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

[FeralLovin']

We can't force anyone to not eat meat, or not kill animals. It's their choice, but one that has consequences, and since we care about those consequences, we want to make people aware of them and get people to think about them.

What consequences? Health? I eat meat and my doc says I'm "fit as a fiddle," so none there.
Supporting the agricultural industry? Aside from canned veggies and fresh fruit, I haven't bought any meat in years thanks to the meat I get from my folks.
Morality? I grew up in a home with God fearing people and attended church on Sundays with them until I got older and at no point has raising animals for their products (meat, eggs, milk, ect) came up as immortal, so no burning in hell for us. Also there's no inherent morality, so I don't really care what someone else's morals are. There not mine, plain and simple.
Criminally? I haven't been arrested or fined for biting into a hamburger yet.
So far, I've been consequence free.

 

[HyperWoof]

.

"Their lives are equal. One does not have a lesser right to life than the other. Placing a higher value on some humans than others is a dangerous thing. The fact that you think some peoples' lives are worth more than others says a lot about you."

The middle class man has a family that relies on him, is contributing to society and has loved ones around him who would suffer emotionally if he was killed. "sAyS a LoT aBouT yOu" What? This is going to be the opinion of the vast majority (rightfully so) so how does that "say a lot about me"?
To say otherwise is to blind yourself to the reality we all live in.

"What separates a bear from a mouse and a mouse from an insect is a spectrum of consciousness and awareness--also the ability to feel pain and suffer. That still doesn't diminish the individual's own worth. "

So a rat is equal to a bear then? When fields are churned and rats die by the hundreds that's the moral equivalent of hundreds of bear being slaughtered? How about ants, ants have been shown to be more aware than we give credit. An ant with a speck of colored paint on its head will attempt to wipe it off if shown its reflection in a mirror, but wont do it if the paint matches its body.
Does this mean stepping on an ant is a morally reprehensible act? There is absolutely 0 logic behind the opinion that "all live is equal" blah blah bullshit. It doesn't hold water even when confronted by elementary reasoning.

Self-awareness - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Food is a pretty strong motivator, especially if the pigs were very hungry. Yet, the majority of pigs still didn't want to breathe in the gas. The fact that only a very few went back for apples shows only that the majority avoided it. It still sounds like something we shouldn't be doing to animals that have done nothing wrong to us. The fact still remains that this is a cruel and unnecessary process. You're just trying to find ways to make it not look bad.

So you're trying to tell me that these pigs that are being subjected to the same supposed pain as those in the video you linked, are willing to go through that pain to get some fuckin' apples? lol. You're starting to sound like Zoo50 and his Beastfight friend

 

[caikgoch]

@HyperWoof, be nice. Some of us worked our asses off and gave up a lot to make it possible for others to be so naive and survive.

 

[knotinterested]

This thread is the biggest see-saw ride ever.
Vegans want to take the high ground saying if you eat meat then you are supporting killing animals and saying that killing them is immoral that they are equals and have as much right to life as any other species. Great argument if you agree with that point, but invalid if you do not.
The fact is that nobody, not even vegans view every living thing on this planet as having the same value and right to life. A human is equal in value to other humans, a dog is equal in value to other dogs, a cow is equal in value to other cows, a beetle is equal in value to other beetles, and vegetable products are equal to vegetable products in value, but they are not equal to each other in value.
Vegans then counter when shown that they too are guilty of any use of animal products by saying things like it can't be an all or nothing argument. But yes it can because a vegan that is not a hypocrite will go out of their way and not use any product having or using animal products in it's production. Saying that it is impossible because the manufacturing is out of their control is not a valid argument when all they would need to do is do without that product.
Yes it is true that plastic is made using animal byproducts and to be a true vegan then that would mean plastic is off limits. Say goodbye to your computer and most things in life. True it could be made using synthetically manufactured plastics, but at 10 times the cost (according to goggle) it is not likely to occur and the point is not that it can be made synthetically but rather that it is made using animal products and therefore to be a true vegan you must do without.
The overwhelming fact is: You can’t live if you don’t kill.
Precisely and unarguably true. Vegans like all of us eat things that were once alive. The contradiction in their message is obvious to everybody but vegans. There is no such thing as who is at fault more.

 

[Tailo]

The overwhelming fact is: You can’t live if you don’t kill.

And so it doesn't matter how much and whom we kill (except for humans)?

 

[caikgoch]

If you're implying that I never worked hard and gave up a lot, you're wrong. Calling me naive is just insulting me and does nothing to help your case and makes you look like a jerk.

I am a jerk, an old worn out jerk that got that way applying real science and practical knowledge to save a *lot* of lives. You are naive. It's not an insult, it's a fact. Your own words demonstrate it.

 

[FeralLovin']

Consequences include taking an animal's life when there is no need

We want meat and popping an animal in the dome is a good way to get it.

It also takes a lot more land

People can do what they like with their land they own. Raise livestock, dig a massive pond, put a rollercoaster on it ect. It's their land, their choice.

often having them in poor living conditions.

