|
On September 22 2012 04:43 r.Evo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2012 04:39 Deleuze wrote:On September 22 2012 04:34 r.Evo wrote:On September 22 2012 04:22 U_G_L_Y wrote:On September 22 2012 03:33 r.Evo wrote:On September 22 2012 03:21 Leth0 wrote:
If you got something you wanna say about vegan thats cool, put all your positivity out there. When you start to try and claim some sort of moral high ground by saying ignorant shit like "you ate a hamburger therefore you support animal abuse" then you just look like a moron. More power to you living the way you want, with a lifestyle choice you made. No need to be disrespectful about it, like you are somehow a better person than me because of it. What do you think you're doing if you buy something from someone? Is that your way of NOT SUPPORTING him? Jesus Christ. Since you seem to think I look like a moron for claiming that supply and demand regulates our markets, please don't support me and give me money. ...................... If you do business with the company I work for, your money murders animals because that is how I spend my paycheck. That, or you are only responsible for your own actions. Silly. You just said a woman being raped because she wore a revealing dress is a fitting example to show me that demand doesn't interact with supply. You're trying to top even that, eh? One last time: Mr. X forces children to work for him to produce shoes. You buy shoes from Mr. X. Your money is supporting child labor. If you do not buy shoes from Mr X you do not support child labor. If I do business with company Y and Mr. M who works for company Y uses his paycheck to shoot child porn in his basement I do not support him making child porn with my money. I had no business interaction with him. Now if Mr. M gives all his money to charity I also did not contribute to charity. If however I buy a product from someone who intents to give 10% of the profits to charity, I did contribute to charity. It's really, really not that hard even if you try to pull the weirdest possible examples out of your hat. It's exactly the same a buying heroine supports terrorism, considering that most of the world's supply of illegally trafficed heronine is grown in Afghanistan, or, if you live in the US you support drug barons and drug wars in Mexico and Columbia. Well, yeah, obviously there has to be a point where you draw the line. "If I eat more beans and onions I will fart more and impact the ozone layer negatively" would be over the top for example. =P However, that's a whole different level than "If I buy products produced via child labor I support child labor" or "If I buy meat from someone who abuses animals you're supporting animal abuse" which is kinda what this was about.
Sorry, I wasn't trying to push your point ad absurdum! I totally agree with you.
I'm sure your farts are carbon neutral 
|
On September 22 2012 04:08 Alpino wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2012 02:48 U_G_L_Y wrote:
One cannot believe that killing animals is wrong unless one believes that wrestling an antelope from the jaws of a cheetah is equivalent to preventing a murder.
I believe that we should end the cruel ways animals are treated, however I do not believe that I am accountable for their actions. In the same way that I am not responsible for Chinese currency manipulation because my shoes were made in China, meat eaters are not responsible for animal abuse. Abusers are.
Less meat in your diet is definitely a good idea, healthwise, but as for an ethical argument, I have heard none that do not involve drawing arbitrary lines through grey areas. Moralist vegitarians are worse than religionists because they don't (usually) even claim divine mandate as justification for moral inconsistency. While logical and consistent you don't take several points of view into account(your first sentence is fallacious as well). I for once had the exact same views you have(I'm vegan nowadays). The difference is that my conscience resonated with the intelligence of these animals whilst your have not(or you chose not to care, valid as well), you see I am not a Cheetah hunting, I am(was) a conscient human being buying a dead animal that was created only for feeding me and lived in a cage, this is not hunting for survival, this is choosing to eat meat cause it tastes awesome. I have not the same instinctive nature those animals have I have not the presumption to assume that I have any real instinct left. I am not a Cheetah, I am a social being with awareness and conscience of the whole world. All moral is arbitrary you have that right, but for me this is as morally obvious as not fucking a prostitute from human traffick, it just feels sad. Even though in the end I'd say 80% of my reasons to be a vegan are more related to how the way meat/milk/eggs industry works is too much polluting and how much we eat it, consumerist...reeks of everything I personally despise, feeling guilty every time I ate meat just wasn't cool.
