to swat mosquitoes yet abject immorality to kill a cow? Is the use of disinfectants immoral? Where do you draw the line? Why? And if you draw a line, isn't that just blatant hypocrisy?
Also, personally, I will continue eating animals for the rest of my life because: 1. In moderation, they are a convenient source of good nutrition, and 2. They can't do jack shit about it.
On February 11 2011 14:47 Cloud wrote: Feeding livestock pollutes the environment in so many ways and so massively it's almost comical. So those innocent plants that livestock eat aren't helping the world so much. Equaling plant pain to animal pain is an ignorant idea. Animals obviously feel pain orders of magnitude more than plants because of their much better developed survival mechanisms, and if you're equaling plants with animals so hurriedly, why don't you equal people with the rest of the animals too? Maybe it's ok to kill people too. The "x always try to impose their beliefs on us" argument is so cliché and is present in both sides of any discussion.
Funny how you not only assumed that I'm a vegetarian, but also a vegan.
Ps. You won't die if you don't eat animals.
Plants absorb carbon dioxide from the environment and produce O2. You can see how the world is so polluted, now imagine if there were no plants. So plants help the environment, a lot.
And I didn't say plants feel as much pain as animals do. I said plants feel pain. That's it. Now, maybe you want to establish an arbitrary parameter to decide how much pain is it fair for an organism to feel in order to classify which being to kill, and which not to. On the other hand, I don't think it is arbitrary to decide to preserve your own specie.
And you are right, even if my reply wasn't only directed to you I did assume you were a vegetarian and a vegan. Sorry about that.
I don´t want you to waste your time writing a reply while you don´t get what I mean, so I will be clear about it. I´m in favor of eating plants and animals, and against eating humans.
"STFU, how dare you tell me I can't eat meat!? You are arrogant and are pretending to be better than me. You eat vegetables so you're a murderer!"
I will stop responding to these posts since it's no use replying to them. I've already explained that the OP brings up rational arguments for not eating meat, yet is in no way forcing his beliefs upon others. He has also in no way implied he was a better person for not eating meat.
As such all post criticizing vegans for being pretentious hypocrits are useless and needlessly insulting. Ridiculisation of their beliefs by saying plants have feelings too and as such they shouldn't eat anything, is unwanted and unwarranted. If you like eating meat and don't feel guilty for doing so, that's fine. Just don't come into a rational thread pretending you're being pushed into beliefs or that OP is just posting this thread to gloat over having moral high-ground.
@agarangu:
You in particular have proven to be immune to all forms of logic. You're doing everything in your power to paint vegans as pretentious hypocrits that are harassing you to stop eating meat. You even adress them as "you vegans" like they're an evil faction conspiring against you. Your arguments have become so irrational that I'm having a hard time believing that you're not a troll, but maybe you've just been heavily traumatized as a kid, when some zombie vegans sieged your house with lettuce.
I've already explained that the OP brings up rational arguments for not eating meat, yet is in no way forcing his beliefs upon others. He has also in no way implied he was a better person for not eating meat.
I think when he related eating meat to being sexist or racist, there may possibly have been some implication of insinuation that people who eat meat are not good people. Maybe.
I think I made and deleted three posts trying to respond to this thread, before finally grasping how futile it is. So instead I will pick on you.
On February 12 2011 04:23 Saechiis wrote: Why does 90% of posts here come down to:
"STFU, how dare you tell me I can't eat meat!? You are arrogant and are pretending to be better than me. You eat vegetables so you're a murderer!"
I will stop responding to these posts since it's no use replying to them. I've already explained that the OP brings up rational arguments for not eating meat, yet is in no way forcing his beliefs upon others. He has also in no way implied he was a better person for not eating meat.
As such all post criticizing vegans for being pretentious hypocrits are useless and needlessly insulting. Ridiculisation of their beliefs by saying plants have feelings too and as such they shouldn't eat anything, is unwanted and unwarranted. If you like eating meat and don't feel guilty for doing so, that's fine. Just don't come into a rational thread pretending you're being pushed into beliefs or that OP is just posting this thread to gloat over having moral high-ground.