My folks have fantastic living conditions for their livestock. Multiple pastures for the cows, pigs, and horse, a big coop for the chickens and ducks to stay in at night (they're free range during the day.)

Your moral system should extend to those outside of the human race.

It does. I treat them with kindness and care even as I cut the meat from their bones.

But your lifestyle has unnecessarily killed animals and has caused a greater toll on our resources.

Boohoo. Also the livestock live on renewable resources. Mostly grain and the plant matter left behind. Crops never go to waste. So the animals eat grain we grow, fuck, birth, eat more stuff we grow, get slaughtered, the breeders get to live and eat and fuck some more in this circle of life.

You'll have to see how your health is doing several years from now.

Given my family's history, I will probably still be built like a 6' tall lumberjack. Maybe bad knees like my dad since he done meaningful work his whole life, but I won't need to worry about that for another 35 years.

 

[HyperWoof]

.

"That makes no difference in a human's right to live. Your viewpoint on this is definitely in the minority, and is downright frightening."

All humans except for ones deemed too dangerous to live have a right to life. I am not talking about their right to live I am talking about their value. I have made that pretty clear and i'm assuming you are just attempting to strawman my argument. Once again i'll go back to my train model. You see the family man and the vagrant on the train tracks who do you save? 99.9% of mentally stable people are going to save the family man.



They are equal in their right to live, at least. As I mentioned, a rat might have a lesser level of sentience than a bear, but that's speculation. Crop deaths are unavoidable and unfortunate. We'd be for finding ways to stop them if it were possible. But more crop deaths occur growing crops to feed to animals, which we then kill, so if you care about crop deaths, you'd still want to go vegan. I don't see how ants are relevant.

We're not discussing the pros and cons of crop fields, only that hundreds and if not thousands of rats and other small rodents die for each acre of field to be tilled. Why does nobody care about them? Rats are incredibly intelligent. So why do vegans freak out about the tiny fraction of deer and bear that hunters kill if a rats value is the same as one of them? You'd think they would be lining up at farms to protest tilling fields???

But they don't.....because all life isn't worth the same



Probably if you don't have a good reason to, though while they are intelligent, I don't think their level of intelligence is quite on par with an animal. I don't think I ever said all life was equal, just that they have a right to live and what we do to animals is unjustified.

You are certainly implying all life is equal, unless it's inconvenient to your causes of course



They might if they were starved. You also forget to mention that MOST of the pigs didn't! That still doesn't change that what's happening in the video is extremely cruel and abusive. Picking at details won't change that.

They were fasted for 24 hours. That's not starved. You should try reading some of your own sources.
And yeah most of the pigs didn't because the gas is unpleasant dumb dumb, that's the whole point of the study. But read the part about how the pigs kept eating when exposed to the gas and ONLY left after the gas started causing them to hyperventilate. The pain wasn't a large factor, it was because it was affecting their breathing ability.

 

[SigmaTheZeta]

I had a seafood dish last night, and I thought it was the bee's knees. I am going pescetarian with occasional eggs from trusted farmers that I have actually inquired to about their product and how it is raised.

If any vegetarian has an issue with that compromise, then that constitutes the sort of all-or-nothing thinking that has held them back since Pythagoras was alive.

 

[FeralLovin']

Want does not equate morality

Never said it did.

Considering the vast amounts of land it takes to raise animals and grow the crops for them, it's a poor use of the land and resources.

People can do what they like with their land they own. Raise livestock, dig a massive pond, put a rollercoaster on it ect. It's their land, their choice.

Get your own land, slap a sign on it with a picture of some brocolli and say "livestock free."

Great. This is not where most people's animal products come from.

I don't care where everyone gets their meat from. That's their problem.

If they are killed for food, it's an unnecessary killing.

My freezer and stomach beg to differ.

And it still takes a lot more resources to feed and water the animals than to just eat plants.

Can't grow ground beef out of the dirt, so that's why we grow them together.

Cutting meat from someone's bones isn't kindness and care. You're not even being serious at this point.

It is too. I complement them on how well they've grown and take care to not cut myself in the process.

The circle of death and exploitation. Animal agriculture as a business is extremely wasteful. It sounds like they aren't a large-scale business, though.

No business at all. My folks are more than happy to share what they have if anybody helps during any part of the process. I'm a stones throw away with a strong back and 1 dog that knows a bit of herding, so my freezer is usually pretty full.

Genetics play a role, and so does physical activity. But why do anything that's going to decrease your odds?

It tastes good and the alternative tastes bad. Simple as that. And like you said, if my doc tells me to lay off of the meat, I'll do so. Until then, I'm going to continue enjoying my diet and lifestyle and if anyone gets rubbed the wrong way about that, that's their burden to shoulder, not mine.

 

[SigmaTheZeta]

In the spirit of open-mindedness, I decided to give tofu by itself another chance.

The last time I tried it, I tried the extra firm, took one bite, and threw it out because it tasted like construction material. The reason why I thought that extra-firm tofu tasted like construction material is that extra-firm tofu tastes like construction material, full stop.

