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

[Tailo]

Dear vegans: the only way that I will stop buying real live milk that is actually squeezed from a real live cow's mammary glands will be if you can sell me real live milk that is not squeezed from a real live cow's mammary glands for a lower price, so get cracking.

No chance to argue with utilitarianism?
Balancing the sadness of cows against an extra enjoyment you may derive from their milk over alternatives?

The lower price requirement makes me actually sad, although I should know that this is how the world works.

When I was with my parents for the holidays, my mother managed to talk about how bad it is that we have bred cows within only a human generation to produce twice the amount of milk each day and then be depleted of any energy within very few years, how bad it is that most cows never see the sky et cetera and to go and buy the cheapest milk from the store around the corner where organic milk and plant-based options are also available, which she is very well aware of. I find this frustrating. My mother can afford a better product easily and she is an intelligent person. But it is as you said, @SigmatoZeta. Many people will only buy the cheapest. Many poor people think they can't afford the better product and many rich will say that they wouldn't be rich, if they didn't shop cost-optimized.

 

[SigmaTheZeta]

Clever line or argument, @Tailo.

To me, you just produced a stronger argument for imposing stronger regulations upon dairy farmers. That is something that I already agree with. The big dairy lobby might try to obstruct a strong regulatory bill from getting passed, but I think that as more functionally identical non-animal products enter the industry (such as Perfect Day), their lobbying power will ultimately weaken over time.

I will say that my existing fondness of well cooked bivalve mollusks has only gotten stronger as a consequence of this discussion, though.

 

[SigmaTheZeta]

@SkawdtDawg

Just because it was important to you and because @Tailo threw my own utilitarian views in my face successfully, I went and got some oat milk. I will not drink soy, which tastes to me like a building material. Oats sustained generations of my Scottish ancestors. I am still convinced that we ought to tighten up our regulation of the dairy industry, rather than just boycotting dairy. In principle, dairy cows and humans have a symbiotic relationship that goes back to prehistoric times, and this has had such a deep impact on human evolution that northwestern Europeans are the primary bearers of a unique genetic adaptation that allows them to process lactose effectively during adulthood.

High lactose tolerance in North Europeans: a result of migration, not in situ milk consumption - PubMed

The main carbohydrate in milk is lactose, which must be hydrolyzed to glucose and galactose before the sugars can be digested. While 65% or more of the total human population are lactose intolerant, in some human populations lactase activity commonly persists into adulthood. Lactose tolerance is...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

We coevolved with these animals.

Furthermore, I do not see dairy as inherently malevolent. The problem with it is wholly the same problem that was concomitant with the Industrial Revolution: mass production leads to the cogs that are in the machine ultimately not attracting very much notice as long as they work. Pretending that that was not going to induce a backlash provided us with a lovely cultural dumpster-fire called Bolshevism. The Americans followed Theodore Roosevelt and similar thinkers into applying Progressive Era policies and thereby remedying some of those abuses. In other words, they introduced regulation. Regulation improved conditions of workers in American industry, and I see no reason why we should not also more closely regulate the dairy industry for the benefit of the cows. There is no reason why dairy ought to be inherently malevolent. I would rather us save the industry and get it back to being done on a gentler and smaller scale.

Right now, it does not look like the factory farming lobby is about to cooperate over that, so the oatmilk will do what I need it to do for my coffee until Perfect Day can put something better on the shelf.

I deny that dairy is inherently bad, but insofar as factory farmed dairy, you got me there. They are not going to get the point until we stop buying it.

Anyhow, I also purchased some of those Beyond sausages, cooked them on the skillet, and put them onto a traditional bun with some sauerkraut, mustard, ketchup, and pickles. I will acknowledge that the product was easy to locate at the store: I had stopped craving very much tetrapod derived meat for the past several months, and I had not even actually seen the meat aisle for a while. The Beyond products were very clearly displayed in the same location as the rest of the meat, though, so thank you, Harris Teeter. The "meat" is actually reasonably good.

