• Suddenly unable to log into your ZooVille account? This might be the reason why: CLICK HERE!

I am very scared of the vegan movement, they will try to take our right away to have companion animals.

As far as your moral issue every person on this planet has their own moral values. We that eat meat do not see animals as being equals. I certainly do not and I never have been of that belief. If I were to be of that crowd then I should quit college with the intent of becoming a veterinarian right at this moment, I should stop providing stud services for other ranchers and stop trying to develop that end of our family business, then my sister and I should sell our ranch because we send 100s of cattle to the slaughterhouse each spring. Now since you know more about me do you really think I am going to agree with your oversensitive moral attitude?

You have a very speciesist attitude. Humans are equal to non-human animals (morally). The idea that humans are "above" other animals is bullshit -- it is speciesism, and it is discrimination. As I said earlier in the thread, just as a human has an interest in not being killed, a cow has an interest in not being killed as well.

Why do you have this arrogant attitude that humans are superior to all other lifeforms? There is nothing special about humans. You really need to stop thinking like that, and consider the interests of members of other species.
 
You have a very speciesist attitude. Humans are equal to non-human animals (morally). The idea that humans are "above" other animals is bullshit -- it is speciesism, and it is discrimination. As I said earlier in the thread, just as a human has an interest in not being killed, a cow has an interest in not being killed as well.

Why do you have this arrogant attitude that humans are superior to all other lifeforms? There is nothing special about humans. You really need to stop thinking like that, and consider the interests of members of other species.

a trains coming, there's a goat stuck on the tracks and a 10 year old human kid. You have time to save one of them..... Are you sure they are still equal?
 
If death is not important to you morally, then what do you think about a human who kills another human?
I did not offer you an explanation as to why. I just said that the animal being killed, by itself, does not really bother me all that much. It does not strike me as being morally significant.

If it bothers you, then I recommend that you explain to me why I ought to like vegetarian foods.
 
You have a very speciesist attitude. Humans are equal to non-human animals (morally). The idea that humans are "above" other animals is bullshit -- it is speciesism, and it is discrimination. As I said earlier in the thread, just as a human has an interest in not being killed, a cow has an interest in not being killed as well.

Why do you have this arrogant attitude that humans are superior to all other lifeforms? There is nothing special about humans. You really need to stop thinking like that, and consider the interests of members of other species.
You need to come off your attitude and open your eyes to reality. I DO NOT AGREE WITH YOU! You call me a spaciest only because i am not in moral parallel with your opinion. You say my views are discriminating, but you are being discriminating by projecting that your view and your view alone is the only correct view. If all living things could talk then yes they would all say that they wanted to live. That includes the broccoli and asparagus that was killed for your dinner. It is no more morally right for you to eat those things that were once alive then it is for me to eat that which was once alive if viewed from your moral viewpoint. If you say that a plant has lesser value then you are only trying to justify it so you are not subject to the same application as what you want in saying that killing animals is wrong. However you know that if you are going to apply morals to animals then you also have to apply them to any living thing.
You also call my attitude arrogant because I say that humans are superior to all other lifeforms. My attitude is correct and you ARE WRONG!
Do you think for one minute that you would be able to post a message on a website through the use of your computer if it had not been for humans? Show me any other animal that made that possible. You can't because no other animal has the intelligence as humans.
In your way of thinking you would say that if an animals such as a lion attacked a person then we should just let it do it's own thing and if we killed it we would be wrong. Your thinking is flawed! If it were normal then 95% of the world would agree with you and soon animal slaughter for food would be a thing of the past. Then and only then, morally or not will you ever be correct.
 
the reason for this is that grizzly bears don't understand morality, whereas humans do.

You're begging the question. Your claim literally has no structure to it. Stop spouting the same bullshit. You claim ALL animals have no morals and don't want to be eaten. You have zero proof to back any of this up.
 
Ok, so when I first read this comment, I thought you were concurring. Apparently you realize "the more animals that eat food the more competition for humans food," and, that's why veganism is *bad?*

Yes Vegans will remove all animals that compete for food. They whole point of this discussion is that extreme Veganism will ruin the planet and animal companionship.

Meat is an incredibly inefficient food source. You ever notice that there are more rabbits than hawks? That's because eating the plants rather than eating the animals that eat the plants allows a population to grow more. Look up "food chain energy transfer" to learn about how food chains work. Meat is a middleman, and wasting potential cropland on grazing and growing crops for *cows* to eat (most of the energy the cows receive through food being burned before we kill and eat them) instead of just eating it directly is senseless. Pardon my objectification of farm animals, but they're energy wasting machines ?

Energy transfer starts from sunlight. Plants can convert the suns energy and CO2 into sugars releasing Oxygen and using that sugar can burn the sugar back into CO2. Plants release massive amounts of CO2 especially rain forests. Plants use their ability to store sugar to grown when the sun is not shinning. This Sugar is what animal require to grow and reproduce.

Plants can take months and years to reach maturity to be edible in a very short time. People think you can pick corn all year round or grow wheat whenever you want breakfast.

Your apples only reach picking stage once a year.

Animals are able to eat plants at all stages of their growth not just at the reproductive phase which is what Vegans eat. They can do better or worse on the mature plant. The growing plant is food to the in a way humans cannot use.

You have to understand that Australia is a country of droughts and rare abundance. We grow cattle to market size on farms that are bigger than some European countries. This is done due to the available fodder density being so poor each animal needs 1sq Mile to live on. This 1 Sq mile would never support a corn or wheat plant whos requirements for water and nutrition greatly exceed the available resources.

Animals are designed to move around the country side collecting poor nutrition and seasonal nutrition and storing it to survive the droughts like plants store energy to grow during the dark periods.

Just as those plants are victims of the animals hunting for food. Those plant eating animals are food for carnivores and omnivores.