The silken variety is actually more approachable, and I can fathom the possibility of having it again, even by itself. The reason why silken tofu tastes better than extra-firm tofu is that silken tofu tastes better than extra-firm tofu, full stop.

While I was shopping for it, I found some tofu-based shredded cheese, and I am willing to try it in the future to go on top of my pasta dishes.

 

[Tailo]

I had a seafood dish last night, and I thought it was the bee's knees. I am going pescetarian with occasional eggs from trusted farmers that I have actually inquired to about their product and how it is raised.

I think that's a commendable development.
My dog will join you by the way.

The animal based part of his nutrition has consisted of molluscs, fish and poultry in the last years with only few exceptions. I have pledged to pay more attention to where his food comes from in another thread some time ago and having done my subsequent research in shops I've got to say that it is easier to get vegan dog food which he likes than dog food made of fowl with good living conditions. Most of his food isn't actually dog food, but I like to have a designated dog food component in his menu to make sure he gets all the nutrients dogs need, and that component will be vegan then. @SkawdtDawg's experience with vegan dog food is motivating in that respect, too.

 

[Tailo]

In the spirit of open-mindedness, I decided to give tofu by itself another chance.

The last time I tried it, I tried the extra firm, took one bite, and threw it out because it tasted like construction material. The reason why I thought that extra-firm tofu tasted like construction material is that extra-firm tofu tastes like construction material, full stop.

The silken variety is actually more approachable, and I can fathom the possibility of having it again, even by itself. The reason why silken tofu tastes better than extra-firm tofu is that silken tofu tastes better than extra-firm tofu, full stop.

I use tofu cut into small cubicles fried together with potatoes and vegetables in a pan. I've never been a fan of large slices of tofu on their own, but as an ingredient in a mix it's good. I also like tofu how it is served in Chinese restaurants. I have no idea what they do with it—the result is quite different from what I get in the pan. Maybe it's the difference between firm and silken tofu you speak of?

 

[SigmaTheZeta]

I use tofu cut into small cubicles fried together with potatoes and vegetables in a pan. I've never been a fan of large slices of tofu on their own, but as an ingredient in a mix it's good. I also like tofu how it is served in Chinese restaurants. I have no idea what they do with it—the result is quite different from what I get in the pan. Maybe it's the difference between firm and silken tofu you speak of?

Maybe, but I have found that the extra-firm tastes like construction material, and the reason why is that it tastes like construction material. This is an uncontrovertable fact. It is a subjective experience that is not going to change.

The difference with the silken variety is like night and day.

 

[knotinterested]

Vegans want to take the high ground saying if you eat meat then you are supporting killing animals and saying that killing them is immoral that they are equals and have as much right to life as any other species. Great argument if you agree with that point, but invalid if you do not.
The fact is that nobody, not even vegans view every living thing on this planet as having the same value and right to life. A human is equal in value to other humans, a dog is equal in value to other dogs, a cow is equal in value to other cows, a beetle is equal in value to other beetles, and vegetable products are equal to vegetable products in value, but they are not equal to each other in value.

Right, but an animal's life still has greater value than a person's taste preferences. It's as simple as that.

Your agreement that a cow is not equal to a dog or a dog is not equal to a human surprises me because you are making a statement saying that in effect humans are superior, of greater value. You might be a little intelligent after all.

We don't live in a vegan world. Some things ARE out of our control. Veganism is not "all or nothing"--it by definition, is causing the least amount of harm practical and possible. Your argument that just because we can't avoid all harm, we should just cause the maximum amount of harm is insane.

If I had said "Just because we can't avoid all harm, we should just cause the maximum amount of harm" then it would be insane. What is insane is that you have a bad habit of changing what a person has actually said. What is insane is that you say what veganism is by definition and then alter the definition to suit your argument. Just because you can not counter the point effectively do not twist what others say.
Refference - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vegan
Definition of vegan vegan noun
https://www.merriam-webster.com/login
: a strict vegetarian who consumes no food (such as meat, eggs, or dairy products) that comes from animals also
: one who abstains from using animal products (such as leather)

The overwhelming fact is: You can’t live if you don’t kill.
Precisely and unarguably true. Vegans like all of us eat things that were once alive. The contradiction in their message is obvious to everybody but vegans. There is no such thing as who is at fault more.

No kidding. Vegans don't claim we don't kill--but we avoid causing harm and killing as much as practical and possible. Your strawman argument shows you don't have a grasp on the vegan argument. There is no contradiction, just your misunderstanding. The person who kills animals when there is no need is definitely at fault more. Precisely and unarguably true.

Nice attempt at using my own words in your twisted answer. You just proved what I said - Thank you.
The contradiction in their message is obvious to everybody but vegans. Precisely and unarguably true.

 

[SigmaTheZeta]

@SkawdtDawg

Maybe it does constitute minutiae, but that is what you get for getting discrediting someone else confused supporting your own views. You create a situation where your entire case is based on demonstrating that the other is not really an informed participant in the discussion, so even when that person is actually right, it becomes difficult for you to acknowledge that that is the case.