I found out that Harris Teeter carried the product by going to the Beyond Meat website and clicking on the "where to find" tab:

Where to Find Beyond Meat at a Store Near You | Beyond Meat

Find Beyond Meat on the menus of restaurants & in the meat aisles of stores near you.

www.beyondmeat.com

I typed in my zip code, and I was given a handy dandy map that I proceeded to use to navigate my way to the store at which I bought it.

By the way, let me remind you that disseminating this kind of helpful information is ultimately going to be more helpful to your cause than a thousand sermons. The Beyond Meat website makes it easy to find their product.

This discussion has brought to light the fact that factory farming, in how it is practiced, tends to undermine every possible theory about humane slaughter and other attempts to approach the ethical issues that are related to the consumption of meat. In theory, humane slaughter sounds defensible, but the larger the production scale, the more human error gets into the system. Agricultural labors grow frustrated, not because they are evil but because they are human and tired.

That, @SkawdtDawg, was really the tipping point. I have worked in manufacturing before. Us who work on our feet for long hours become frustrated and sore. We are often in pain but still have to work. It is unrealistic to expect that somebody in that state of mind, especially in a dying industry, can be depended upon to exercise a high standard of professionalism while working for minimum wage or less.

 

[Zoo50]

Dear vegans: the only way that I will stop buying real live milk that is actually squeezed from a real live cow's mammary glands will be if you can sell me real live milk that is not squeezed from a real live cow's mammary glands for a lower price, so get cracking.

There are so many different kind of non-dairy milks that taste better though: soy milk, almond milk, cashew milk, rice milk, etc.

Edit: just saw that you're drinking oat milk -- that's good.

Because I happen to like it, and my opinion is that in the long run, it will be even less expensive to produce synthetic dairy proteins than to raise an actual plant.

As @SkawdtDawg said, I think a cow's interests are stronger than one's trivial interests (such as taste).

Furthermore, I do not see dairy as inherently malevolent... There is no reason why dairy ought to be inherently malevolent. I would rather us save the industry and get it back to being done on a gentler and smaller scale.

The current dairy industry is inherently unethical, and people should not support it (i.e. by not buying dairy milk, as well as not buying other dairy products).

Exactly. Humane slaughter is a myth, especially in a factory setting. It's basically propaganda to make consumers feel good; a lot like free-range and cage-free, which don't really have any legal definitions, and often there isn't much difference. Labels are more to make the consumers feel better, than the animals.

I completely agree. I really pisses me off when I see labels such as "humane slaughter", "cage-free eggs", etc. -- it's all bullshit. There's no such thing as "humane slaughter", because slaughter is itself inhumane.

 

[Comfortzone]

Man this is a L o n g thread

 

[Moosekub]

I always found the vegan argument confusing and exhausting. Tearing up forests to grow soy and wheat is not exactly ethical or harmless. The victims of mass farming may generally be smaller (mice, insects, deer, birds, fish) or directly or indirectly impacted (predators, habitat loss, water availability or quality, displacement of communities, exploitation) but there is harm all the same; seen and unseen. Not to mention, the people harvesting the food are not exactly treated like human beings. In the U.S, fruit pickers frequently live in unheated, overcrowded sheds working for hours in the hot sun for pennies. Discrminationatory practices are common and abuse is rampant, where are the ethics in that?
Their environmentalist position is shaky too, thier food is grown usually with GMO plants which require an obscene amount of pesticides which damages the soil and kills animals and sickens humans. Then, after the trucks and tractors belch thier exhaust into the sky, the food will be will be packaged in plastic, cardboard, and smaller still into single use packages and shipped across the world travels in the same vehicle as my meat. The lower visibility of suffering does not mean vegan lifestyles do not cause less suffering. To say their lifestyle is better simply because a factory raised animal didn't die, or a cow wasn't milked ignores the mechanisms behind how our food is made and supplied and the actual suffering involved for all aspects.
What is more, the Vegan position lacks cultural relativisim, and is extremely ethnocentric, it callously conflates eating meat with a lack of concern for animal wellbeing regardless of the individuals circumstances, cultural background or individual ethical considerations. People who buy, raise, hunt, catch and eat meat for self sufficiency and/or sustenance are not eating meat to be cruel and conflating taking a life with a lack of respect for life is a conceited and condescending argument; especially to those who engage in methods and practices to preserve and protect the environment or their animal's welfare.
The all or nothing position of vegans interlaced with condescension, oversimplification, and arrogance makes your fears understandable. However, I do not see policy makers siding with anyone on banning pets, let alone getting people to surrender them.

