On February 09 2011 16:37 Sotamursu wrote: To be honest they can torture those animals twice as harder, if the quality of the meat stays good and it ups production. No one still has told me why I should give a flying fuck about farm animals. Just use the most efficient method which maximizes quality, if animals suffer because of it, well tough shit.
Going vegan makes you more healthy? You can be an omnivore and stay healthy. If all you eat is 12 hamburgers and 5 pizzas a day, it doesn't matter what diet you start to follow. Of course you will lose weight and be healthier.
You should give a fuck because of that thing called empathy. Your reaction indicates that you are either sociopath or playing a tough guy. Hopefully the latter.
So you make a massive lifestyle choice based on feeling sorry for some animals you saw in a video? Ok.
Did I say anything about lifestyle choices ? I reacted to you saying you don't give a fuck if animal is tortured or suffers.
It's pretty easy to justify veganism, if you can argue that you should care about animals. There's pretty much no other good reason to be a vegan. I assumed you're a vegan and you probably watched some of these vegan propaganda videos which influenced your decision. I'm making generalizations here, so if you aren't a vegan just ignore this.
I am definitely not I dislike vegans, more specifically vegans that keep their children on vegan diet. I am happy eating meat. Eating meat has nothing to do with not having empathy with animal suffering.
On February 09 2011 17:44 alurlol wrote: Mice are vermin, that's completely different from killing a large animal, don't kid yourself.
Interesting. Where's the boundary between what is killable and what is not? Size?
Vermin are a nuisance, it's got nothing to do with size, they are animals yes but small animals which cause a problem, this is why you will find exterminators for places they prove to be a problem. If my cat brings back a dead mouse I'm not going to lose sleep, if it's still alive I'll attempt to put it back in the wild, because that's just what you should do.
However, trying to say killing vermin is the same as killing a large farm animal is wrong, as it's not the same thing, especially if they were gassed, there's no physical attribute involved in that.
Then it should be okay to gas farm animals, yeh? Man, hear yourself talk, there's no difference in killing a mice or a pig, both are animals. You preach one thing and in the next turn completely ignore it. I don't think this kind of argument is helping you a lot in fending for your cause..
I'm just answering the question as it's been asked, you deny there being a difference but there is, can you really tell me you'd kill a mice as non hesitantly as a cow? And also how am I preaching anything, by that logic everyone in this damn topic is preaching something, I'm just stating my opinion.
The mice bothers me, so I would kill it. The cow gives me food, so I would kill it.
It's the same for me, yes.
Edit: It doesn't matter so much which animal it is, as it matters what relationship you have to it. I'd never be able to kill my cat, since I lived together with it for quite some time now. And I'd never be able to kill a cow that I developed a personal bond with, as I wouldn't kill my own pet mouse. As the saying goes, you don't kill something with a name.
mo it's ok to eat animals if you have to survive, but saying, "Getting rid of slaughterhouses and corporations like Mcdonalds only hurts the poorest of people in the world." is completely wrong.
Meat products require FAR more natural resources than their vegetarian analogues (dam you entropy) and hence if we stop producing meat products there is FAR more food to be sold around the world thus helping prevent starvation. (I'm sorry I can't quote any real figures here but they are there if you look them up).
While from a completely rational viewpoint this makes sense, from a logistic standpoint, as well as realistic standpoint, you are wrong. Rich countries in the west like meat, we make a lot of meat, and we like vegetables, and we make a lot of vegetables. We just make a lot of food in general. Now, you aren't complaining about veggies. You are complaining about meat, which we make a lot of. We make so much meat, that we actually export some of this meat to developing countries. By limiting demand, or to be more inclusive and direct, by hurting supply/suppliers, you lessen how much meat we export.
Now in a perfect world we wouldn't waste the food on our plates, and mail it to Africa. But there are huge logistic issues, as well as health, issues with that. All in all, we have a surplus, and we can export our meat, made cheap by popular demand, to poor people.