As a matter of fact, a 24 hour fast is not really uncomfortable, and the newest diet fad is based on intermittent fasting. While not really workable for people that have dangerous blood sugar regulation problems, it is actually a very fun and easy diet to follow. While it takes a little bit of getting used to, it is not really uncomfortable for you to go 24 hours without food. Actually, if you eat dinner on Thursday at 7 p.m. and then eat your next breakfast on Saturday, at 7 a.m., it really comes to 36 hours. If you do not have any serious blood sugar regulation problems stopping you from doing it, then the fasting periods can actually be quite amazingly soothing. Spending a while focusing on a hobby or reading a book without the distraction of something burbling its way through your stomach is really quite restful if you have learned that you will get something to eat again before you have reached a point of genuine hunger.

Some minutiae just ought to be let go of altogether.

 

[SigmaTheZeta]

I think that if an animal is withheld food for 24 hours, they are going to be feeling starved. I know this would be the case for my dogs, and the same for an animal that doesn't know when they/if they are getting their next meal.

They still have an APPETITE. You always have an appetite unless you are either sick or have eaten way too much, at which point you may as well be sick. If you have always eaten to the point that you would not enjoy having more to eat, then my opinion is that you have been eating yourself sick. You really should not eat to such a point that you have taken the joy out of eating. If you eat a reasonable meal and you feel like you could eat more, then great: do so at your next meal and then the meal after that. There will always be more meals unless you have fallen on seriously hard times.

You are not really hungry until the point that you have started getting hunger contractions. Now, the reason why you should try intermittent fasting comes down to hunger contractions. When you put a modest amount of food into your body after you have started having hunger contractions, which start at between 12 and 24 hours after your last meal (depending on how much you last ate), then even foods that you usually find to be bland taste like an explosion of flavor. It's like the 4th of July or Cinco de Mayo just happened in your mouth. Foods with even stronger flavors are actually almost too much.

However, my experience is that just ONE period of intermittent fasting, on rare occasions, helps improve my quality of life. It reminds me of what hunger really feels like, so I no longer believe that I am hungry just because I have the very different feeling of a sense of appetite. In fact, it helps me remember that, when I eat to a point of losing my appetite, I really feel kind of sick, not really all that satisfied. If I have an appetite, that is really a very positive feeling, and it means that I am feeling good and emotionally well-adjusted.

While this is not even really tangential to the OP, it's really good stuff to know.

 

[FeralLovin']

Then I don't know the point of saying, "We want meat and popping an animal in the dome is a good way to get it." as a response to what I wrote: "Consequences include taking an animal's life when there is no need."

We want meat. We kill the animal for it. There's no consequence in that, unless too much meat in my freezer is a consequence, then that's a burden I'll have to live with, I guess.

You accept the meat, so the blood is on your hands.

Typically happens when I'm helping butcher.

Right, and it uses a lot more resources to raise animals for food than simply growing and eating plants.

We raise animals to eat. If we wanted to eat just vegies, we'd grow just them. But we don't, because we want meat. See? Simple.

They are still killing animals that have a right to live.

And they got to live.

 

[HyperWoof]

.

"Okay, so if all humans have the same right to life, then what relevance does that have to other animals, which also have a right to life? Their value to YOU has no bearing on THEIR right to life. The train question is irrelevant because it has nothing to do with whether animals have a right to live. It's just a red herring. Nice try, I was not strawmanning you."

You keep saying "right to life" as if it is relevant at all to this conversation, an animals worth has NOTHING to do with it. And it's not their worth to me, it's their worth to society and human reason.



"Who says no one cares about the small animals that die in crop deaths? More of them die when you eat meat because more crops have to be grown to feed the animals. What can be done about the crop deaths? If we don't till fields, how is anyone going to eat?"


I love it how when something goes against your agenda, there is nothing that should get in the way of your ideals. But when it's animals dying for your agendas gain it's "well, nothing we can do about it oh well"
You can avoid large industrial machines used to prepare soil for planting, you could rely solely on greenhouses, spend vast amounts of time with relocation efforts before working the fields....
Not that i'm suggesting anything of the sort, but if you actually believed all animals are equal then you're horribly inconsistent in your beliefs.



Wrong. I don't think all life is equal, only that animals have a right to live that exceeds their taste. It sounds like animals having a right to live is inconvenient to your lifestyle.

I have been saying all life isn't equal this whole time and you have fought me every time I said. What changed? Did you actually think about it for more than 30 seconds?


If you hadn't eaten in 24 hours, I think you would be pretty darn hungry and desperate for food! Not starved? Good grief. Also, why don't you stop insulting me and show some respect? So far I've been respectful to you. I'm amazed you're still so fixated on a point which has no bearing on if gassing pigs is humane or not. It's obviously unpleasant, harmful, and not humane. Even if the carbon dioxide gas caused no pain, the hyperventilation and panic caused is bad enough on its own. You're not going to win this one.

I don't have much respect for you because you do nothing by intentionally twist my words, you're incredibly inconsistent with your beliefs and you argue in poor faith. I point out the flaw in your source and you resort to "this animal hasn't eaten in 24 hours which isn't incredibly abnormal for the species, but i'm going to pretend to believe that that will make a pig put itself through living hell to get a fucking apple" Pigs are more intelligent than dogs, stop playing the fool.