If the suffering of an intelligent animal that feels pain is something that you and I have a moral obligation to stop, then the cause of the suffering is irrelevant, whether it be at the hands of a farmer or the paws of a cheetah. Whether humans or doorknobs are the cause, you either accept that you are personally responsible to stop it or you don't.
|
On September 22 2012 04:46 Antyee wrote:Disclaimer:If you are a die-hard vegan, please, don't read this, it might offend you. + Show Spoiler +
This ethical reason is a bit off imo.
Plants are also quite brutally abused.
For example:
The most foolproof and quite broadly used method to force a cherry tree to stop growing and grow fruit instead is to cut the majority of the tree's roots or simply chop in a few inches into its trunk.
Sunflower fields are burnt to ashes after harvest.
It just seems odd to me that so many people are complaining about how animals, who are living only because they are bred to be food, are held; while plants are suffering more. And noone cares, that's perfectly fine.
while plants are suffering more
Do have some sort scientific evidence that plants have more well-developed sensitivity to pain/suffering than animals or are you just trolling?
Personally I don't object to eating meat if the animal is raised in fairly natural conditions but some factory farming places are pretty awful. That's what really puts me off (although these days I eat meat because it's easier to just go with the flow).
|
On September 22 2012 04:48 r.Evo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2012 04:43 Ayoeme wrote:On September 22 2012 02:38 r.Evo wrote:On September 22 2012 02:34 Ayoeme wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On September 22 2012 02:28 r.Evo wrote:
I just hate all the weird arguments being thrown around.
Nature intended us to eat meat? Guess what, it also did not intend us to eat meat, otherwise all vegans would be dead.
Evolution made it so we kill to live and have to eat everything? Evolution also brought pedophiles, racists and serial killers. And 4chan.
Those are all so incredibly flat arguments which are nothing more than a glorified "I don't care what you say I don't want to think about my food" or, from the other side, "I don't know how to argue that's why I'm throwing random shit at you".
Maybe "Humans are able to suffer, I hate how it feels to suffer myself." -> "Animals are able to suffer, I hate how it feels to suffer." ---> "Making humans/animals suffer is a bad thing." is just a too universal and empathetic point of view for most people. Humanity as a whole just isn't there yet, considering we're not able to treat each others as equals on an emotional level in the first place. although the arguments you make are wrong, they're fun enough to commend you. So the arguments which I called out to be horribly wrong are wrong in your opinion. Thanks for agreeing! -_- Evolution and mind aren't as related to make something the mind comes up with a part of evolution. The existence of mind, as we know it, compared to that of other animals and what not, is a part of evolution, indeed. As it is(was) necessary for the human to survive. What we do with it afterwards evolution has no impact on. For example, the teaching in schools simply remove the evolutionary aspect at all. That said, you seemed to simply call the extremes to show how the arguments often made by people are wrong. Which indeed they are, as i stated in a wall of text some pages before. Though yours wasn't correct as well, we are often able to understand if something's wrong even if we don't know what is right. cheers. .__. Oh, now it makes sense. Sorry for being an ass then. I guess you did notice the slight sarcasm while I thought you didn't and were just trying to make a point for the sake of making a point. Welp. Sorry and thanks for clarifying. <3 Edit: Found your walls of text. Even though I don't agree with you on all points they are among the best posts in this thread. Cheers!
hah, yeah, on a subject where there is no solid ground, it's hard to make points many would agree on.
there is that thing with sarcasm on the internet. i'm quite a sarcastic person, but it's hard to see "slight sarcasms" and as that point made no sense in a completely sarcastic way, i was indeed a little bit confused : P.
|
On September 22 2012 02:48 U_G_L_Y wrote:
One cannot believe that killing animals is wrong unless one believes that wrestling an antelope from the jaws of a cheetah is equivalent to preventing a murder.
I believe that we should end the cruel ways animals are treated, however I do not believe that I am accountable for their actions. In the same way that I am not responsible for Chinese currency manipulation because my shoes were made in China, meat eaters are not responsible for animal abuse. Abusers are.
Less meat in your diet is definitely a good idea, healthwise, but as for an ethical argument, I have heard none that do not involve drawing arbitrary lines through grey areas. Moralist vegitarians are worse than religionists because they don't (usually) even claim divine mandate as justification for moral inconsistency.
I actually think killing animals is wrong.
I also actually believe that wrestling an antelope from the jaws of a cheetah is the opposite of what your saying, that cheetah needs to eat it's natural prey to survive.