Furthermore cattle is one of the world's leading green house gas emitters so if we stop producing them we lower our total greenhouse emissions.
If you want to have an argument about the farts of farm animals leading to the destruction of the world, then go for it. But don't derail this argument by changing subjects. I may agree with you on this one, but it's off topic to say the least.
Finally, if you went to India instead of Africa you'd probably think that meat is something only the wealthy can afford, so your claim that vegeterianism is spawned from wealth is totally wrong.
It's not necessarily meat, or vegetarianism, that I am saying is for the poor/rich. A huge redux of what I am saying is that by limiting economy, you can hurt poor people far away - in essence, globalization, and the narrow viewpoint held by those who think that their actions have no impact on others, particularly when it comes to sectors of the economy. My point of view of extreme veganism like PETA is the same as my point of view against monopolies, and against simple, neighborhood vandals. When your goal is to hurt a sector of the economy, the damage can hurt the livelihood of others, sometimes people who are extremely sensitive to such damages. I would say the same thing if there was a radical meat-only group who's goal was to destroy the crops of international agricultural giants. Many countries don't have the choice to pick and choose between meat and vegetables, and these two goods are often interchangeable in poor societies, so raising the price of one leads to a rise in the price of the other (complementary goods).
And while I haven't been to India, I have been to Hindu societies, and poor Hindus eat meat too. I think you are referring to beef, but the poster wasn't saying don't eat beef he was saying don't eat meat. However, I don't expect you to know this and poor people in Hindu countries eat meat, eat vegeatbles, eat whatever they can afford, just like poor people everywhere.
EDIT: ps. are u serious when you say "McDonald's is a considerably source of sustenance for a populace that lives on pennies a day" ? From the top to the bottom your arguments are wrong in my opinion. That there is no such thing as vegetarianism in poor countries is because people struggle to get by, and the can't afford to eat meat every day. And the problem as described in this video is the mass caging and mass slaughter in modern slaughterhouses. This crass cruelty that animals are treated worse than anything you would wish your worst enemy. If people eat meat like it's something special, maybe every other week or so... it would just be awesome.
To make it clearer, in many countries McDonalds is a luxury. In poor areas in America, it is a major source of sustanence (contributes greatly to health problems but at least they eat, and they do pick it for a reason). I know this because I've traveled (more than once I was told the best restaurant in town was McDonalds).
Eating less meat does not hurt the poorest - it helps them. Producing meat requires unbelievable amounts of soil (and water, at that) in order to get the amount of forage required. And that drives the prices for staple foods like grain, rice, and vegetables up, up and up. Which hurts the poorest of people. If there wouldn't be such a giant demand for forage, there would also be less ground water poisoning because of less fertilization with poisonous chemicals.
As I mentioned above, it's a logistic issue. Rich countries make a surplus of meat, poor countries benefit from the surplus through international trade. If rich countries stopped eating so much meat, poor countries do not have an import for cheap food. Ideally, the most efficient thing would be for everyone to eat rice/maize (depending on geographical location) but that would not provide enough nutrients, even for vegans. The fact of the matter is life is inefficient, yet running an inefficient system of meats like kobe beef somehow leads to a rise in the standard of living. People need rich, excessive foods, even if to give them more reason to make more money, to be more productive, even if the reason is so stupid to take a girl out for a fancy dinner in a materialistic society. And while materialism may be the cause of a loss of spirituality in our world today, that man driving a lamborghini in my city who just made national news by beating up his famous pop-star singer girlfriend is driving many in my country to spend more money, to work longer hours, and to make better things, sometimes unnecessary, and sometimes very necessary.
And McDonald's is not a sustenance for a populace that lives on pennies a day. Nowhere. That doesn't make any sense. Where the hell did you come up with that?