 

[Tailo]

Man this is a L o n g thread

Long threads can help people find their way out of a labyrinth.

 

[Tailo]

I always found the vegan argument confusing and exhausting. Tearing up forests to grow soy and wheat is not exactly ethical or harmless.

You may not know that the soy is mostly used to feed animals for slaughter. We need much less soy for direct human consumption than is grown as feed for livestock.

 

[Moosekub]

You may not know that the soy is mostly used to feed animals for slaughter. We need much less soy for direct human consumption than is grown as feed for livestock.

Though I specifically named soy, this does not mean I am only speaking of soy. I think that should have been obvious.

 

[Tailo]

Though I specifically named soy, this does not mean I am only speaking of soy. I think that should have been obvious.

It applies in general, not just to soy. Livestock animals eat plants. So whether you eat plants or meat—plants are going to be eaten. But livestock animals also burn energy for body heat and movement that you won't get back when eating the animal. Therefore you need more land and more plants to get your necessary energy out of meat than directly from plants.

There are a few exceptions where animals have adapted to plants that we humans can't eat and where plants we humans can eat don't grow, for example in the arctic regions where reindeer live of moss. That's a valid point, but it's not what our meat industry is mainly based on. Our meat consumption is much higher than that.

The truth is that we would need less land for a vegan nutrition than we need for the current nutrition. It's not a matter of opinion or ethics, it's due to physics.

 

[Moosekub]

It applies in general, not just to soy. Livestock animals eat plants. So whether you eat plants or meat—plants are going to be eaten. But livestock animals also burn energy for body heat and movement that you won't get back when eating the animal. Therefore you need more land and more plants to get your necessary energy out of meat than directly from plants.

There are a few exceptions where animals have adapted to plants that we humans can't eat and where plants we humans can eat don't grow, for example in the arctic regions where reindeer live of moss. That's a valid point, but it's not what our meat industry is mainly based on. Our meat consumption is much higher than that.

The truth is that we would need less land for a vegan nutrition than we need for the current nutrition. It's not a matter of opinion or ethics, it's due to physics.

And yet, none of this addresses my central point the suffering exists regardless. Using less farmland does not solve the environmentally harmful effects of farming, nor does it account for crops like almonds which grew in popularity due to human consumption as an alternative to milk and is contributing to the devastation of bee populations, water scarcity, and pollution from pesticides.
Most importantly you are avoiding my key point to make a different point because it's easier for you to defend that one point instead of the whole.

First you picked out the mention of soy out of all rhat I said.
Then when I restated my statement, you broadened yours to meet the threshold of "plants in general": A point which was never presented.
Then you start about physics which makes no sense because energy cannot be destroyed or lost, energy is transferred.
You end your statement by saying not eating meat is about physics...or is it not farming meat that's about physics? I can't tell because it makes no sense in relation to anything I said.

I am already exhausted.
So....what I am going to do, is end this discussion here. There are no prizes for going back and forth the longest and I have no shame in saying this discussion is tedious and unproductive as we get further and further from the original statement; which you have bafflingly redefined as a matter of physics, despite your tenuous grasp on the elementary concept of how energy works.