 

[SigmaTheZeta]

My favorite thing to have to eat after I have fasted just to the point of getting my first hunger contractions is a creamy mushroom risotto. I choose risotto because, in my experience, well-cooked rice is the best possible thing to put on an empty stomach. Rice doesn't get more well-cooked than risotto, and it tastes really good if you are already feeling hungry enough to eat the world.

Here is a vegan recipe!

Creamy Vegan Mushroom Risotto

This vegan mushroom risotto is creamy and rich and packed with mushroom flavor. It's really easy to make and makes a perfect savory entrée.

lovingitvegan.com

It tastes so good, it will turn you gay.

 

[knotinterested]

I think animals are on a spectrum when it comes to sentience and intelligence. Still, that doesn't change the fact that an animal has a right to life, and when we take that life without need, it's a terrible thing.



That's one definition. Here is another:

"Veganism is a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose."

https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/definition-veganism

Neither definition is incorrect. So what's the issue here, and how is this relevant? There is no contradiction, and I did not twist what anyone has said.

Yes you just twisted the definition by bringing in a definition from the vegan society where of course it is going to say the words that you are using. Whereas the definition I used is from a true source of definitions, The Merriam-Webster dictionary.
Your definition in your quote is biased to play down the true meaning of being a vegan. Because by saying the words as far as is possible and practicable the vegan society can justify the use of animal products that would otherwise make life difficult.

You said neither definition is incorrect WRONG the definition you provided is not recognized by any authority, it is only the words presented by the vegan society.

How is it relevant? AGAIN - The contradiction in their message is obvious to everybody but vegans.

There are no contradictions????? Really?? To you the definition of vegan by Merriam-Webster is the same as the source you used???? You don't see the difference??? And you don't see this as twisting someone's words?????

I don't think anyone can be 100% vegan by the definition of vegan. To me it's almost the same as the christian argument. Making oneself out to be morally superior. That just does not work because everyone is with fault.

 

[HyperWoof]

I think animals are on a spectrum when it comes to sentience and intelligence. Still, that doesn't change the fact that an animal has a right to life, and when we take that life without need, it's a terrible thing.

Like I said, inconsistent.
Rats rank high on both sentience and intelligence. So there's more to it than sentience and intelligence, I want to hear what it is

 

[Tailo]

Arguing about definitions is futile. One just has to know what definitions the other persons in the discussion use in order to understand what they mean. That's their actual message, not what one finds in a dictionary.

 

[Comfortzone]

Heated thread eh?

 

[FeralLovin']

There is a very obvious consequence to eating meat; an animal dies.

Darn, how will I ever live with myself /s

 

[Silvervine]

I've heard stories about them euthanizing dogs, but then again, so do animal shelters. If there aren't enough homes for them, I'm not sure what the alternative is.

The thing is, any legitimate shelter will state they are kill or no-kill. PeTA has been known to adopt dogs from no-kill shelters and euthanize them. If I remember correctly, there was a story where they were euthanizing puppies in the back of a van and tossing them into a shopping center's dumpster back in '05. In 2018, over 70% of the animals they took in were euthanized while less than 2% were adopted. There's even been cases of them fudging records to hide euthanizations.

I do believe kill shelters are a sad but necessary factor to animal adoptions. We can't pretend like every single animal in the world will find a home, much less one that will actually provide proper care for them. I say this as someone who watched a lot of animals die when they were dumped in the middle of nowhere. But it must be paired with proper education of the populace, and PeTA isn't doing that. It's a complicated issue I could easily write a research paper on (not including the slightly-related tangent about how Facebook is making it easier to perpetuate pseudoscience and false information) but I won't bore you with the details.

I also want to note, on the topic of vitamins, vegans do technically need to take B12, as well as Vit D, Long-chain Omega 3's, Iodine, Iron, Calcium and Zinc. Some of them aren't as important, as Zinc for example can be found in a few plants, B12 is vital as there's no scientific proof that it can be found in any vegan options. Doctors usually reccomend 2.4 mcg a day for adults, taken either through suppliments or B12 fortified foods, usually found in stuff like almond milk and breakfast cereals.

 

[Tailo]

I do believe kill shelters are a sad but necessary factor to animal adoptions. We can't pretend like every single animal in the world will find a home, much less one that will actually provide proper care for them. I say this as someone who watched a lot of animals die when they were dumped in the middle of nowhere.

Other countries in the world work without kill-shelters by the way. As far as I know animals may not be killed in German shelters except if they are terminally ill or really dangerous, yet there are no feral dog populations in Germany and the castration rate in Germany is lower than in the US.

It could be interesting to see why this doesn't seem to work in the US in the same way. One reason may be that you can't buy dogs in a store in Germany. I think you can in the US? The option to buy dogs in a store may lead to people buying them spontaneously—as in someone goes into a pet store to get some feed for their bird, sees a cute puppy and buys it, without really having considered whether a dog will fit into their life for over a decade.