The big difference here is we, the human race, can live very happily and healthily off of a whole foods plant based food, the cheetah, can not. I mean Bill Clinton does it, I do it, I'm pretty sure most people could do it, even though I've seen posts in this thread, "I could never give up this/that". If you put forth an effort, I'm sure you could live at least a vegetarian lifestyle with basically no consequences, you would be able to eat great food, live healthy, and not supporting animal cruelty.
If your buying meat from a source that abused their animals, your supporting their animal abuse. For instance, if you bought from McDonalds, a known source for lots of animal abuse, then you are supporting a business that puts it profits before it's animals basic rights.
I personally believe killing any animal for eating purposes is wrong, but I respect those that eat "ethically" treated animals like actually free range long lived animals that were killed humanely(not the chickens eggs or meat that just simply say free range on the container, I mean you know the farm where that chicken came from, and have seen it's living conditions), or those that choose to eat locally grown eggs from their friends chickens, or milk from their friends cow, I don't see an issue with it.
So I don't really see whats moral inconsistent about my stance, I make a conscious decision about what I choose too purchase, if it was tested on animals, if animal products are part of it etc, and then I purchase or consume it if I deem it morally acceptable to me. For me I think I am way more morally consistent then the millions of meat eaters that stopped eating tuna for awhile (but continued to eat factory farmed animals) cause of dolphins being caught in nets, or other various things that people have been upset about, though I don't care cause I appreciate the fact that regulations have increased on fisherman.
I don't understand why, killing animals for consumption is wrong, is such a stance that people can't even respect the stance, and dismiss it openly, calling it a joke. Animals deserve rights, and protection, and I think if you look at the way we treat them with an open mind, and see what's going on, I'm sure many of you would come to the same conclusions I have.
|
I do think some of my teeth are made for eating meat. So i use them properly. Being vegan in poor countries is fuckin costly. Incorporating animal products is way better for the budget. I know some ppl that tried and gave up, just cause they cant afford it.
|
On September 22 2012 05:00 tomatriedes wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2012 04:46 Antyee wrote:Disclaimer:If you are a die-hard vegan, please, don't read this, it might offend you. + Show Spoiler +
This ethical reason is a bit off imo.
Plants are also quite brutally abused.
For example:
The most foolproof and quite broadly used method to force a cherry tree to stop growing and grow fruit instead is to cut the majority of the tree's roots or simply chop in a few inches into its trunk.
Sunflower fields are burnt to ashes after harvest.
It just seems odd to me that so many people are complaining about how animals, who are living only because they are bred to be food, are held; while plants are suffering more. And noone cares, that's perfectly fine.
Do have some sort scientific evidence that plants have more well-developed sensitivity to pain/suffering than animals or are you just trolling? Personally I don't object to eating meat if the animal is raised in fairly natural conditions but some factory farming places are pretty awful. That's what really puts me off (although these days I eat meat because it's easier to just go with the flow).
If the simple fact that they use all of their resources to try and save themselves from dying by the only way they can (more cherries mean more trees) isn't enough proof that they sense pain, I don't know how I could convince you. Sure, running away and crying is more spectacular, but both require a lot of effort. Probably this is why trees used in agriculture live way less than the ones in the forests or even in one's garden.
|
more like vagina-ism AMIRITE GUYZ?!?!?!?!?!?
User was temp banned for this post.
|
See, the problem is in the tone. Vegetarians and Vegans always have this "air" about them that just stinks of snobbiness (at least most if not all the ones I know do) when they're talking about their dietary habits.
Whether you want to believe it or not, humans are part of a food chain. We can be eaten too! To eat in the food chain or to be eaten in the food chain whether you have a conscience or not (didn't they just suggest animals have some level of consciousness?) is simply a natural process. There's nothing right or wrong about it.
That being said, I do tend to boycott any part of the industry that is shown to treat its stock badly. Living creatures do deserve a certain level of respect. However I am not so limited in my thinking as to think that this holds true only for animals. All living things on this planet rely on each other directly and indirectly.