I'll have no parts of this chennanery.
I said what I had to say and I'll say no more.

Have a wonderful night

 

[Tailo]

Most importantly you are avoiding my key point to make a different point because it's easier for you to defend that one point instead of the whole.

I chose only to reply to your first argument because you started your post with the idea that these arguments are exhausting, so I did not want to confront you with a wall of text. But the first point you made is also among the most frequent misconceptions I hear about meat. I think it's saddening when people avoid soy products in order to help the rain forest, choosing meat instead, while in reality they do the opposite unknowingly, since more soy went into their steak. I just wanted to clear that up so that people can make an informed decision.

I'd be happy to discuss more of what you said, but it probably does not make sense anymore, seeing how talking about the first point has already upset you and since you have declared that the discussion is over. When you are interested in a discussion, I'll be here.

 

[SigmaTheZeta]

I think that the real losers from this discussion, at this point, are the factory farming industry. They have not just made life difficult for small farmers that use traditional and more humane methods, but they put their workers in untenable situations that leave abuses against the animals they work with all but inevitable.

I have a local farmers market that I like to shop at, and the meat and egg farmer there is someone that I know. That person refuses to engage in the practice of beak amputation on chickens and informs people about this practice and why he disagrees with it, and as often as his ducks "go on strike" and refuse to produce, he is obviously above using abusive hormone treatment to force production. I can look this guy in the eye, and if I want eggs, I can get them from this guy knowing that I would trade places with the animals they came from without hesitation. His animals have union jobs, and I don't.

I honestly think that industrialized meat production is going to be a thing of the past once it becomes affordable to synthesize animal proteins in a lab, and raising animals for traditional dairy or eggs will be done more for personal fulfillment and a spiritual connection with the animals than out of perceived necessity.

Still, those animals have obtained a net win from their relationship with humans. Without their relationship with humans, an existence in the "wild" is never one in which the animal is truly free. In the wild, herd animals are still hemmed-in and controlled by predators, including wild wolves. This has always been the case. There has never been a world in which these animals lived altogether without depredation as a part of their existence.

The only case in which cattle or sheep or pigs are apt to live without depredation as a probable part of their existence will be to live as pets that are kept in the existence of their humans for historical and aesthetic reasons. This takes us back to the primary discussion of the OP, actually. While it is fitting and appropriate to criticize the industrialized meat production industry, we must not allow that to be confused with individuals who live in communities where people have always coexisted with animals and have always kept to traditional practices, even when they have had to pursue other careers in order for it to be tenable to continue having their traditional agrarian lifestyle. I think that the people that live in those communities ought to be protected from persecution by people that would unjustly conflate them with the factory farming industry, which is controlled by people that are really nothing like them at all.

This might seem like a concern that is faraway, in the distant future, but I would beg to differ. Companies like Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods have begun putting usable and affordable products on the shelf within the past year, and Mosa Meat and Perfect Day will inevitably be able to produce a product that is not distinguishable from conventional animal products at all. Usable products are appearing right now in the grocery store with more and better ones on the way, and it will be only a matter of time before they have driven out conventional meat.

Traditional agricultural families are not going to just disappear, and many of them are members of the zooey community. For us to throw them under the bus would be unfair because they are not really to blame for the factory farming industry. If anything, I think that they have been among the greatest victims of the factory farming industry, regardless of whether or not all of them realize it.

I would agree that it is time for those of us that are driven by an ethical conscience to turn away from products that were clearly put on the shelf by the factory farming industry, but I think that we should also take the lead in establishing the truth that traditional farmers are not in the same category. They do not deserve the same level of hostility from animal rights advocates. I see these people every week working under tents, often in the rain, at my local farmers markets. These people are not sadists or driven by greed, but they are driven by their beliefs.