Plants are transportable and I imagine they'd be easier to transport in most cases. If you have a citation for animals being easier to transport I'd like to see it.

The great American or Australian cattle drives are the best example of mobile food source. Your corn can not be moved and continue to grow like food can. I think the thing Vegans miss the most is that plants are only edible to humans at very particular times of the year. You are not going see harvests of potatoes being marched across the country to feed the starving Vegans.


Are you saying animals had to be moved to the fires because plant food couldn't be moved? If so, I'd like to see a citation for that as well.

Well to put it in perspective it was the dry plants that spread the fire. They can't get up and run away when a fire starts. The cattle had grazed the land bare which stopped the fire in some places. You could imagine the fire damage if the bare land was covered in dry crops that cannot be watered in a drought.

The beef and dairy industry has a big impact on climate change, which leads to increased (and worse) drought. Calling back to your previous point, climate change also makes bush fires worse. And veganism saves water.

I would love to have some real data on the effect of cattle eating plants compared to Vegans eating plants. An average cow can feed 100 humans and expels a certain amount of gas. 100 Vegans would expel much more gas than 1 cow. The problem of processing plant fibre is just being moved up the food chain.

Dry plants will make a fire worse. The interesting thing is that the animals eat 100% of the plant the humans only eat 1-5% of a plant. There will be a lot of waste plant material around.


What I'm saying is, if you care about droughts and bush fires, you should go vegan.

Bush fires are caused by 60,000 years of Aborigines hunting meat by burning out small sections of habitat. The lack of year round burning is the cause of the Mega fires not Global changes. You need to understand how man has changed nature over the last million years before you think Vegans can save the world.
 
I would love to have some real data on the effect of cattle eating plants compared to Vegans eating plants. An average cow can feed 100 humans and expels a certain amount of gas. 100 Vegans would expel much more gas than 1 cow. The problem of processing plant fibre is just being moved up the food chain.
Actually, the 100 vegans would not expel methane at all because vegans can't digest cellulose. That's the only important point you missed, humans can extract very limited nutrition from leaf veggies. In fact, the only critters on the planet that can digest cellulose are certain bacteria. The lack of a proper environment for those bacteria is what makes humans not herbivores. Humans can digest the fruit of plants, not the leaf.
 
@knotinterested, I think that @Zoo50 calls you a speciesist because you are. You hold speciesist opinions. What I don't really understand is why being called a speciesist seems to bother you. If I were in your position, convinced of what you have expressed, I would probably say something like: "I am fine with that."

Concerning the charity question I'd like to say that in my eyes, if someones spends time and energy to advocate not killing animals and leading a more sustainable lifestyle, that's charitable. Instead of advocating he could also work some more hours to earn money and then donate that money to an organization which advocates not killing animals and leading a more sustainable life. It doesn't really make a difference.

@Zoo50, you chose not to answer that question, but in my opinion—whether you donate money or not—you are certainly giving to a good cause. I just don't know whether you are doing it in an effective way, but it's always hard to know how advocacy influences people in the long run.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You realize we were talking about how the order of life should be right? Not....sexual consent?

I demonstrated that you hold opinions that are incompatible with one another. A rational person would reconsider his positions at that point. I used your positions towards sexual consent that you expressed elsewhere in this forum, but you don't have to change your positions about sexual consent to make sense. You could also drop your premise "what an animal desires is irrelevant to what should be done". That's why it is relevant here.

But I understand that you have not adopted a consistent approach to ethics. We have talked about this in a different thread before. Your morals seem to be what you feel is right, which is also mostly aligned with the majority opinion—with the exception of sex with animals being okay in a certain way. I respect you, but I don't think that we can argue sensibly with one another on an irrational basis. I can't change how you feel on the one hand and your feelings have no persuasive power over me on the other hand.

I'll still point out contradictions I see, because I am interested in a rational approach to ethics and maybe some other people are, too. I suppose that most people's morals are irrational though. In that sense, you are the normal guy here and I am the weird one. ;)
 
This does not really get us around the bottom-line, which is that purchasing a package of ground beef from the grocery store is not really something that bothers me whatsoever. It does not bother most other meat-eaters, either. There is not a syllogism in the world that is going to change this fact.

If you were committed to veganism, then wouldn't it behoove you to attempt to decipher why this is a fact? It comes across to me as being more of a question of consumer psychology than of logic.


Try going to an organization that is expert at it:


There was a time when I was reluctant to try vegetarian foods because I quite frankly hated classic vegan favorites like raw carrots and lettuce. Those things give me severe indigestion. Some of my vegetarian and reducitarian friends began introducing me to foods that just plain tasted good and were easy for me to digest.

This type of strategy might come across as repellent to someone like @Zoo50, who thinks that the reason why someone ought to become a vegan is because, in that person's opinion, it is objectively wrong to kill an animal. That type of moral browbeating did not convert me to Christianity, and it is not going to convert me to veganism.

For one thing, I have established ethics of my own, which really mean quite a lot to me. Lecturing me as if I had no ethics at all was how Protestant Christians tended to operate. Their theory was that, since I was not a Christian, I was without the slightest doubt going through life without any kind of morality at all, and they were going to repair that fact by giving me one.

For example, Protestant Christians would say, "Don't you believe in something greater than yourself or beyond yourself?" I felt insulted by this, actually, because they were implying that I had never thought deeply in any respect at all. My human husband has consistently been resentful over my stalwart atheism (he is a pagan), and he once had the audacity to say, "Of course you don't because you are shallow." After the resulting conversation, let me stop at "He does not say those sorts of things anymore," lest I betray how catty I can get.

Ultimately, it is a mistake to assume that someone having different convictions from oneself proves that they have no convictions at all.

If you want an example how the best means of changing people's opinion is by relating to them through their own worldview and core values, I ask that you watch 12 Angry Men.