Take a drive through the ghetto, actually, but many people rely on mcdonalds. Maybe a bit dramatic what I said - to be clear, in poor countries it is a luxurious place to eat where luxury does not exist, and for rich countries it may be a way for the kids to be fed when they cant do so otherwise, as easily, so they have more time, and a better standard of living if there were no mcdonalds.
You might say that you will not change your lifestyle and eating habits, but at least give vegetarians credit and don't mock / bash on them. I like meat. I love meat. But by not eating it, I contribute to making this world a better place, for reasons above.
I don't mind vegetarians, or vegans, and I actually believe they live a much healthier lifestyle than I do (nevermind I'm a smoker). But I don't eat to be healthy (I'm quite healthy as it is, and I don't eat unhealthiy, ie no fast food, snacks, or junk food, but I do drink a lot of milk and eat a lot of meat), and I do realize the importance of overconsumption in western societies. I'm an economist (with a degree to prove it) and I've traveled much of the world, and have seen what the excess in our country has done for other countries - great things. Our unending thirst for oil props up entire continents, our love of junk food gives luxury where none exists, and our fast cars are a means for transnational transportation where horseback dominated. Being vegan is fine, but groups like PETA turn a lifestyle choice into an aggressive campaign that's blind to whom it hurts.
On February 09 2011 14:51 KingAce wrote: If you could actually watch the whole video with a straight face, you very well should eat meat.
I don't eat meat haven't for like 9 years now and even when I did it was just barely. It's a spiritual thing I guess. But for all you meat eaters you should seriously pay attention to what kind of meat you eat, whatever farmers do in attempts to mass produce those animals with chemicals or growth hormones etc; that stuff goes into your system. And you can't know for certain if those chemicals can give you cancer or other medical complications. I mean these days people are born with all kinds of allergies, some people aren't vegan by choice but by genetics.
The advantage of vegetarianism according to the energy pyramid; herbivores get more energy than carnivores, because plants have the most amount of energy.
i couldn't keep a straight face, but i don't think i can make the lifestyle change - or care to sacrifice taste in the name of animals.
energy pyramid? link to said pyramid? sounds like some bullshit to me if they're teaching you that plants "have the most amount of energy" although i'm not even sure what you even mean by that. are you referring to energy like calories or something spiritual and beyond me?
It doesn't make much sense to me until i thought about. It's a Biology thing. Basically if you eat something that eats a plant you only get a fraction of the original energy of that plant. At the bottom are plants and other things that produce their own sugars and nutrients, above that are animals that eat plants, above that are animals that eat other animals, and finally are animals that eat dead ones. Some of the energy is lost between each step(used by the previous level).I have no idea how he's connecting that to vegetarianism though. (Vegetarian btw)
i hate getting into semantics but he said that plants have the most energy? whatever that means. assuming he's referring to calories, it's still wildly inaccurate.
yeah of course energy is lost in between each step, because animals tend to use it when they eat, sleep, fuck, and shit. but since animals eat so many god damn plants (and other animals) they store up fat (energy?!) so that they can live without food for more than a few days. now, because animals eat a bunch of other plants (and animals) they have this accumulation of fat/energy/calories. pound for pound, animals have "more energy than plants'
the fuck am i even talking about? you guys are messed up lol
It's called google, look up Energy Pyramid. It's not that complicated, trees, plants receive energy from the sun in the process making their own food. Herbivores that eat the plants, gains the energy within them. They use some of it storing the rest of it, and whatever eats herbivores replays the situation. Point is at the top of the food chain they're is less energy than at the bottom. So because vegetarians eat plants at the bottom of the food chain they get more energy than they would from eating animal that eats plants.
Herbivores although usually prey because they lack tools to defend themselves, are usually stronger and more powerful or durable. Whales eat plankton for example.