I think that the answer is, instead of demonizing all meat, to drive a more unifying message that we--as zoos, as animal lovers zooey or otherwise, as people who grew up with western values, and as decent human beings--unequivocally reject the products that have been marketed to us by the factory farming industry. They are not the wholesome and relatively moral product of our Neolithic past, and they do not represent what we believe.

 

[SigmaTheZeta]

@SkawdtDawg

Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods can furnish their products at lower prices than meat that does not come from factory farms, so budget-conscious shoppers that knew to avoid potentially factory-farmed meat as a false economy would probably buy the less costly vegan alternative, anyhow. The direct consequence would be the same.

Furthermore, it would be easier to unify people behind a retaliation specifically against factory-farmed meat.

The indirect consequence of sheltering traditional families from being demonized is that the children and eventually the grandchildren of these people, if allowed to integrate into a society where nobody feels they have to buy meat that comes from animals, will probably regard it as a profoundly lurid and bizarre idea to bother raising an animal only for the sake of killing it and then chopping it to pieces for food, when it just costs substantially less to go to the supermarket and buy a better and more consistent product off the shelf. It would sound to them like a weird heathen ritual.

Conflating those families with the genuinely greed-driven factory farm industry would ultimately lead to someone being treated as a monster just because he owns a cow at all, regardless of whether that person intends to ever slaughter that cow.

In a world where packaged lab-grown meat is simply cheaper, those families will ultimately just think it's strange to slaughter a perfectly good animal when a better product is less costly. Give them a couple of generations. The ones that are in it for profit will drop off pretty fast.

 

[Tailo]

Maybe some farms with animals will shift to sustainable tourism and education in the future—similar to zoological gardens—or as places for therapy? They could still have a business then, but one where the well-being of animals is an important factor.

 

[SigmaTheZeta]

Maybe some farms with animals will shift to sustainable tourism and education in the future—similar to zoological gardens—or as places for therapy? They could still have a business then, but one where the well-being of animals is an important factor.

I actually have a feeling that people in these industries will ultimately just enter fields like engineering, and they will keep their animals on their farms for the same reasons that people still have backyard gardens.

There are already farmers that work in other occupations to help pay their bills.

 

[Frezzato]

I admire every single one of you people arguing with Zoo50 and the like, I gave up reasoning witg vegans a long time ago. Now a days I just block/ignore then, but some are stupid enough to still push they're luck and those are dealt with accordingly

 

[HyperWoof]

I'm trying to find the video I watched about a year ago where a slaughterhouse employee was interviewed, and he said that whenever he would periodically clean out the gas chambers, there would be bits of hooves and legs down in there. It's not every single pig that chews them off, just a few; which illustrates the agony and fear they are experiencing.

"The density of the gas is so painful that slaughterhouse workers have reported finding pigs' hooves at the bottom of the chamber, a result of the pig thrashing around so violently while being asphyxiated with gas that they rip their hooves off their feet."

https://www.facebook.com/Jo.Frederi...-into-where-they-will-exper/1537402693008683/

It's pretty awful, anyway.

That video does look pretty brutal. But as of now it is the most humane way of slaughtering pigs due to their social nature. Yes they have to go through 15 seconds of trying to escape a gas, but the gas itself isn't painful.
The rest of the video is just an attempt to make a senseless appeal to empathy, even though the pigs are already dead and it doesn't matter that they are manhandled roughly by machines.

I agree that we should be working on a better way to deal with the slaughter of pigs. They already are trying to make LAPS (Low Atmosphere Pressure Stunning) a workable method for pigs. LAPS is the sensation pilots feel when subjected to high G force that could render them unconscious without the proper equipment. The sensation is not unpleasant.
This method is already used with poultry and is in the process of possibly being approved for pigs.

 

[Zoo50]

Tearing up forests to grow soy and wheat is not exactly ethical or harmless.