Observe how the hero that goes through each of those men--and changes the minds of each and every one--operates by holding people accountable to their own core beliefs. What worked for him was that he altogether shrugged off changing those core beliefs, and instead, he took their own perspectives and spoke to them based on how they interpreted the world around them.

In my experience, many people that attempt to promote veganism deeply fail to engage this strategy.

I am fairly open about what things do affect me. I do not care very much at all for either man or beast feeling unnecessarily distressed. I am relatively unfazed by death, taken all by itself. If you ask me why I would not approve of murder, I would point out that the reason why you don't murder is that most people find it to be a deeply distressing thing to happen to someone in their communities. It causes them to feel distrustful and afraid. Ultimately, I regard the fact that the victim is dead as being relatively less important.

You could take several different routes with that. You could prove to me that relatively inexpensive meat often does not actually come from sources that use humane techniques of slaughter, and even when humane slaughter actually is used, it is clearly stressful to the cattle to be taken away from the environment that is familiar to them and put into a sterile and cold industrial slaughterhouse.

Another route you could take would be to demonstrate that cattle actually do miss members of their herds that disappear when some of them are taken away to be slaughtered. Whether or not they understand death in the abstract sense like humans and elephants are known to, I could believe that disrupting the social dynamics of an otherwise healthy herd would not be viewed favorably by its members.

However, one would also be well advised to embrace the fact that I adhere to a style of Pyrrhonism. I believe that becoming too wedded to any new belief is bad for my health. I tend to practice several approaches to epoché in the pursuit of ataraxia. I have sound reasons why. I have risk factors for bipolar disorder. Letting myself get too excited about something or becoming a zealot about something tends to aggravate those risk factors, and I can begin cycling when I otherwise would not. The practice of epoché in several forms helps keep me centered and level-headed. Thinking in terms of "conversion" indicates a form of black-and-white thinking that is really deeply bad for my mental health. Therefore, one would have to make peace with coming away from any conversation with me with only the most muted acknowledgements, and someone that intends to make me a "born again vegan" is barking up the wrong tree.

Vegans do not make very strong arguments by treating their audience as if their established norms, principles, and beliefs did not exist.
 
This thread is an interesting read. Now all of you might hate me but this has to be said.

If you claim to be a vegan then you are a hypocrite. That is right because you use animal products everyday in one form or the other.

There are the obvious ones such as meat, milk, eggs, all dairy products, but others such as beer, Jell-o, shampoo, hair conditioners, body lotions, body scrubs, hand lotions, hand cleaners, detergents, brown sugar, white sugar, bread products, cake mixes, red candy, condoms, crayons, nail polish, and if none of these got your attention then try this, Plastic. All plastic things that are molded contain chemicals often referred to as "slip agents," which are derived from the stearic acid in animal fat. They essentially prevent the polymers from sticking to metals during manufacturing and clinging to each other afterward. So that would mean that you must not use plastic shopping bags, plastic bottles, plastic ink pens, or the plastic keys on your keyboard.
Surprised yet? Your clothes are made with threads that are made with animal biproducts, the sheets on your bed, your pillow cases and the curtains in your house.
And if you are a vegan and you claim that you do not use anything mentioned above then you are worse than a hypocrite, YOU ARE A LIAR.

With all that said you have no moral ground to stand on. The only thing you can say in all honesty is that you do not eat meat.
 
This thread is an interesting read. Now all of you might hate me but this has to be said.

If you claim to be a vegan then you are a hypocrite. That is right because you use animal products everyday in one form or the other.

There are the obvious ones such as meat, milk, eggs, all dairy products, but others such as beer, Jell-o, shampoo, hair conditioners, body lotions, body scrubs, hand lotions, hand cleaners, detergents, brown sugar, white sugar, bread products, cake mixes, red candy, condoms, crayons, nail polish, and if none of these got your attention then try this, Plastic. All plastic things that are molded contain chemicals often referred to as "slip agents," which are derived from the stearic acid in animal fat. They essentially prevent the polymers from sticking to metals during manufacturing and clinging to each other afterward. So that would mean that you must not use plastic shopping bags, plastic bottles, plastic ink pens, or the plastic keys on your keyboard.
Surprised yet? Your clothes are made with threads that are made with animal biproducts, the sheets on your bed, your pillow cases and the curtains in your house.
And if you are a vegan and you claim that you do not use anything mentioned above then you are worse than a hypocrite, YOU ARE A LIAR.

With all that said you have no moral ground to stand on. The only thing you can say in all honesty is that you do not eat meat.
Wow what a great post Articwolf. Plastic bottles are so common in our world. It would be hard to avoid that one for certain. Well at least I'm not a hypocrite.
That just leaves me being a speciesist except that the definition of a speciesist is a belief of humans that all other species of animals are inferior and may therefore be used for human benefit without regard to the suffering inflicted. That definition does not leave room for those of us that understand the slaughter process and want it to be done in a manner where little to no pain be present.
The process used in slaughter houses for cattle involves the use of an air powered gun that shoots a kind of nail into the brain of the animal and then withdraws for use on the next animal The animals drop immediately and from my view it seemed as painless as possible. I was told that many years ago they used to hit them in the center of the skull with a sledge hammer. They told me that often it took several blows of that hammer to kill the animal. They in the industry want the animal to die immediately because if not the adrenaline the animal will release into their blood will spoil the meat. So yes the killing is done quickly and painlessly as possible.
 
The process used in slaughter houses for cattle involves the use of an air powered gun that shoots a kind of nail into the brain of the animal and then withdraws for use on the next animal The animals drop immediately and from my view it seemed as painless as possible. I was told that many years ago they used to hit them in the center of the skull with a sledge hammer. They told me that often it took several blows of that hammer to kill the animal. They in the industry want the animal to die immediately because if not the adrenaline the animal will release into their blood will spoil the meat. So yes the killing is done quickly and painlessly as possible.