If you want to start throwing up barriers in the larger category of "living things" then at least do it consistently. You have to kill plants or animals to survive atm. If the V/V would just do their own thing instead of trying to bad-mouth everyone else who doesn't follow their way (means they're VERY closed-minded, not open-minded as you say), perhaps I would warm up the idea better. As of right now though, its just a silly thing that overly-sensitive people who discriminate against certain categories of living things tend to follow and preach very annoyingly.
|
All I read that as is, farmers are doing their jobs wrong and you should eat WAYYY more salad. I don't care if meat is killing me slowly.
|
I haven't met a single vegan in my life that isn't a obnoxious piece of shit.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On September 22 2012 04:34 r.Evo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2012 04:22 U_G_L_Y wrote:On September 22 2012 03:33 r.Evo wrote:On September 22 2012 03:21 Leth0 wrote:
If you got something you wanna say about vegan thats cool, put all your positivity out there. When you start to try and claim some sort of moral high ground by saying ignorant shit like "you ate a hamburger therefore you support animal abuse" then you just look like a moron. More power to you living the way you want, with a lifestyle choice you made. No need to be disrespectful about it, like you are somehow a better person than me because of it. What do you think you're doing if you buy something from someone? Is that your way of NOT SUPPORTING him? Jesus Christ. Since you seem to think I look like a moron for claiming that supply and demand regulates our markets, please don't support me and give me money. ...................... If you do business with the company I work for, your money murders animals because that is how I spend my paycheck. That, or you are only responsible for your own actions. Silly. You just said a woman being raped because she wore a revealing dress is a fitting example to show me that demand doesn't interact with supply. You're trying to top even that, eh? One last time: Mr. X forces children to work for him to produce shoes. You buy shoes from Mr. X. Your money is supporting child labor. If you do not buy shoes from Mr X you do not support child labor. If I do business with company Y and Mr. M who works for company Y uses his paycheck to shoot child porn in his basement I do not support him making child porn with my money. I had no business interaction with him. Now if Mr. M gives all his money to charity I also did not contribute to charity. If however I buy a product from someone who intents to give 10% of the profits to charity, I did contribute to charity. It's really, really not that hard even if you try to pull the weirdest possible examples out of your hat. PS: If you know that company Z only employs people who aim to produce child porn in their basement... dingdingding. You're supporting it. Wal-Mart is 6 miles from my house. Peterson's (a local grocer) is 16. Where does my culpability end if I hold myself accountable for the actions of Wal-Mart? 16 miles? 160 miles? Wal-Mart easily saves my family over $2000 per year. How much is too much to ask my children to sacrifice?
When it comes to food, how much time and money am I required to spend researching its origins? 1 hour? Do I need to personally inspect the farm? I cannot accept moral responsibility for a line that is fuzzy, at best.
I used to refuse to eat at KFC until I realized what a gigantic hypocrite it made me.
|
On September 21 2012 06:14 kingcoyote wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 06:10 ImAbstracT wrote:
You can literally eat all the fruits, veggies, nuts, and plant based foods you want without worrying about being overweight.
What? You could sit on your couch all day and eat nothing but potato chips and drink soda and beer and have a perfectly vegan diet and be a lardass. I did it. I've been vegetarian my entire life and ended up at 220 lbs at 5'11' before I dropped back down to 170. Not eating animal products doesn't magically erase Calories from oils, sugar and alcohol.
Classic case of bullshit vs bullshit...
First of all if you eat over maintenance you will gain weight no matter what type of food it is. There's no way around this.
As for the other guy, since when do potato chips, soda, and beer fall into the category of fruits, veggies, nuts? lmfao
Finally, the consumption of animal products has little to nothing to do with gaining weight. The only correlation here is the high calorie content of animal products that contain high concentrations of fat. It's worth noting fat doesn't make you fat unless the calories contained in the fat cause you to exceed your daily maintenance.
The amount of ignorance from both sides of the vegan vs. non-vegan debate is frustrating zzzzzzzzzzzzzz
|
On September 22 2012 05:10 Antyee wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2012 05:00 tomatriedes wrote:On September 22 2012 04:46 Antyee wrote:Disclaimer:If you are a die-hard vegan, please, don't read this, it might offend you. + Show Spoiler +
This ethical reason is a bit off imo.
Plants are also quite brutally abused.
For example:
The most foolproof and quite broadly used method to force a cherry tree to stop growing and grow fruit instead is to cut the majority of the tree's roots or simply chop in a few inches into its trunk.
Sunflower fields are burnt to ashes after harvest.