This is idiotic. More forests are cut down in order to sustain animals (pigs, cows, etc.) than for plant uses (such as soy). Cows require far more land than plants alone. In fact, most of the soy produced is itself used to feed animals that are eventually slaughtered. It makes more sense to eat only plants, rather than eat animals that eat plants. So, if someone is eating meat, they are contributing more to deforestation than they would if they were only eating plant-based things (such as soy).

The lower visibility of suffering does not mean vegan lifestyles do not cause less suffering.

This is bullshit. Of course being vegan means less animal suffering -- the torturous, agonizing process in which animals are slaughtered involves a ton of animal suffering -- and by not eating meat, one is not supporting that system.

What is more, the Vegan position lacks cultural relativisim, and is extremely ethnocentric

"Cultural" concerns are not relevant. What matters is whether an animal's interests are being respected. Clearly, eating meat is unethical because it does not respect an animal's interests.

People who buy, raise, hunt, catch and eat meat for self sufficiency and/or sustenance are not eating meat to be cruel and conflating taking a life with a lack of respect for life is a conceited and condescending argument

You're wrong. Even if people are not aware of the suffering and cruelty they are inflicting by hunting or eating meat, they are still doing it. And depriving a being of his/her life is an inherently disrespectful thing.

nor does it account for crops like almonds which grew in popularity due to human consumption as an alternative to milk and is contributing to the devastation of bee populations, water scarcity, and pollution from pesticides.

You're picking and choosing things which best fit your pre-conceived beliefs. The negative effects of the dairy industry (such as the suffering and exploitation of cows) is far worse than the almond industry.

So....what I am going to do, is end this discussion here.

You're just saying that because I think you know your arguments defending meat-eating are not compelling. Also, when people challenge your nonsense, you'd rather shut down the conversation instead of discussing it further.

I have a local farmers market that I like to shop at, and the meat and egg farmer there is someone that I know.

If an animal is killed in a "local" farm, it is still unethical. As @Llandefie said, it doesn't matter if an animal is treated "nicely" before they are killed, because killing them is itself immoral. As @SkawdtDawg said, small farms are often just as bad as factory farms, which is why all meat-eating should be avoided.

Now a days I just block/ignore then, but some are stupid enough to still push they're luck and those are dealt with accordingly

I'm assuming you don't have any justifiable reasons for eating meat. I also assume you don't have empathy for other living beings.

I agree that we should be working on a better way to deal with the slaughter of pigs.

The best way to slaughter pigs is to not slaughter them in the first place.

I assume you'd be against the killing of a human. What makes a pig's life more expendable than a human's life?

 

[HyperWoof]

The best way to slaughter pigs is to not slaughter them in the first place.

I assume you'd be against the killing of a human. What makes a pig's life more expendable than a human's life?

Intelligence
more value to society
pigs live day to day, no goals or ambitions
humans have loved ones
shorter life expectancy
prey animal
bacon

 

[HyperWoof]

Maybe its hard because the facts are on our side?



It's the most humane way of slaughtering them, and even it isn't humane. It is in fact extremely painful. Carbonic acid forms in the pigs' lungs and burns them from the inside out. I think that rather than finding kinder ways to kill pigs, we should stop killing them.

Bullshit. C02 poisoning is one of the easiest ways to go out. There's a reason why it's used as a common suicide method

 

[Bloodwolf]

I have done vegan for a while and dropped out when I lost muscle mass with out no change in activity. The vitamins and protein gets expensive as well

 

[Zoo50]

Intelligence
more value to society
pigs live day to day, no goals or ambitions
humans have loved ones
shorter life expectancy
prey animal
bacon

Intelligence: like I said earlier, there are some humans who aren't intelligent (such as those in a vegetative state), so by your reasoning, they're not worthy of consideration

More value to society: This is a speciesist statement. "Society" in this case is a human construction. What matters is not how relevant they are to "society", but whether they are worthy of morality -- and non-human animals are worthy of being treated in the same manner as humans (with regard to their interests).