Do you have a reliable source for this? It may differ by region in the world, but where I live the bolt shot to the head must not kill the cow. It just makes it unconscious. Then their throats are slit and they bleed to death. Sometimes (much too often), it doesn't work as expected and they are not really unconscious though. Besides, some religions require the animals to be conscious when their throats are slit, so when you buy kosher or halal products, you can expect that the animals felt it.
 
Do you have a reliable source for this? It may differ by region in the world, but where I live the bolt shot to the head must not kill the cow. It just makes it unconscious. Then their throats are slit and they bleed to death. Sometimes (much too often), it doesn't work as expected and they are not really unconscious though. Besides, some religions require the animals to be conscious when their throats are slit, so when you buy kosher or halal products, you can expect that the animals felt it.
Yes this process it the one that is used here. I have witnessed it first hand. After the animal is on the ground it is taken by a conveyor to another room where they begin removing the hide and cutting the animal into sections. I did not see any place where they did a bleeding but there was lots of blood where they were cutting it into sections. After that they move the parts into other areas where they dress it into different cuts of meat that ars still very large. If you buy from them they will dress it completely giving you your roasts, and other cuts of meat all packaged and ready for your freezer.

Perhaps it is different in your part of the country and the way you said does sound bad.
 
I demonstrated that you hold opinions that are incompatible with one another. A rational person would reconsider his positions at that point. I used your positions towards sexual consent that you expressed elsewhere in this forum, but you don't have to change your positions about sexual consent to make sense. You could also drop your premise "what an animal desires is irrelevant to what should be done". That's why it is relevant here.

But I understand that you have not adopted a consistent approach to ethics. We have talked about this in a different thread before. Your morals seem to be what you feel is right, which is also mostly aligned with the majority opinion—with the exception of sex with animals being okay in a certain way. I respect you, but I don't think that we can argue sensibly with one another on an irrational basis. I can't change how you feel on the one hand and your feelings have no persuasive power over me on the other hand.

I'll still point out contradictions I see, because I am interested in a rational approach to ethics and maybe some other people are, too. I suppose that most people's morals are irrational though. In that sense, you are the normal guy here and I am the weird one. ;)

No I just think you don't understand what I'm saying, which is likely my fault.
I'm not talking about animals desires on an individualistic level but as a species. If a hawk had his way, there would be very little vegetation for critters to hide in. If a grizzly had his wishes granted humans would be below him on the food chain. In this way animals wishes are of course irrelevant. We as humans see the bigger picture and make adjustments as necessary....we don't let the animals wishes decide what gets done.

If you still think what i'm talking about somehow still correlates to sex with you then it's not a matter of misinterpretation
 
Do you have a reliable source for this? It may differ by region in the world, but where I live the bolt shot to the head must not kill the cow. It just makes it unconscious. Then their throats are slit and they bleed to death. Sometimes (much too often), it doesn't work as expected and they are not really unconscious though. Besides, some religions require the animals to be conscious when their throats are slit, so when you buy kosher or halal products, you can expect that the animals felt it.

Ah yes this old trope. It's true there are ineffective bolt strikes....but if that happens you simply hit them again within the space of a second or two. If you think that using a captive bolt pistol is inhumane then there is no such thing as a humane slaughter for you.

If you're not too squeamish you can watch exactly what i'm talking about
 
That's not surprising, as it sounds like you were desensitized at a young age and were conditioned to view animals purely as a food source. This is what happens on a lesser level with most humans, and why the thought of not eating them seems so odd.
"Desensitized" is about the right word. We are talking about imprinting that started in my very infancy. You can tell me as many times as you want to that seeing a deer being skinned while hanging from a hook in someone's front yard is grotesque and horrifying. I just regard it as tacky. I always have, honestly. Those things are nasty. I suppose that a lifelong vegan might regard it as nightmare fuel.

That's a powerful observation. Maybe it would make sense to realize that all animals are a someone, whether we get to know them or not. I think that's a large part of why people would never kill the animals they keep as pets, but don't think twice about a different type of animal being eaten--why people will protest the dog markets, screaming and calling for the [racial expletive here] to be killed, while calling vegans militant.
It actually makes a difference to me whether or not I know someone, even if just by a moment's eye-contact.

Have you read Carol Gilligan's ethics of care? Gilligan challenged the idea that we should necessarily treat strangers the same way that we would treat someone that is closely connected with us. A child or a lover or a friend or a neighbor are people to whom we have a responsibility that is greater than that of a stranger. We are interdependent, and our capacity for relying upon each other makes all of us stronger. Gilligan was not proposing this as the single, final solution to all ethical dilemmas but instead as being a part of a larger picture.

I think that's likely because of conditioning by your father and society. Also, packaged meat is so far separated from a living, breathing animal which has emotions and feels pain. All people tend to see is a neatly packaged product which has been normalized.
And it's a genius idea. It makes people's lives considerably easier and reduces the stress that is associated with obtaining their food.

That's good to hear. It sounds that you'll adapt well to the future.
I simply have no vested interest in the supermarket shelves remaining focused on meat as a primary source of easy protein. I reach for the meat because it is easy to find, and it takes minutes to prepare. It provides amino acids that make me feel adequately nourished, and it is, thanks to some handy subsidies, cheap. It would be trivially easy for grocers to become more adept at fulfilling the same criteria with non-meat products, and that constitutes no skin off my back. I have told you precisely what would change my eating habits. I am very uncomplicated.

Because it makes sense to consider the well-being of others and not infringe upon their rights. Obviously, if you're in a survival situation where you would otherwise perish, there is a justification to do so. Example: a lion killing a zebra because the lion would otherwise starve to death. It's not good for the victim (the zebra) but the lion has no choice. Humans do, and don't need to infringe upon the rights of others. We wouldn't want someone infringing upon our rights.
My cat has a choice, but the fact of the matter is that, while I walking him on a leash, one of his great pleasures in life is leaping up acrobatically in the air and attempting to catch passing birds.