And by the way, commenting on things like The Cove, and Austrailian Hallal (sic) - these are cultural activities, and it suprises me how so many people enjoyed the cove. Activities such as killing dolphins in the bay have gone back for centuries, and are an integral part of the identity of certain cultures. To say such activities are cruel and should be outlawed sounds like the epitome of close-minded personality, prejudice, and lack of appreciation for different cultures. Does it make sense? Maybe not. Is it stupid and wasteful? Probably. Outdated? Definately. But these activities identify a culture you will never be a part of, and may never understand.
Now if american shuttled dolphins into a bay, that would be odd. But the Japanese have been doing this for a long time, and it is a part of their cultural identity. To say that it's stupid, is to say your culture is superior to theirs, which is just the most arrogant thing I have ever heard in my life.
It's pretty easy to justify veganism, if you can argue that you should care about animals. There's pretty much no other good reason to be a vegan. I assumed you're a vegan and you probably watched some of these vegan propaganda videos which influenced your decision. I'm making generalizations here, so if you aren't a vegan just ignore this.
There are also religous, environmental and humanitarian reasons but those are a lot rarer. Just saying
Global warming is a another topic entirely, though I'm not convinced on the actions of humans causing it. If you are talking about other enviromental stuff, well you should be protesting for better enviromental care and not boycott every animal product.
Doing absolutely anything because of religious reasons if borderline retarded and any intelligent person can see that.
Humanitarian reasons are basically just feeling sorry for the animals.
I think you are taking a bit the easy way out here. Do you think that a moral system should be equally valid for any moral agent? If, to take an exotic example, an advanced alien race would fly to planet earth, imprison all of mankind and begin to eat one after the other, do you think that they would be doing something "wrong", in any meaningful sense of the term?
On February 09 2011 17:44 alurlol wrote: Mice are vermin, that's completely different from killing a large animal, don't kid yourself.
Interesting. Where's the boundary between what is killable and what is not? Size?
Vermin are a nuisance, it's got nothing to do with size, they are animals yes but small animals which cause a problem, this is why you will find exterminators for places they prove to be a problem. If my cat brings back a dead mouse I'm not going to lose sleep, if it's still alive I'll attempt to put it back in the wild, because that's just what you should do.
However, trying to say killing vermin is the same as killing a large farm animal is wrong, as it's not the same thing, especially if they were gassed, there's no physical attribute involved in that.
Then it should be okay to gas farm animals, yeh? Man, hear yourself talk, there's no difference in killing a mice or a pig, both are animals. You preach one thing and in the next turn completely ignore it. I don't think this kind of argument is helping you a lot in fending for your cause..
I'm just answering the question as it's been asked, you deny there being a difference but there is, can you really tell me you'd kill a mice as non hesitantly as a cow? And also how am I preaching anything, by that logic everyone in this damn topic is preaching something, I'm just stating my opinion.
The mice bothers me, so I would kill it. The cow gives me food, so I would kill it.
It's the same for me, yes.
Edit: It doesn't matter so much which animal it is, as it matters what relationship you have to it. I'd never be able to kill my cat, since I lived together with it for quite some time now. And I'd never be able to kill a cow that I developed a personal bond with, as I wouldn't kill my own pet mouse. As the saying goes, you don't kill something with a name.
Your cat isn't special among animals, and by owning one you've certainly seen how they have feelings albeit different from human ones. I'm sure you'll think about animal feelings and empathy in life when s/he dies. I know I did when my cat died.
Additionally, I really hope that people who eat meat (myself included) stop trying to act so high and mighty about it. There's really no need to be on the moral high ground when we're not. Eating meat is something that's done out of habit, and out of convenience, and certainly not born of morals. That humans aren't alone in having feelings among animals is well-documented by the scientific community.
Also the claim that most meat (at least in the US) isn't factory farmed is really just false, if you look up the statistics.