The fact that pigs don't think the same way as humans does not make them have a lesser moral value than humans. Also, pigs (and cows) have loved ones just as humans do.

The "shorter life expectancy" thing isn't relevant, and doesn't make a being more or less worthy of moral value.

With regard to bacon, people should stop eating it (because it supports the cruel animal slaughter industry), and people should, at the very least, try eating bacon that is made from plant sources.

 

[Zoo50]

"The pigs scream up to 60 seconds from stress, irritation, and then complete panic caused by hyperventilation and the burning sensation of inhaling CO2."

This is why animal slaughter should be abolished -- it is impossible to ethically kill an animal.

 

[Silvervine]

The vegan movement in general is largely harmless as far as ever "forcing people to not eat meat." The truth of the matter is, it's not a diet that's really sustainable for a lot of people. I've looked at it from time to time, more out of general curiosity, but it's just not feasible for me or anyone in my household. In my neck of the woods at least, it's just too expensive and very much becomes a diet only accessible to the upper class, maybe the upper middle class (again, in my region).

Unfortunately, no vegan, vegetarian or meat-inclusive diet is healthy for the environment, at least not now. They all do damage in their own ways, as much as anyone may pretend otherwise. Materials that don't directly claim animal lives will do harm to the environment in the way of petroleum manufacturing, common to faux fur production, or deforestation to raise animals OR grow plants, there's a dozen different factors that play into the argument that can't really make the choice a definitive decision for everyone. TL;DR: It has to come down to individual choice.

The scary ones that want to take away pets are extremists, going so far as to completely ignore sensible actions. They'll shit on people hunting to survive (Also on people living in the north. As someone who lived in North Dakota during a mild winter, no amount of faux fur will keep a person warm in the winters). They'll steal people's dogs off their front porches. They'll release domesticated animals into the wild to upset the ecological balance and die horrible deaths because "it's better than the alternative." But thanks to an increase in understanding to the amount of harm these organizations do, they're quickly losing the amount of trust people have in them.

The best you can do for your rabbit and any other pets you own is endeavor to provide them with a good life. Give them good food, take them to a vet for regular checkups and care, proper enrichment and lots of attention (unless they don't want attention, looking at you not-so-cuddly but still precious animals). Do that, and you're good.

 

[Bloodwolf]

Meanwhile, other people have gained muscle mass. Why were you taking a bunch of vitamins? Plant proteins are cheaper than animal proteins, unless you include meat alternatives.

I take B complex and a once a day. As for protein mine is free for the most part. I eat what I kill in the woods. I think it’s quantity and quality that gets people sick along with all the grain. Too much starch to sugar convention going on.
I like your profile pic by the way

 

[Bloodwolf]

The vegan movement in general is largely harmless as far as ever "forcing people to not eat meat." The truth of the matter is, it's not a diet that's really sustainable for a lot of people. I've looked at it from time to time, more out of general curiosity, but it's just not feasible for me or anyone in my household. In my neck of the woods at least, it's just too expensive and very much becomes a diet only accessible to the upper class, maybe the upper middle class (again, in my region).

Unfortunately, no vegan, vegetarian or meat-inclusive diet is healthy for the environment, at least not now. They all do damage in their own ways, as much as anyone may pretend otherwise. Materials that don't directly claim animal lives will do harm to the environment in the way of petroleum manufacturing, common to faux fur production, or deforestation to raise animals OR grow plants, there's a dozen different factors that play into the argument that can't really make the choice a definitive decision for everyone. TL;DR: It has to come down to individual choice.

The scary ones that want to take away pets are extremists, going so far as to completely ignore sensible actions. They'll shit on people hunting to survive (Also on people living in the north. As someone who lived in North Dakota during a mild winter, no amount of faux fur will keep a person warm in the winters). They'll steal people's dogs off their front porches. They'll release domesticated animals into the wild to upset the ecological balance and die horrible deaths because "it's better than the alternative." But thanks to an increase in understanding to the amount of harm these organizations do, they're quickly losing the amount of trust people have in them.