People also say you're not going to change what they think through emotion. I think both can be useful as long as they come to their conclusion for good reasons.
If you want somebody to eat a vegetarian meal, then you should consider taking one to a potluck as a gesture of your generosity. Bring cards with the recipe, and boast about it loudly. I guarantee that at least one of them will make it eventually.
 
Last edited:
Ah yes this old trope. It's true there are ineffective bolt strikes....but if that happens you simply hit them again within the space of a second or two. If you think that using a captive bolt pistol is inhumane then there is no such thing as a humane slaughter for you.

If you're not too squeamish you can watch exactly what i'm talking about

My browser blocks this, but I know how it looks when it is done right and I know how it looks when it is done wrong. Last year a slaughterhouse was closed down not too far from where I live after hidden cameras recorded and proved this and other maltreatment. The good news are that the slaughterhouse was closed down. But it makes you wonder what happens where no cameras are hidden ... Anyway, that it is done wrong by some is not an argument against doing it right. I did not mean to criticize the method, correctly applied.
 

"Exactly! We should consider the well-being of those outside of our species. It's fine for us when we are at the top of the food chain. We have our way and there doesn't seem to be one species of animal we don't harm and kill for our own gratification. Other species would prefer it if we considered their interests, too! Humans as a species are literally doing the exact same thing you say individual species shouldn't do."

We hunt animals for our own gratification as well as the well being for those same animals. You can try and preach this lofty nonsense as if hunting is a negative without A N Y not a SINGLE credible source to back that claim up. Unless of course you're not talking about hunting, but then you'd be flat out wrong in a different way being that we don't kill things for "our own gratification"
I'd LOVE to hear how you would solve animal overpopulation issues without killing animals. Seriously, hit me with it instead of taking on this bullshit "I am so much better and pure than you" attitude that all you vegans take


"The bolt guns aren't always effective, and I'd say even if they don't work on the first try only a few times, that's a few times too many. I agree that by definition, slaughter is never humane. The most humane method would be euthanasia, but even then you're taking the life of an animal that wants to live, and isn't terminally ill or injured, or elderly, where death would be in their best interest. We don't consider their best interests, only ours."

They are always effective. It's human error that leads to mistakes. But once again I posted a video on what happens during one of those errors. *gasp* the animal lived in consciousness for an extra 1.5 seconds



"Yes, people are very much tribal animals who like to do what everyone else is doing. The amount of vegans are rising, and eventually it will reach a tipping point where it becomes so normal that the old way of doing things will seem as cruel and unnecessary as it actually is. People won't be wearing the blinders society puts on them."

It's always interesting that all the vegans are low testosterone city boys who are incredibly detached from the animals they advocate for


"This is a lot of the reason why I often feel compelled to jump into conversations such as this. I think a lot of peoples' arguments against veganism aren't good ones, so I like to address those points. I'm not judging anyone or telling them NOT to do it. But, do I recommend they adopt a vegan lifestyle? Yes, and I like to state the reasons why it's a good idea, and why it's not consistent to care only about a person's pets, but none of the other animals in the world."

And yet it's hunters who make up the largest portion of conservation groups out there actively doing something useful, spending chairty money on conservation, being part of groups who go and clean up our beautiful land, funding studies to better understand wildlife needs.... those groups are majority hunters, fishers and even bird watchers. They are doing a hell of a lot more than these fruity vegans who don't buy meat and because of that think they are one level below God himself.


I'd say that's common practice. I've seen cattle/other animals trucked in to slaughterhouses and how they panic as soon as they get near the kill floor. They can hear the screams of the other animals and smell the blood and guts. They watch those ahead of them get slaughtered and then get restrained in a device and a bolt gun to the head, put into a gas chamber, have their necks sliced, etc. A lot of the time due to large numbers, the process gets botched and the animals endure total agony. Sometimes, pregnant cows are slaughtered and when their stomachs are cut open, a living calf falls out on the ground (which doesn't live for long). I think a person would be hard pressed to find a slaughter method (especially for consumption for most of the population) that isn't abusive, stressful, and painful. Not to mention all the workers that kick and stab the animals out of frustration.

Yes i'm SURE you've seen that. What a coincidence eh? That' you've happened to somehow watch cows be lead to the slaughter somehow in full visibility to the public.



We haven't established that an animal doesn't have the intelligence to understand their place in the world. People who live in cozy apartment buildings also don't even see the animals their products came from. They don't see their living conditions, distress, and slaughter.



That's an all-or-nothing argument. Do we even know this for a fact? Even if so, I'm sure that vegans would be in support of having phones which are 100% free of exploitation. Show us how we can avoid it, and I'm sure we'll do it. Besides, the process to make a phone is not inherently cruel. The process in which we arrive at animal products is. Just because there might be some slave labor involved in one element of a smart phone, does that mean we should just say "screw it" and kill all the animals we want? Which one causes less harm; owning a cell phone which may or may not have an element that involved slave labor (which we have no control over) or own the same cell phone and pay for animals to be killed three times a day?


Yes it is fact actually.
Then why don't you adhere to your same bullshit practices when it comes to human suffering? Is it because....it takes actual effort? You can't use your phone then to talk about how great of a person you are and how people who eat meat are stupid and morally corrupt?
How about the clothes off of your back? Does it say made in China? Do you support Chinese sweatshops too?
Let me guess...your answer is going to be the cheap copout "we are just taking it a step at a time"
No, you're a hypocrite. Go ahead and don't eat meat, that's fine. But don't come to me and spout your holier than thou bullshit when i've done more for these animals you talk about than any vegan in this chat
 
ArticWolf said it best in his post

This thread is an interesting read. Now all of you might hate me but this has to be said.

If you claim to be a vegan then you are a hypocrite. That is right because you use animal products everyday in one form or the other.