 

[knotinterested]

Now you're getting it! No one can be 100% vegan. It's impossible. So you do as much as is realistically in your power. You can cut out all the animal products from your diet and daily life that you can realistically do. In the end, you are not causing any INTENTIONAL deaths, and you cut out probably 99% of the suffering and death you would have otherwise caused.

It's not that now I am getting it - It was what I was saying all along. Your claim to be vegan when in fact you are still using animal products is by definition making you a hypocrite.
Articwolf was correct in saying in truth all you can say is that you do not eat meat.
I understand your desire to end animal deaths and suffering but consider this, even if everyone were to stop eating meat tomorrow the fact is that there would still be animal deaths in order to produce so many items that include animal byproducts. Even if that weren't the case and all animal products were no longer needed, if we were able to make all the byproducts synthetically, and able to make artificial meat, and there was no longer any market for these animals, then everyone growing livestock would turn them out into nature. Nature in turn would ravish them because all of those animals are easy prey for wolves and coyotes. That is not to mention how many of them that would starve to death because nature is not going to provide them with the 40 to 80 pounds of food they need daily. In 10 years time what is millions of animals would turn to only a few hundred if not become extinct. That is what the unfortunate result would be if these animals no longer had the value to society that they have today.

 

[Silvervine]

spreading awareness and information

PeTA doesn't really spread...proper information though. They tend to lie, either outright or by omission. In an L.A. Times interview, PeTA's Ingrid Newkirk claimed they never euthanize a "healthy, place-able animal, ever." When as I mentioned in my post, PeTA euthanized over 70% of the animals in their shelters in 2018. It's too early yet to get the 2019 numbers but if past records are any indication, they've hovered around that number most years.

They're also heavily anti-zoo, despite the fact that several zoos are helping conservation efforts. Recently a captive breeding program helped save the Galapagos Tortoise, and more than likely, in the light of the Austrailian fires, captive populations in zoos will be absolutely vital to saving some of the species, especially Koalas, which are currently under threat of being functionally extinct. The Przewalski's Horse and European Bison are two such species that were saved by conservation efforts by zoos. Plus there's the opportunity to see in person amazing animals that are carefully cared for. Are there bad zoos? Yes. But proper education is the key to that.

One of my teachers taught me the importance of research. Go online, find unbiased sources like NPR. Read them. Then hear all sides of the argument, let people provide their facts supporting their argument, then formulate your opinions from that. And PeTA distinctly avoids any of that.
I'll admit that it's hard to name any one organization that's able to counter PeTA. But that's largely because of the drama they generate. People get pissed because no, Steve Irwin didn't deserve to die, Maya didn't deserve to have her dog stolen and euthanized, and the mother and two kittens that were given to them by a vet seeking to give them homes did not deserve to be killed and thrown in a dumpster with the bodies of dozens of other perfectly healthy animals. It's impossible to counter the amount of drama PeTA generates. And the result is messy.

Lots of plant-based foods are fortified with B12,

Yeah I realized that re-reading that first bit I said there wasn't any vegan options, but I did also add that they could be consumed "either through suppliments or B12 fortified foods, usually found in stuff like almond milk and breakfast cereals." As for Duckweed, I'm a little concerned about the fact that the information has only been recently released on it containing B12. As with any diet, it's good for people to seek out professional medical advice. I haven't heard or seen any actual evidence that duckweed has been used in traditional recipes, but the searches are all clogged with the announcement of it being a "superfood". (I use quotes bc superfoods are a buzzword made to sell stuff.)

Heck, I might even start growing it in my aquarium.

 

[Zoo50]

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

Whether a being has "ambitions" is irrelevant (in terms of the being's moral worth). Animal slaughter is painful and agonizing, and the act of killing an animal is itself unethical.

Whose life matters more, a middle class business man with a family or a hermit living off of the local landfill? Yes everyone has a different value, like it or not. And a pig is peanuts compared to any human.

All beings have equal moral value -- a middle aged business man and a hermit are equally morally valuable, and both of those people have the same moral value as a pig, dog, cow, etc. Insects are not really relevant to this discussion (though, one should try to avoid killing them).

What consequences? Health? I eat meat and my doc says I'm "fit as a fiddle," so none there.

There are negative consequences that negatively impact animals -- namely, their lives are stolen for them for unjustifiable reasons.

Also there's no inherent morality, so I don't really care what someone else's morals are.

Yes, there is an inherent immorality in supporting animal slaughter, in the same way there is an inherent immorality in killing a human.

Criminally? I haven't been arrested or fined for biting into a hamburger yet.

Same nonsense argument as knotinterested. Just because something is legal / illegal doesn't necessarily make the law moral. Laws that ban sex with animals are very immoral, yet they exist.

So far, I've been consequence free.

You're only thinking about your own selfish interests, not the interests of other animals.

There is absolutely 0 logic behind the opinion that "all live is equal" blah blah bullshit. It doesn't hold water even when confronted by elementary reasoning.

Actually, there is zero logic to the speciesist idea that human lives are "more important" than non-human lives.