The best you can do for your rabbit and any other pets you own is endeavor to provide them with a good life. Give them good food, take them to a vet for regular checkups and care, proper enrichment and lots of attention (unless they don't want attention, looking at you not-so-cuddly but still precious animals). Do that, and you're good.

I was quite shocked when I read about the cotton shopping bag fad to get rid of plastic. It turns out it’s worse then production of plastic bags.
oh and god help anyone that takes my dog off my property.

 

[caikgoch]

Intelligence
more value to society
pigs live day to day, no goals or ambitions
humans have loved ones
shorter life expectancy
prey animal
bacon

BACON!

 

[Bloodwolf]

BACON!

Yes!! Someone under stands me.
In a pot of beans during the winter is heaven.

 

[HyperWoof]

So someone's right to live should be based on their intelligence, value to society, and ambitions? That would disqualify quite a large portion of the human population. Pigs have loved ones, too (when they are allowed to). Life expectancy and "prey animal" aren't very good reasons, either. Bacon--artery-clogging carcinogen that harms people's health.



I guess all the people who were gassed in World War II got it easy?

"In sum, it is noteworthy that CO2 is used to induce pain and stress in animals, and the concentrations used in these studies are the same or similar to those used for anaesthesia and euthanasia.

The primary concerns are that exposure to CO2 gas may be painful; CO2 may cause onset of asphyxia while the animal is still conscious; physiological effects of CO2 on nasal mucosae and on the autonomic nervous system may be distressing; the cognitive/perceptual/behavioural effects of CO2, suchas ataxia, may be disturbing to the animal; and the process of CO2 inhalation may be highly aversive. Some or all of these results may cause pain and distress."

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1258/0023677053739747

"Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the most commonly used agent for euthanasia of laboratory rodents, used on an estimated tens of millions of laboratory rodents per year worldwide, yet there is a growing body of evidence indicating that exposure to CO2 causes more than momentary pain and distress in these and other animals.

There is clear evidence in the human literature that CO2 exposure is painful and distressful, while the non-human literature is equivocal. However, the fact that a number of studies do conclude that CO2 causes pain and distress in animals indicates a need for careful reconsideration of its use."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15901358

"The investigation involved climbing down into a gas chamber while wearing an oxygen tank to position hidden cameras. The activist who did so immediately noticed their eyes burning, which led to the discovery that when carbon dioxide reacts with liquids or mucus coated membranes (like that of the eyes, nostrils, sinuses, throat, and lungs), it forms carbonic acid.

From their first lungful of gas, these pigs are burning from the inside out."

https://anews.az/en/pigs-being-forced-into-small-cages-before-they-are-lowered-into-gas-chambers/

"The pigs scream up to 60 seconds from stress, irritation, and then complete panic caused by hyperventilation and the burning sensation of inhaling CO2."

https://www.eurogroupforanimals.org...ed-with-co2-commission-refuses-responsibility

All humans have the ability to have goals and ambitions, whether or not they currently have them is irrelevant. If a pig drops off the face of the map it has 0 effect on anybody.

And I'd rather trust medical citations than propaganda sources that are trying to get slaughtering animals banned...they tend to have somewhat of a bias. Is there pain? I'm sure there is some form of pain. Is it nearly as debilitating as you're making it out to be? Absolutely not. There are plenty of suicide survivors who can attest for that. It would not be a commonly suggested form of suicide if it was like how you describe it

Know the Carbon Dioxide Molecular Formula

This is the chemical or molecular formula for carbon dioxide, including a discussion of key carbon dioxide facts.

www.thoughtco.com

Hypercapnia: Causes, Treatment, and More

Hypercapnia happens when you have too much carbon dioxide in your bloodstream. It can happen for several reasons, such as hyperventilation. Learn more.

www.healthline.com