It just seems odd to me that so many people are complaining about how animals, who are living only because they are bred to be food, are held; while plants are suffering more. And noone cares, that's perfectly fine.
while plants are suffering more Do have some sort scientific evidence that plants have more well-developed sensitivity to pain/suffering than animals or are you just trolling? Personally I don't object to eating meat if the animal is raised in fairly natural conditions but some factory farming places are pretty awful. That's what really puts me off (although these days I eat meat because it's easier to just go with the flow). If the simple fact that they use all of their resources to try and save themselves from dying by the only way they can (more cherries mean more trees) isn't enough proof that they sense pain, I don't know how I could convince you. Sure, running away and crying is more spectacular, but both require a lot of effort. Probably this is why trees used in agriculture live way less than the ones in the forests or even in one's garden.
Many plants make themselves even more enticing to be eaten as a major part of their reproductive cycle. Can you explain why cheerys are so sweet and tasty, just for the hell of it or because they have evolved fruit as a means of scattering their seeds?
|
On September 22 2012 04:43 r.Evo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2012 04:39 Deleuze wrote:On September 22 2012 04:34 r.Evo wrote:On September 22 2012 04:22 U_G_L_Y wrote:On September 22 2012 03:33 r.Evo wrote:On September 22 2012 03:21 Leth0 wrote:
If you got something you wanna say about vegan thats cool, put all your positivity out there. When you start to try and claim some sort of moral high ground by saying ignorant shit like "you ate a hamburger therefore you support animal abuse" then you just look like a moron. More power to you living the way you want, with a lifestyle choice you made. No need to be disrespectful about it, like you are somehow a better person than me because of it. What do you think you're doing if you buy something from someone? Is that your way of NOT SUPPORTING him? Jesus Christ. Since you seem to think I look like a moron for claiming that supply and demand regulates our markets, please don't support me and give me money. ...................... If you do business with the company I work for, your money murders animals because that is how I spend my paycheck. That, or you are only responsible for your own actions. Silly. You just said a woman being raped because she wore a revealing dress is a fitting example to show me that demand doesn't interact with supply. You're trying to top even that, eh? One last time: Mr. X forces children to work for him to produce shoes. You buy shoes from Mr. X. Your money is supporting child labor. If you do not buy shoes from Mr X you do not support child labor. If I do business with company Y and Mr. M who works for company Y uses his paycheck to shoot child porn in his basement I do not support him making child porn with my money. I had no business interaction with him. Now if Mr. M gives all his money to charity I also did not contribute to charity. If however I buy a product from someone who intents to give 10% of the profits to charity, I did contribute to charity. It's really, really not that hard even if you try to pull the weirdest possible examples out of your hat. It's exactly the same a buying heroine supports terrorism, considering that most of the world's supply of illegally trafficed heronine is grown in Afghanistan, or, if you live in the US you support drug barons and drug wars in Mexico and Columbia. Well, yeah, obviously there has to be a point where you draw the line. "If I eat more beans and onions I will fart more and impact the ozone layer negatively" would be over the top for example. =P However, that's a whole different level than "If I buy products produced via child labor I support child labor" or "If I buy meat from someone who abuses animals you're supporting animal abuse" which is kinda what this was about. Thats my point. Moralist veges draw an arbitrary fuzzy line that they consider "over the the top" and then look down their noses at my line, which is clear and defininite and morally consistent.
You don't have to draw a fuzzy arbitrary line. You can choose to take responsibility for your own actions.
|
On September 22 2012 04:14 r.Evo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2012 03:59 AngryMag wrote:On September 22 2012 03:35 radscorpion9 wrote:On September 22 2012 03:11 AngryMag wrote:On September 22 2012 02:55 r.Evo wrote:On September 22 2012 02:48 U_G_L_Y wrote:
One cannot believe that killing animals is wrong unless one believes that wrestling an antelope from the jaws of a cheetah is equivalent to preventing a murder.
I believe that we should end the cruel ways animals are treated, however I do not believe that I am accountable for their actions. In the same way that I am not responsible for Chinese currency manipulation because my shoes were made in China, meat eaters are not responsible for animal abuse. Abusers are.