There are the obvious ones such as meat, milk, eggs, all dairy products, but others such as beer, Jell-o, shampoo, hair conditioners, body lotions, body scrubs, hand lotions, hand cleaners, detergents, brown sugar, white sugar, bread products, cake mixes, red candy, condoms, crayons, nail polish, and if none of these got your attention then try this, Plastic. All plastic things that are molded contain chemicals often referred to as "slip agents," which are derived from the stearic acid in animal fat. They essentially prevent the polymers from sticking to metals during manufacturing and clinging to each other afterward. So that would mean that you must not use plastic shopping bags, plastic bottles, plastic ink pens, or the plastic keys on your keyboard.
Surprised yet? Your clothes are made with threads that are made with animal biproducts, the sheets on your bed, your pillow cases and the curtains in your house.
And if you are a vegan and you claim that you do not use anything mentioned above then you are worse than a hypocrite, YOU ARE A LIAR.

With all that said you have no moral ground to stand on. The only thing you can say in all honesty is that you do not eat meat.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Everyone of us is guilty when it is stated like Articwolf has.

SkawdtDawg
We could go as far as to say that other things are not morally wrong, like theft, or raping other humans. We could call that an opinion, too. What we have to look at is how both parties are affected by the action. The victim's perspective should be considered and weighed against any benefit the perpetrator would gain.
Wrong those are crimes and there are laws against them. They are not opinions.

Yeah, I think that would be the best. But, I also realize that changing the demand for animal products is more important than telling farmers to stop raising animals and slaughtering them. I don't think you'll agree, but minds can change.
You are not in any position to make such a call. You have no opinion or any basis for an opinion here. When you have millions of dollars invested in a business such as a cattle ranch and suddenly people start this moral thing which I have no belief in, then you can say what you think is best. And BTW we do not slaughter the animals. They are sold to another company and they haul them into the slaughter houses.

That's great! But I also still think this is a totally separate issue. I'm not so sure about that last statement. Would a person have a right to judge someone if they made a living on human trafficking or dealing drugs? If it makes a difference, I'm not judging you.
The things you mention are illegal and what I was obviously referring to is legal everywhere. There is no comparison and nobody should ever be judged for what they do legally to make a living.

--------------------------------------------------

You don't see the relevance in charitable contributions? Really? Well people that have such strong beliefs will also put money into the hands of people that can use that money to help make changes. Usually have a better chance of making those changes. You "look at me I'm so good" statement has no relevance at all.

The big picture of making those donations is that you maybe able to end the cruelty that animals suffer. Did you ever think about that? It is highly doubful that in your lifetime you will ever see the end of animals being sold for food. However with the right ingenuity you could help to change things and give the animals that are headed to slaughter a good as possibly life.


And on a last note when you stop using plastic and ALL animal products then you can say you're a vegan, until then you are a hypocrite just as you call me one when I say I eat meat and I love animals.

Those products that Articwold stated cause the death of animals too.

What is the old saying? People that live in glass houses should refrain from throwing rocks......................
 
Last edited:
That's objectively not true, and is an "all or nothing" argument. Veganism isn't about causing no harm; that is impossible. It's about causing the least amount that's possible and practical. Cutting out animals products in one's diet is probably 95% of the battle, if not more. I cut out all the animal products I can practically do. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find animals products that I actually use, and if I do--it's because I have no choice or control over it.

But when you start throwing in this morality issue then yes it has to be an all or nothing argument. If you are using any animal product, even if how it is manufactured is out of your control then you share the same guilt that you are projecting on people that eat meat. AND as stated you are a hypocrite. Maybe a bigger one then the guy you are bantering.
 
I'd probably save the 10 year old human kid if all conditions were the same. That doesn't mean the goat's life doesn't have enough value to not kill them if there is no need. We could change the question to, "What if there was a 10 year old human child and an elderly woman stuck on the tracks?" or "What if there was a white man and a black man stuck on the tracks?" We all have our reasons for which we'd save, but that doesn't mean the other isn't worthy of life.

The fact you said probably tells me all I need to know.

Obviously you'd save the 10 year old, anybody with a functioning logical process can come to that deduction

unless you're a racist it doesn't matter which one you save if there's no other obvious difference.
 
I'd say that's common practice. I've seen cattle/other animals trucked in to slaughterhouses and how they panic as soon as they get near the kill floor. They can hear the screams of the other animals and smell the blood and guts. They watch those ahead of them get slaughtered and then get restrained in a device and a bolt gun to the head, put into a gas chamber, have their necks sliced, etc. A lot of the time due to large numbers, the process gets botched and the animals endure total agony. Sometimes, pregnant cows are slaughtered and when their stomachs are cut open, a living calf falls out on the ground (which doesn't live for long). I think a person would be hard pressed to find a slaughter method (especially for consumption for most of the population) that isn't abusive, stressful, and painful. Not to mention all the workers that kick and stab the animals out of frustration.
If "humane slaughter" is mostly a myth that really glosses over a poorly regulated industry, then that actually should be public knowledge.

I would ask, though--would you be fine with someone taking away your life, even if it wasn't painful? Would you feel anyone has a right to end your life for their own reasons? Or should that be completely up to you?
The Pythagoreans used the same fairness and justice based reasoning, but in the real world of ethics, that kind of reasoning does not, in practice, exist in a vacuum. If you want this to carry very much weight, then I suggest that you get people sold on the general idea of fairness and justice, first. It constitutes only one branch of normative ethics.

From a more utilitarian point-of-view, though, longevity is quite frankly lost on cattle. To them, it is just more arthritis and more health problems. Nobody ever teaches them to think in the abstract about this sort of thing.

For you to sell me on a fairness and justice argument, here, then you would have to do as the Pythagoreans did, which was to start by solidifying an appreciation for the general principle of fairness and justice. Build up people's confidence about how this branch of normative ethics serves them in ways that are important to them.
 
This thread is an interesting read. Now all of you might hate me but this has to be said.