On February 09 2011 18:12 Belial88 wrote: And by the way, commenting on things like The Cove, and Austrailian Hallal (sic) - these are cultural activities, and it suprises me how so many people enjoyed the cove. Activities such as killing dolphins in the bay have gone back for centuries, and are an integral part of the identity of certain cultures. To say such activities are cruel and should be outlawed sounds like the epitome of close-minded personality, prejudice, and lack of appreciation for different cultures. Does it make sense? Maybe not. Is it stupid and wasteful? Probably. Outdated? Definately. But these activities identify a culture you will never be a part of, and may never understand.
Now if american shuttled dolphins into a bay, that would be odd. But the Japanese have been doing this for a long time, and it is a part of their cultural identity. To say that it's stupid, is to say your culture is superior to theirs, which is just the most arrogant thing I have ever heard in my life.
This is a dangerous line to walk. Aztec cultures supported cannibalism, as do Paupa New Guineaus. This is not to say that you're wrong, but the brand of reasoning you're using is a very fine one.
It's pretty easy to justify veganism, if you can argue that you should care about animals. There's pretty much no other good reason to be a vegan. I assumed you're a vegan and you probably watched some of these vegan propaganda videos which influenced your decision. I'm making generalizations here, so if you aren't a vegan just ignore this.
There are also religous, environmental and humanitarian reasons but those are a lot rarer. Just saying
Global warming is a another topic entirely, though I'm not convinced on the actions of humans causing it. If you are talking about other enviromental stuff, well you should be protesting for better enviromental care and not boycott every animal product.
Doing absolutely anything because of religious reasons if borderline retarded and any intelligent person can see that.
Humanitarian reasons are basically just feeling sorry for the animals.
I think you are taking a bit the easy way out here. Do you think that a moral system should be equally valid for any moral agent? If, to take an exotic example, an advanced alien race would fly to planet earth, imprison all of mankind and begin to eat one after the other, do you think that they would be doing something "wrong", in any meaningful sense of the term?
There is no objective morality. Of course I would think that they're doing something wrong, because mankind is suffering. Mankind is what keeps me alive and provides for me. But from the alien pow, they aren't doing anything wrong. I don't really understand what you mean by taking the easy way out. I feel like you're trying to go into arguing semantics.
On February 09 2011 17:19 disciple wrote: You can live the life you want and be proud and happy about it, but the major thing that causes a conflict is how aggressive the veggies are in their propaganda.
Live just a week as a vegetarian and you will notice that it is far worse as a vegetarian. I usually don't tell that I am one at dinner/restaurant/cafeteria because you won't have a peaceful dinner than. Meateaters fucking always want to argue about it. I just want to have my dinner and if somebody knows they always start with bullshit like "you have to eat meat man, or you die!!1".
Trust me, meat eater propaganda and aggresiveness is far worse. Unlike you I have seen both sides.
This is pretty true. All of my friends give me TONS of sass when I try to limit my meat consumption by ordering a vegetarian dish once in a while. Just look at this thread and see that meat eaters are just as aggressive at pushing their lifestyles.
On February 09 2011 14:51 KingAce wrote: If you could actually watch the whole video with a straight face, you very well should eat meat.
I don't eat meat haven't for like 9 years now and even when I did it was just barely. It's a spiritual thing I guess. But for all you meat eaters you should seriously pay attention to what kind of meat you eat, whatever farmers do in attempts to mass produce those animals with chemicals or growth hormones etc; that stuff goes into your system. And you can't know for certain if those chemicals can give you cancer or other medical complications. I mean these days people are born with all kinds of allergies, some people aren't vegan by choice but by genetics.
The advantage of vegetarianism according to the energy pyramid; herbivores get more energy than carnivores, because plants have the most amount of energy.
i couldn't keep a straight face, but i don't think i can make the lifestyle change - or care to sacrifice taste in the name of animals.
energy pyramid? link to said pyramid? sounds like some bullshit to me if they're teaching you that plants "have the most amount of energy" although i'm not even sure what you even mean by that. are you referring to energy like calories or something spiritual and beyond me?