Less meat in your diet is definitely a good idea, healthwise, but as for an ethical argument, I have heard none that do not involve drawing arbitrary lines through grey areas. Moralist vegitarians are worse than religionists because they don't (usually) even claim divine mandate as justification for moral inconsistency. If you buy meat from someone who is abusing animals, you're supporting animal abuse and are responsible for it. That part about capitalism really isn't rocket science. Not true, by that logic you support slave like labour if you buy an iphone or things manufactored by peasants in China, you support child labour if you buy a football, you support heavy environmental exploitation if you buy anything which includes products from chemical corporations, you support experiments on indian slum kids if you buy vaccines and so on. If you want to put yourself on an ethical high horse, you better cut your ties from the system you live in and move into the forest to live with the seasons like our ancestors did, otherwise don't nitpick stuff out to fit your agenda. But he specifically said "if you buy meat from someone who is abusing animals". So if consumers have a choice, they should buy meat from companies that raise animals in humane conditions. Similarly there are many companies that offer alternatives in other areas, whether its renewable energy, environmentally friendly options, etc. So needing to live in a forest is a bit extreme and unnecessary. But the logic is perfectly valid. I thought that was the whole purpose behind boycotting? People stop buying something or supporting a company in order to protest their activity. The only question is, how tied is a company to a certain negative occurrence (i.e. what type of response is appropriate), and do people have the practical ability (or moral strength) to live without the goods/resources that company produces/supplies if it is serious enough. But neither of those challenge the logic of his statement; if you buy an iPhone, you are in a (very) small way saying "how I got this iPhone is okay with me." Just think of a more extreme case. If someone tortured an animal to death in front of you, and then offered you meat, giving him money is like a tacit endorsement for what he does. If he does not receive your money, then that sends a message that consumers don't want to financially support someone with those kinds of ethical/moral (never sure which one it is) standards. Moreover this calling of a person being on their ethical high horse for pointing out something unethical is silly. Why is it so wrong to point out something unethical? Its like the person always has to be an elitist snob. We don't call people who want to stop massacres in Libya or now Syria to be on some "ethical high horse". They're just normal human beings who care about the lives of others. "Ethical high horse" should be reserved for some kind of extremist. Of course the logic of supply and demand works in our system and the whole point of boycotting is to make that point clear, you are of course perfectly right. The point is every major company is involved in highely immoral stuff. Leading an ethical life means no buying from medical, pharmaceutical, chemical, manufactoring companies. In modern societies leading such a life is simply impossible. The root of this problem might be mass consumption and aiming for affordable prices, but this is another discussion. Just to make a little example if you buy clothes which contain cotton or silk, you support the brutal exploitation of animals. If you buy medicine, you support the exploitation of animals and people from poor third world nations. If you buy stuff which contains products from chemical companies (for example every soft drink, every meal you eat daily) you support the heavy exploitation of our environment. You could go on with such a list forever. Pointing that out is fine, but nitpicking one of these points (animal abuse via eating) ind ignoring the others is hypocrisy and has nothing to do with working on a principal solution of the problem at hand. These examples are the reason why the argument "you choose where your money goes to" is invalid. It is not possible to lead a lifestyle which is ethical in our socities, because exploitation is its very fundament. Blunt example, you don't eat meat, but you eat a lot of corn made in the third world. Now you spared some animals suffering, but you supported child labour. What is better? Point is again, infact you don't have a choice as long as you are a part of a western society, you automatically support exploitation regardless of what you are doing. The only possibility to avoid such exploitation of animal, human and the environment is literally to cut all ties with the system you live in. "Meh, I know this guy does horrible things but I'll buy his product anyway. No one cares what I do anyway. It's all the same. Everyone exploits nature and animals and children anyway, why should I care?" Sad to hear such a depressive and powerless point of view. Can't do much more than wish you the best, arguing with a depressive perspective is rather pointless since part of it is refusing to see anything good or anything where you actually DO have influence over things. Trying to project that hopelessness onto others isn't really a cool move either, but I can't really blame your for it.
Funnily enough I probably have better nutrition habits than most people posting in this thread. If I eat steak, chances are that I already crossed the cow it is made of while jogging. If I buy tomatoes, asparagus or whatever I personally know the guy who produces it, where it gets produced etc. One of the advantages of living in a rural area.I am just not delusional enough to think that the whole population can do this,especially people living in urban areas. Also Nobody can do this all year. No, tomatoes and stuff don't grow in winters. The fact that we can have them all year is a result of environmental exploitation.