A human is equal in value to other humans, a dog is equal in value to other dogs, a cow is equal in value to other cows, a beetle is equal in value to other beetles, and vegetable products are equal to vegetable products in value, but they are not equal to each other in value.

Actually, animals (including humans) that have brains are equal to each other morally (humans, dogs, cows, pigs, etc.) This means, their lives ought to be respected, and that means not killing them. Insects are debatable, and vegetables are not equal to the mentioned animals (morally) because vegetables don't have a brain / consciousness / right to live / etc. In any case, viewing only humans, and no other animals, as having moral worth is speciesist. And, as @SkawdtDawg said, an animal's right to live is greater than your right to have your taste buds satisfied.

Vegans then counter when shown that they too are guilty of any use of animal products by saying things like it can't be an all or nothing argument. But yes it can because a vegan that is not a hypocrite will go out of their way and not use any product having or using animal products in it's production.

You're arguing that because people can't be 100% perfect, they should do the maximum amount of harm -- that is a terrible argument.

The overwhelming fact is: You can’t live if you don’t kill.

This is bullshit. You're arguing that just because organisms are killed in any case, that gives you an excuse to keep doing the greatest possible harm (i.e. eating meat). The fact is that vegans cause far less harm to animals and the environment than meat-eaters. Also, if you care about the lives of plants, then you would stop eating meat anyway (because of the deforestation that animal agriculture causes, and the fact that the animals that are slaughtered have to eat plants themselves).

Vegans like all of us eat things that were once alive.

Vegans aren't about literally not eating anything that has ever been alive. They are about causing the least possible harm, in terms of what is practically possible (as @SkawdtDawg discussed). Not eating meat is a much more ethical choice than eating meat, because it involves less harm / suffering.

We want meat and popping an animal in the dome is a good way to get it.

Saying "I want something" is a really weak argument. Your desires are not as important as an animal's life.

I treat them with kindness and care even as I cut the meat from their bones.

This is bullshit. You cannot claim to treat animals with "kindness" as you callously cut up their body parts. Killing and mutilating an animal is cruelty, not "kindness".

So the animals eat grain we grow, fuck, birth, eat more stuff we grow, get slaughtered

You're talking about animals as though they are just objects for exploitation. Stop doing that. Animals (including humans) have a right to live.

...in this circle of life.

The "circle of life" thing is a fallacy. Just because something happens in nature doesn't mean humans should do it also. As @SkawdtDawg said, it is a circle of death and exploitation.

Once again i'll go back to my train model. You see the family man and the vagrant on the train tracks who do you save? 99.9% of mentally stable people are going to save the family man.

The train idea is just a loaded thought experiment anyway. In real life, both would be seen as having intrinsic value.

But they don't.....because all life isn't worth the same

I'm against killing rats. But I'm also against people going out of their way to deliberately kill animals (such as hunting) or support killing them (such as eating meat). These things aren't necessary.

The pain wasn't a large factor, it was because it was affecting their breathing ability.

You're ignoring the fact that killing pigs in the first place is immoral.

If any vegetarian has an issue with that compromise

Seafood is still "meat", in the sense that it still consists of animals. You should stop eating animals. To be more ethical, you should remove all animal products from your diet.

My freezer and stomach beg to differ.

Now you're just being a selfish jerk. Your body's condition is not a higher priority than an animal's life.

Can't grow ground beef out of the dirt, so that's why we grow them together.

You shouldn't be eating "beef" in the first place. Why don't you try eating "beef" that is made from plant-sources, rather than exploiting the lives of animals.

It is too. I complement them on how well they've grown and take care to not cut myself in the process.

No, it's not. No matter how many times you make "complements", the fact that you are butchering an animal is cruel, unethical, and callous. Also, at this point I think you're just being an asshole.

My folks are more than happy to share what they have if anybody helps during any part of the process.

You're missing the point. The animal agriculture industry is wasteful. Also, you're only thinking about the interests of humans. You ought to stop being speciesist and think about the interests of beings outside of your own species.

It tastes good and the alternative tastes bad.

Morally, this is extremely shallow. How something tastes is not as important (morally) as an animal's life. In fact, saying this just makes you a selfish jerk.

What if someone killed a dog, someone ate it, and then their reason for doing it was "it tastes good". It's such bullshit to reduce a being's life down to just "how it tastes" -- it's callous, disrespectful, speciesist, and unethical.

Your agreement that a cow is not equal to a dog or a dog is not equal to a human surprises me because you are making a statement saying that in effect humans are superior, of greater value. You might be a little intelligent after all.

Humans do not have greater value than other (non-human) animals, and humans are not superior to other animals. Stop spreading your speciesist nonsense.

What is insane is that you say what veganism is by definition and then alter the definition to suit your argument.

Actually, @SkawdtDawg has been very consistent with his arguments. You're the one who is inconsistent.

Nice attempt at using my own words in your twisted answer. You just proved what I said - Thank you.
The contradiction in their message is obvious to everybody but vegans. Precisely and unarguably true.