If you claim to be a vegan then you are a hypocrite. That is right because you use animal products everyday in one form or the other.

There are the obvious ones such as meat, milk, eggs, all dairy products, but others such as beer, Jell-o, shampoo, hair conditioners, body lotions, body scrubs, hand lotions, hand cleaners, detergents, brown sugar, white sugar, bread products, cake mixes, red candy, condoms, crayons, nail polish, and if none of these got your attention then try this, Plastic. All plastic things that are molded contain chemicals often referred to as "slip agents," which are derived from the stearic acid in animal fat. They essentially prevent the polymers from sticking to metals during manufacturing and clinging to each other afterward. So that would mean that you must not use plastic shopping bags, plastic bottles, plastic ink pens, or the plastic keys on your keyboard.
Surprised yet? Your clothes are made with threads that are made with animal biproducts, the sheets on your bed, your pillow cases and the curtains in your house.
And if you are a vegan and you claim that you do not use anything mentioned above then you are worse than a hypocrite, YOU ARE A LIAR.

With all that said you have no moral ground to stand on. The only thing you can say in all honesty is that you do not eat meat.

A man walks into a bar where Mary and Jane are chatting. He hits Mary in the face. Blood drips from her nose and onto Jane, who is trying to help her friend. Jane asks the man: "Why did you hit Mary? She didn't do anything!" The man replies: "I can see that you have Mary's blood on your hands too, you lying hypocrite."

Not a bad joke, actually—I'll keep it in mind. :)
If that's how you seriously think though, I don't know what to say.
 
If the true reason for hunting animals is for THEIR well being, and not solely OURS, then great. I mean mostly animal agriculture, which is the majority of people's food source. I never claimed that we don't kill things for our own gratification. In fact, I claimed the opposite.

It's one of the many reasons. It's for our benefit AND theirs. Right now we have a healthy system, your problem isn't deer dying, it's that humans are killing deer. As if a deer dying to a wolf or a human makes a difference.

"That's complete speculation on your part and shows your ignorance and that you just like to categorize and stereotype people. I actually grew up in the country IN cow farms! I threw hay and saw what happens to cows firsthand. My testosterone levels are not low, I assure you. Maybe not as high as yours, as you seem quite aggressive."

I'm sure you did princess. And no that's not speculation, stereotypes exist for a reason. go look at any vegan meeting, bunch of hipsters with the complexion of a bean sprout

So you say. Once again, you're just using insults and hyperbole to try to make a point. I never claimed to be one level below God Himself, nor did I imply it. I never even judged you. Yet, here you are all riled up, using insults.

So I say AND back up with sources

"We found wildlife recreationists—both hunters and birdwatchers—were 4–5 times more likely than nonrecreationists to engage in conservation behaviors, which included a suite of activities such as donating to support local conservation efforts, enhancing wildlife habitat on public lands, advocating for wildlife recreation, and participating in local environmental groups. Moreover, effects were additive; hunter–birdwatchers had the greatest likelihood of engaging in all types of conservation behaviors "



"Okay, how do we solve this problem? I need my phone in today's society. It's not practical or possible to function without a phone. A phone doesn't NEED to be made with slavery. So, I'm all for doing what I need to do to change this. Of course I don't want to support human slavery. I'm always open to positive change.

Let's see... I haven't really bought new clothes. Almost all my clothes throughout my life have been hand-me-downs or used thrift store purchased. I make a point of NOT supporting Chinese sweatshops. I try as much as I can to buy American-made, or from countries with high standards of living. I even pay extra money for that.

You're clearly angry and defensive even though I never attacked you personally or insulted you. I'm not a hypocrite. I do as much as I can and am open to learning and change"


Holy fuck the irony! I love it "omg but I need my phone! how can you expect me to live with something that's hard to give up" This is great.
No, society says you NEED your phone. I worked with a guy installing fan ducts for barns who didn't have a phone. Weird how he was somehow able to exist?
And you're full of shit lol. Yes i'm sure none of your T Shirts read Bangladash or China, uh huh.
I am defensive. Because i'm tired of punks like you with your holier than thou sourceless nonsense. Almost every single comments vegans seem to make center around their veganism, as if it's the defining feature of your personality.

And I have no idea why you quoted me in a bunch of comments that others made.
 
What's your conclusion, then? And what does that prove?
You are getting sloppy about quoting who said what. At least 3 of the quotes that say they were said by Hyperwoof are what I said.

I can no longer see any point in continuing in this thread. There is nothing I can say that would cause you to stop your assault on those of us that have no conviction associated with eating meat. Every point has been ignored and it has become a game of who is wrong the most and the point is that nobody is correct when it comes down to it. 95% of the world has no problem with consuming animal products and it is in that world where I live. You may live in whatever part of the world that you choose and it doesn't bother me in the least. BTW I do not eat meat every meal as suggested.

I see no need to defend my position as I have the right to take any position so long as it is legal. No you do not have the right to criticize someone because they do not agree with what you have decided to be right for your own life.
 

"My problem is with deer dying when there is no need. That's it. If people have to do it to survive, it's justified. If predators have to do it to survive, it's justified. If we have to do it for their benefit, it's justified. People killing deer when there is no need isn't justified, and that's the issue we have. The only difference between a human and a wolf killing a deer is that a wolf needs to kill a deer, where a human doesn't--unless a human would otherwise starve to death (not likely in today's world), or some deer need to die to save the rest of the deer. My issue isn't really even so much with hunting as it is with farming."


So population control of deer is only bad when humans do it, even though humans are also eating it like the wold. Literally no difference other than what species eats the deer....And yet there's an issue with that somehow.


"Insults don't help your argument. Once again, generalizations. Maybe you'd be surprised how many vegans are tan and have high muscle mass. If you're just going to stereotype and insult people, I don't see much point in continuing the conversation."