It doesn't make much sense to me until i thought about. It's a Biology thing. Basically if you eat something that eats a plant you only get a fraction of the original energy of that plant. At the bottom are plants and other things that produce their own sugars and nutrients, above that are animals that eat plants, above that are animals that eat other animals, and finally are animals that eat dead ones. Some of the energy is lost between each step(used by the previous level).I have no idea how he's connecting that to vegetarianism though. (Vegetarian btw)
i hate getting into semantics but he said that plants have the most energy? whatever that means. assuming he's referring to calories, it's still wildly inaccurate.
yeah of course energy is lost in between each step, because animals tend to use it when they eat, sleep, fuck, and shit. but since animals eat so many god damn plants (and other animals) they store up fat (energy?!) so that they can live without food for more than a few days. now, because animals eat a bunch of other plants (and animals) they have this accumulation of fat/energy/calories. pound for pound, animals have "more energy than plants'
the fuck am i even talking about? you guys are messed up lol
It's called google, look up Energy Pyramid. It's not that complicated, trees, plants receive energy from the sun in the process making their own food. Herbivores that eat the plants, gains the energy within them. They use some of it storing the rest of it, and whatever eats herbivores replays the situation. Point is at the top of the food chain they're is less energy than at the bottom. So because vegetarians eat plants at the bottom of the food chain they get more energy than they would from eating animal that eats plants.
Herbivores although usually prey because they lack tools to defend themselves, are usually stronger and more powerful or durable. Whales eat plankton for example.
I think you are missing the point of the Energy Pyramid. There is no reason for the plants at the bottom to contain more energy. Instead the energy is concentrated by the cows and whatnot, so in general meats and fats should contain more energy. It would be correct to say that it would be most efficient to eat plants, but you would have to eat a lot in comparison to eating an animal. Elephants and such have to basically eat plants all day, compared to a carnivore.
Also herbivores being stronger has nothing to do with anything. I'm assuming you are referring to their size as evidence for plants having more energy. That would not be true, herbivores are in general larger because the carnivore needs to spend more energy chasing and hunting food, while herbivores can just eat from basically anywhere.
I am not a vegetarian. Although I do agree that there are several health benefits for cutting down (not eliminating) meat, I do not feel any moral obligations at all to not eat meat. I see my food, and myself, as just complex machines.
On February 09 2011 13:33 thehitman wrote: Its been scientifically proven numerous times (just google it) that humans need meat. If you don't consume any meat and not to mention even animal products(vegans) you are going to have some health problems since you are not in taking all the nutrients your body needs.
Since time people have killed animals to feed and other animals kill other animals to feed, its just the way it is.
And there are so many people on this planet that you can't just go in the wild and kill 1000 pigs to feed a small city (30.000 population), so we have to raise them in a farm and then kill them.
Its a bit brutal, but what options do we have? - Be vegan and be unhealthy, be vegetarian and forbit yourself the pleasures of eating meat or starve to death.
I'm more concerned about people killing wild animals for fur and ivory(equals money) rather than us raising animals to feed ourselves.
I'm more worried about all the trees we are cutting down and how many animals that kills, rather than raising animals to feed ourselves.
I'm not going to research your argument. That makes no sense within the scheme of a debate. Why should I work to prove you right? If you want to make a point (that's fundamentally wrong in the first place), at least attempt support it. I've not heard of a single study that "proves" that human beings need meat". Every nutrient, vitamin, fat, and protein that is found in livestock can be found in plants.
Prove me wrong?
I'm not going to waste my time to prove vegans wrong. You don't eat meat and animal products=more for me, thank you very much.
If vegans don't care about their health why should I be forcing them to care.
I'm a bit indifferent about vegetarians because they at least eat eggs, cheese, drink milk, etc and consume their daily nutrients.
EPT
I dislike vegans, more specifically vegans that keep their children on vegan diet. I am happy eating meat. Eating meat has nothing to do with not having empathy with animal suffering.