@agarangu:
You in particular have proven to be immune to all forms of logic. You're doing everything in your power to paint vegans as pretentious hypocrits that are harassing you to stop eating meat. You even adress them as "you vegans" like they're an evil faction conspiring against you. Your arguments have become so irrational that I'm having a hard time believing that you're not a troll, but maybe you've just been heavily traumatized as a kid, when some zombie vegans sieged your house with lettuce.
@Saechiis:
You wrote a lot of stuff about me in your last post, without any kind of an argument.
You in particular have proven to be immune to all forms of logic.
Really? When did that happen? What facts did you observe to reach that conclusion?
You're doing everything in your power to paint vegans as pretentious hypocrits that are harassing you to stop eating meat. You even adress them as "you vegans" like they're an evil faction conspiring against you.
I will admit this is fun to read, even if it's an enormous assumption. So, I wrote "you vegans" and you read "you evil pretentious hypocrite conspirators who eat plants". Here I want to stop a little. All of the arguments that I've used here are not meant to make vegetarians look like hypocrites. I'm just trying to explain to you the facts that lead me to believe that eating an animal is just like eating a plant and that there's nothing wrong with that. And I've been defending my belief due to the replays.
Your arguments have become so irrational that I'm having a hard time believing that you're not a troll
I'd be willing to show you the reasoning behind my arguments if you can point out why are they irrational. If you don't, I'll understand that this was just something you wrote.
but maybe you've just been heavily traumatized as a kid, when some zombie vegans sieged your house with lettuce.
You should have your own comedy show, like in youtube or something, because let's face it, you are extremely talented when it comes to make people laugh.+ Show Spoiler +
I'm all for meat in general, and most of the time it's fine. I think its kinda gay for certain animals though, like pigs.
For example, in all cattle farms in ireland cows/cattle are left out for most of the year, except for the winter and the youngest who don't go out into the fields until they are pretty big. I can guarantee you these cattle life far more stress free and happy lives than humans do, and then instant death isn't too nice but its a very small percentage of an overall happy life. I understand that it's popular in america to cut the grass and leave the cattle in all day though, which I think is gay.
Pigs here, however, are kept indoors all the time to reduce loss of heat to surrounding and they just feed feed feed until they die. That's not very cool to them. Same thing with some chicken farms, free range is great but the indoors stuff sucks.
Dying is natural, so I don't care about killing animals, raising them in captivity and closed environments sucks ass though I wish it didn't happen.
On February 12 2011 05:25 Slayer91 wrote: I'm all for meat in general, and most of the time it's fine. I think its kinda gay for certain animals though, like pigs.
For example, in all cattle farms in ireland cows/cattle are left out for most of the year, except for the winter and the youngest who don't go out into the fields until they are pretty big. I can guarantee you these cattle life far more stress free and happy lives than humans do, and then instant death isn't too nice but its a very small percentage of an overall happy life. I understand that it's popular in america to cut the grass and leave the cattle in all day though, which I think is gay.
Pigs here, however, are kept indoors all the time to reduce loss of heat to surrounding and they just feed feed feed until they die. That's not very cool to them. Same thing with some chicken farms, free range is great but the indoors stuff sucks.
Dying is natural, so I don't care about killing animals, raising them in captivity and closed environments sucks ass though I wish it didn't happen.
You should consider not using the word "gay" like that... I know what you mean but it feels like I'm reading a 12 year old's opinion which has been proof read by his mom.
Man, there's nothing negatively aristocratic about an intelligent debate. I can't speak for anyone else, but I come form a single income family and have gone to public schools my entire life.
On February 12 2011 06:30 Slayer91 wrote: Big words don't make you intelligent. It's just literary elitism.
It's easier to paint a picture when you have more colors of the rainbow at your disposal.
@agarangu I think this question was posed to you already but I didn't see an answer. Why is it that you find plants and animals to be similar enough that eating either is fine, but eating a human is not?
EPT![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/qF6kn.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/vVvdw.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/0AEmH.jpg)