Of course, you are perfectly free to go into some bioshop and buy corn, which is ironically packed into plastic and hidden in a stupidly huge package made out of trees. Oh and the point of view has absolutely nothing depressing about it, I personally would call your point of view delusional out of sheer ignorance.
|
On September 22 2012 05:35 Deleuze wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2012 05:10 Antyee wrote:On September 22 2012 05:00 tomatriedes wrote:On September 22 2012 04:46 Antyee wrote:Disclaimer:If you are a die-hard vegan, please, don't read this, it might offend you. + Show Spoiler +
This ethical reason is a bit off imo.
Plants are also quite brutally abused.
For example:
The most foolproof and quite broadly used method to force a cherry tree to stop growing and grow fruit instead is to cut the majority of the tree's roots or simply chop in a few inches into its trunk.
Sunflower fields are burnt to ashes after harvest.
It just seems odd to me that so many people are complaining about how animals, who are living only because they are bred to be food, are held; while plants are suffering more. And noone cares, that's perfectly fine.
while plants are suffering more Do have some sort scientific evidence that plants have more well-developed sensitivity to pain/suffering than animals or are you just trolling? Personally I don't object to eating meat if the animal is raised in fairly natural conditions but some factory farming places are pretty awful. That's what really puts me off (although these days I eat meat because it's easier to just go with the flow). If the simple fact that they use all of their resources to try and save themselves from dying by the only way they can (more cherries mean more trees) isn't enough proof that they sense pain, I don't know how I could convince you. Sure, running away and crying is more spectacular, but both require a lot of effort. Probably this is why trees used in agriculture live way less than the ones in the forests or even in one's garden. Many plants make themselves even more enticing to be eaten as a major part of their reproductive cycle. Can you explain why cheerys are so sweet and tasty, just for the hell of it or because they have evolved fruit as a means of scattering their seeds?
1. Animals eat the cherries.
2. Poop them out further away so the seeds don't have to compete with each other and the original tree.
3. ???
4. Profit.
I'm not entirely sure if this was a legit question and you should read your biology books again, or you were trying to be witty and completely missed the point.
|
On September 22 2012 05:45 Antyee wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2012 05:35 Deleuze wrote:On September 22 2012 05:10 Antyee wrote:On September 22 2012 05:00 tomatriedes wrote:On September 22 2012 04:46 Antyee wrote:Disclaimer:If you are a die-hard vegan, please, don't read this, it might offend you. + Show Spoiler +
This ethical reason is a bit off imo.
Plants are also quite brutally abused.
For example:
The most foolproof and quite broadly used method to force a cherry tree to stop growing and grow fruit instead is to cut the majority of the tree's roots or simply chop in a few inches into its trunk.
Sunflower fields are burnt to ashes after harvest.
It just seems odd to me that so many people are complaining about how animals, who are living only because they are bred to be food, are held; while plants are suffering more. And noone cares, that's perfectly fine.
while plants are suffering more Do have some sort scientific evidence that plants have more well-developed sensitivity to pain/suffering than animals or are you just trolling? Personally I don't object to eating meat if the animal is raised in fairly natural conditions but some factory farming places are pretty awful. That's what really puts me off (although these days I eat meat because it's easier to just go with the flow). If the simple fact that they use all of their resources to try and save themselves from dying by the only way they can (more cherries mean more trees) isn't enough proof that they sense pain, I don't know how I could convince you. Sure, running away and crying is more spectacular, but both require a lot of effort. Probably this is why trees used in agriculture live way less than the ones in the forests or even in one's garden. Many plants make themselves even more enticing to be eaten as a major part of their reproductive cycle. Can you explain why cheerys are so sweet and tasty, just for the hell of it or because they have evolved fruit as a means of scattering their seeds? 1. Animals eat the cherries. 2. Poop them out further away so the seeds don't have to compete with each other and the original tree. 3. ??? 4. Profit. I'm not entirely sure if this was a legit question and you should read your biology books again, or you were trying to be witty and completely missed the point.