Except that you are inventing something that vegans never claim to do -- vegans don't claim to be against the killing of literally any organism (bacteria, plants, fungi, etc.) -- they simply don't eat or use animal products. So there is no contradiction. And @SkawdtDawg did not "twist" your words -- he gave a good answer, and you are too stubborn to accept it.

We want meat. We kill the animal for it. There's no consequence in that, unless too much meat in my freezer is a consequence, then that's a burden I'll have to live with, I guess.

Again, your desire to have meat does not justify murdering an animal. And there is a consequence -- an animal is robbed of his/her life, just to satisfy your trivial selfish desires.

We raise animals to eat. If we wanted to eat just vegies, we'd grow just them. But we don't, because we want meat. See? Simple.

This is idiotic. If you stopped eating meat, you wouldn't have to raise animals to eat. And you're ignoring SkawdtDawg's point, which is that raising animals and then slaughtering them demands far more resources than just growing plants. And, again, saying "we want something" is a bullshit argument -- just because you "want" something doesn't mean it is morally good.

And they got to live.

It is immoral to kill an animal in the middle of their life -- or even when they are older. Killing an animal is immoral in and of itself. It's the same way that killing a human is immoral. Your argument ("well, they got to live") just doesn't hold up.

You keep saying "right to life" as if it is relevant at all to this conversation, an animals worth has NOTHING to do with it. And it's not their worth to me, it's their worth to society and human reason.

You're wrong -- it has everything to do with it. Animals (including humans) have worth independent of you, society or "human reason" -- that is something you apparently fail to understand.

I have been saying all life isn't equal this whole time and you have fought me every time I said. What changed? Did you actually think about it for more than 30 seconds?

Why can't you just admit that "how something tastes" is not as important as an animal's interests (such as an animal's right to live)?

I don't have much respect for you because you do nothing by intentionally twist my words, you're incredibly inconsistent with your beliefs and you argue in poor faith.

Actually, SkawdtDawg did not twist your words, his beliefs are not inconsistent, and he is not arguing in poor faith. You are the one who is arguing in poor faith.

Pigs are more intelligent than dogs, stop playing the fool.

So then, based on this sentence, you should respect the interests of pigs and other animals (i.e. not killing them). If pigs are more intelligent then dogs, then they should not be killed (in the same way that dogs are not killed, at least in the Western World).

Your definition in your quote is biased to play down the true meaning of being a vegan. Because by saying the words as far as is possible and practicable the vegan society can justify the use of animal products that would otherwise make life difficult.

The Vegan Society may not be 100% moral, but they are far more moral than people who eat meat (that is something you conveniently ignore).

How is it relevant? AGAIN - The contradiction in their message is obvious to everybody but vegans.

You're just being stubborn because you know @SkawdtDawg is right and you are wrong.

I don't think anyone can be 100% vegan by the definition of vegan. To me it's almost the same as the christian argument. Making oneself out to be morally superior. That just does not work because everyone is with fault.

And here you go again with this "all-or-nothing", 100% or not bullshit. No one is 100% perfect. Being vegan is about reducing the degree of suffering as much as is practically possible. Your argument is that because someone literally can't be 100% perfect, that that is an excuse to do whatever harm one wants -- that is a truly idiotic argument. Simply attempting to be vegan is better than not attempting it. You have learned nothing from SkawdtDawg's points. All you have done is stubbornly cling to your flawed, irrational beliefs.

If one stops eating meat, and if one stops using animal products (such as leather belts, soap with tallow in it, etc.), then he/she has already become very ethical. You, on the other hand, continue to use animal products (meat, leather, etc.) which means you are not being ethical. You still have not provided any good, direct arguments for why meat-eating is justifiable. All you've done is accuse SkawdtDawg of being a hypocrite (which he isn't).

B12 is vital as there's no scientific proof that it can be found in any vegan options.

I don't know what you're talking about. There are a lot of vitamin B12 vitamin supplements out there that are vegan.

Your claim to be vegan when in fact you are still using animal products is by definition making you a hypocrite.

You are splitting hairs and basing things on technicalities, not the overall picture of how moral someone is. Clearly, the person who is not eating meat and not wearing leather belts is more moral that the person who is doing both of those things. Again, you are saying that if someone is not 100% perfect, they are a "hypocrite", which is bullshit. If anyone is hypocritical, it is you -- you claim to care about animals, yet you support killing them.

then everyone growing livestock would turn them out into nature.

Poor argument. People wouldn't release livestock animals into the wild.

That is what the unfortunate result would be if these animals no longer had the value to society that they have today.

The thing is, animals (those killed for slaughter, hunted, etc.) do not have any value to society (at least, "value" in terms of respecting one's life) -- if their lives did have value, then they wouldn't be killed in the first place. The only "value" they have right now is via exploitation, which is wrong.

They're also heavily anti-zoo

Do you mean "anti-zoo" as in people who are against sex with animals? Or do you mean "anti-zoo" as in people who are against zoos (facilities where animals are kept and displayed). If you are referring to the latter, I believe that zoos (places where animals are kept) are mostly immoral because they confine animals to what are essentially animal prisons, just to entertain humans. (It's speciesist).