Stereotypes generally have a lot of truth behind them. Yes of course there are masculine vegans, but they are the outliers.


Cool. Maybe the general population needs to be more involved in conservation behaviors. We're just trying to stop unnecessary killing. If killing deer is necessary for the well-being and there is no other way, then so be it. Just excuse us if we analyze that option to see if there are other ways.


You know what's a great way for the general pop. to become more involved in conservation behaviors? Hunting, fishing, hiking.... etc.
I lived for years without a phone--until I started having jobs where my company required me to have a phone. Now all the jobs in my field require a phone, or you don't get the job. We can play this further--maybe we don't have any computers or electronic devices, and so forth, until we are back in the stone age. That's backwards and ridiculous. We can, on the other hand, try to change the way the process is done. Cell phones aren't inherently cruel. We can fix the process. Slaughtering animals? That's inherently cruel and can't be fixed.

Even if I buy for a second that you lived without a phone for years until recently (I don't) Then why didn't you switch fields? If your career made it so you had to eat meat would you stay? I love the logic "cell phones aren't inherently cruel we can fix the process!" *says while actively supporting the process that allows those businesses to exist*
What's the difference? Can't you eat meat then while still working on ways to cut back on animal agricultural? Oh... yeah there's no difference....except for one. It's not hip and cool and revolutionary to NOT buy a cell phone, but you certainly feel like you're doing something powerful when you don't "abuse" animals.


Actually, most of my clothes are made in the USA. Some of the pants I had to buy were made in Mexico. At my last job, we had to wear a uniform, and those were made in Honduras or somewhere. I didn't have a choice--wear the uniform, or don't get the job. So, I guess we can be unemployed and not have any electronic devices. Whenever I have a choice at where something is made, I try to buy from the USA or a country that treats and pays their workers well. In fact, I'm much more conscious about this than the average person!


Why would you work for a company that benefits off of slave labour? There's LOTS of jobs out there that are very ethical in every way.

See how that same logic backfires on you?


Tell me, do you do the same? And did you give a darn about human slaves in third world countries before having this discussion with me? I did. I didn't know about the human cost of what went into making my phone. I don't think that not buying phones is the answer. I think changing regulations is the answer because the problem isn't with cell phones, it's the way we're currently making them. So let's find a way to get them made without exploiting humans! Also, it doesn't invalidate the vegan argument.

I eat meat, I use a cell phone, I wear whatever clothing is convenient. Because my idea of action isn't inaction. If I can make an impact on the world I do it, as I have done many times in the wildlife world as that is my passion... REAL action, not faux activism like avoiding honey. A phone makes my life a lot easier, so I use on. Sucks that people in china make pennies on the dollar to make them. But that's an issue caused by other peoples greed, not mine.


Yeah, I never claimed to be better than you. I'm only analyzing one set of actions, not a person's entire character. I've tried to be respectful and you're not giving me the same courtesy.


In direct wording you have not. You're right. But almost every comment you made is made clear you're doing so with your nose in the air.
 
"It's always bad. But it's worse when there is no need to do it. There is a difference--species like wolves need to eat them or they will starve. Humans don't. Maybe they kill them out of kindness."

Does it matter to the deer who it gets eaten by? Does it matter to conservation? A dead deer is a dead deer. If it gets eaten that's all it matters. If I harvest a deer then guess what...i'm not buying meats from a grocery store for a good long while.
"Great. Let's do things like hiking that doesn't kill animals unless when killing them is in their best interest."


Yeah that's not how human interest works.

Really, now you don't believe that I didn't have a cell phone until just a few years ago? I didn't need one and got along without one just fine. But now industries have changed. I didn't know about the exploitation involved in making cell phones back then and going back to the stone age isn't at all reasonable or necessary. The problem isn't with cell phones; it's the way they're made. No career is going to force me to eat meat. That's ridiculous.

Animal agriculture will never be acceptable, no matter how good it is. Cell phones can be made in better ways. There is no good way to raise animals and then kill them


No of course I don't buy that, every adult has a phone other than the rare outlier.
Now you DO know about the exploitation, and you're saying "it's not reasonable to go back now blah blah" Then why is it reasonable for an omnivore to go to a vegan diet? It's literally the same logic.

You're also dodging the question by playing it off as if it was a realistically possible scenario that a job would force you to eat meat. It's a question of IF. And if you're true to your own principles you wouldn't take that job because you think eating meat is wrong. Now you know that cell phone sales benefit companies that oppress their workers to the point they need to install suicide nets onto their buildings to prevent workers from killing themselves. What are you going to do about it?
They don't benefit off of slave labor. You're blowing this way out of proportion. You're not even using logic at this point.

You're right in that i'm blowing this out of proportion, but that's the entire vegan argument. So enjoy a bit of your own medicine


Right, so you're doing all the harm that you're criticizing me for, AND you're killing animals on top of it. So, what are you doing to stop slave labor related to your cell phone and clothes? You say that's an issue caused by other people's greed, not your own. Yet, you claim it's directly my fault.

I am using your own logic against you. You claim I am supporting the cruelty of animals by hunting and eating meat. Well you're supporting slavery by buying cell phones and working for companies that save money by purchasing uniforms made by sweatshops. Either go on and mind your own business over what you and others eat, or accept that you're a proselytizing hypocrite

 
a trains coming, there's a goat stuck on the tracks and a 10 year old human kid. You have time to save one of them..... Are you sure they are still equal?

This a loaded bullshit question. It's like saying the following:

A train is coming, and there are two humans stuck on the track -- you have time to save one of them -- who are you going to save?

I still stand by what I said, that humans are equal to other animals (morally).
 
This a loaded bullshit question. It's like saying the following:

A train is coming, and there are two humans stuck on the track -- you have time to save one of them -- who are you going to save?

I still stand by what I said, that humans are equal to other animals (morally).

congratulations, that makes you a brain dead retard.
 
Back
Top