It was because you were making the bizzare claim that plants were 'suffering' by being harvested.
|
On September 22 2012 05:48 Deleuze wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2012 05:45 Antyee wrote:On September 22 2012 05:35 Deleuze wrote:On September 22 2012 05:10 Antyee wrote:On September 22 2012 05:00 tomatriedes wrote:On September 22 2012 04:46 Antyee wrote:Disclaimer:If you are a die-hard vegan, please, don't read this, it might offend you. + Show Spoiler +
This ethical reason is a bit off imo.
Plants are also quite brutally abused.
For example:
The most foolproof and quite broadly used method to force a cherry tree to stop growing and grow fruit instead is to cut the majority of the tree's roots or simply chop in a few inches into its trunk.
Sunflower fields are burnt to ashes after harvest.
It just seems odd to me that so many people are complaining about how animals, who are living only because they are bred to be food, are held; while plants are suffering more. And noone cares, that's perfectly fine.
while plants are suffering more Do have some sort scientific evidence that plants have more well-developed sensitivity to pain/suffering than animals or are you just trolling? Personally I don't object to eating meat if the animal is raised in fairly natural conditions but some factory farming places are pretty awful. That's what really puts me off (although these days I eat meat because it's easier to just go with the flow). If the simple fact that they use all of their resources to try and save themselves from dying by the only way they can (more cherries mean more trees) isn't enough proof that they sense pain, I don't know how I could convince you. Sure, running away and crying is more spectacular, but both require a lot of effort. Probably this is why trees used in agriculture live way less than the ones in the forests or even in one's garden. Many plants make themselves even more enticing to be eaten as a major part of their reproductive cycle. Can you explain why cheerys are so sweet and tasty, just for the hell of it or because they have evolved fruit as a means of scattering their seeds? 1. Animals eat the cherries. 2. Poop them out further away so the seeds don't have to compete with each other and the original tree. 3. ??? 4. Profit. I'm not entirely sure if this was a legit question and you should read your biology books again, or you were trying to be witty and completely missed the point. It was because you were making the bizzare claim that plants were 'suffering' by being harvested.
Then try reading my post again.
|
On September 22 2012 05:50 Antyee wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2012 05:48 Deleuze wrote:On September 22 2012 05:45 Antyee wrote:On September 22 2012 05:35 Deleuze wrote:On September 22 2012 05:10 Antyee wrote:On September 22 2012 05:00 tomatriedes wrote:On September 22 2012 04:46 Antyee wrote:Disclaimer:If you are a die-hard vegan, please, don't read this, it might offend you. + Show Spoiler +
This ethical reason is a bit off imo.
Plants are also quite brutally abused.
For example:
The most foolproof and quite broadly used method to force a cherry tree to stop growing and grow fruit instead is to cut the majority of the tree's roots or simply chop in a few inches into its trunk.
Sunflower fields are burnt to ashes after harvest.
It just seems odd to me that so many people are complaining about how animals, who are living only because they are bred to be food, are held; while plants are suffering more. And noone cares, that's perfectly fine.
while plants are suffering more Do have some sort scientific evidence that plants have more well-developed sensitivity to pain/suffering than animals or are you just trolling? Personally I don't object to eating meat if the animal is raised in fairly natural conditions but some factory farming places are pretty awful. That's what really puts me off (although these days I eat meat because it's easier to just go with the flow). If the simple fact that they use all of their resources to try and save themselves from dying by the only way they can (more cherries mean more trees) isn't enough proof that they sense pain, I don't know how I could convince you. Sure, running away and crying is more spectacular, but both require a lot of effort. Probably this is why trees used in agriculture live way less than the ones in the forests or even in one's garden. Many plants make themselves even more enticing to be eaten as a major part of their reproductive cycle. Can you explain why cheerys are so sweet and tasty, just for the hell of it or because they have evolved fruit as a means of scattering their seeds? 1. Animals eat the cherries. 2. Poop them out further away so the seeds don't have to compete with each other and the original tree. 3. ??? 4. Profit. I'm not entirely sure if this was a legit question and you should read your biology books again, or you were trying to be witty and completely missed the point. It was because you were making the bizzare claim that plants were 'suffering' by being harvested. Then try reading my post again.
I'm sorry but can you just tell me outright whether you are being serious about your claims? I'm either Romanian or there is a Poe's Law issue going on here.
Reproducing through edible fruit is not an indicator of sensory pain, a nevous system is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
