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

[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).

 

[knotinterested]

So, if vegans don't claim to be 100% perfect, why are you holding us to it? We don't believe in all or nothing--just the things that are within our control. Articwolf is not correct. I don't eat meat or animal products, and I avoid using them in my daily life as much as is practical and possible. I don't appeal to futility and decide to not avoid cutting out as much harm as I can. Those who are actually trying and cutting out about 99% of the harm we are causing (because that's what we have control over), are being labeled hypocrites by those who don't care at all. We don't live in a vegan world, so we have to start somewhere.

I'm not a hypocrite, because I don't claim to be perfect, nor be in control of everything. But I do what IS in my control and do my best. But, if you still want to call me a hypocrite, I'd rather be called a hypocrite than apathetic. At least I'm trying and mostly successful. Better to be called a hypocrite for that than for claiming you love animals while also supporting their exploitation, abuse, and murder.

Yes, that is my desire--to end unnecessary animal suffering and death. I don't think it could be put more simply. I care about animals, and enough to speak up for them. I am not out to claim I am better than anyone. That's a distraction, and putting words in my mouth that I never said.

That's incorrect that farmers are just going to have to turn livestock out into nature. If they did, there would be no need. It's impossible to expect that the whole world is going to go vegan in a short period of time. It will take years. As the demand for animal products decreases, less animals will be bred into existence in relation to the declining demand. At the end, there will only be a few animals, which can go into sanctuaries or other means of care. Vegans do not expect farm animals to be turned out to nature.

We took animals from nature and have domesticated and selectively bred them to the point they won't survive in nature. We created a problem, and we can stop breeding more of the animals into existence. Them not being born is kinder than the lives we put them through, only to kill them at a young age. Humans are already the predators that ravage them. We should stop creating the scenario that puts them in a losing situation.

You are holding yourself to the vegan claim which in turn is making you a hypocrite. The definition of what a vegan is makes you a hypocrite only when you claim to be a vegan. Why don't you say that you are a strict vegetarian with beliefs against the slaughter of animals for the production of food and other animal products? Wouldn't that be hitting the nail on the head?
Why would it be more important to you to be a vegan then to be a strict vegetarian?

 

[Zoo50]

You are holding yourself to the vegan claim which in turn is making you a hypocrite. The definition of what a vegan is makes you a hypocrite only when you claim to be a vegan. Why don't you say that you are a strict vegetarian with beliefs against the slaughter of animals for the production of food and other animal products? Wouldn't that be hitting the nail on the head?
Why would it be more important to you to be a vegan then to be a strict vegetarian?

You're splitting hairs. Vegans are against using animal products (in food, clothing, etc.) -- that's it. It doesn't mean they are hypocrites, because vegans never claimed to be 100% perfect. Once again you are using this "all-or-nothing" nonsense to justify eating meat.

Your definition of "vegan" (i.e. literally not using a single atom of animal substance in literally everything) is so extreme that if people tried to follow it, no one would be vegan. That's not the point of being vegan. As @SkawdtDawg said, it's about doing what is practically possible. And avoiding meat is easy to do.

People have to start somewhere, and they can start by not eating meat, not wearing leather belts, etc.

 

[knotinterested]

You're splitting hairs. Vegans are against using animal products (in food, clothing, etc.) -- that's it. It doesn't mean they are hypocrites, because vegans never claimed to be 100% perfect. Once again you are using this "all-or-nothing" nonsense to justify eating meat.

Your definition of "vegan" (i.e. literally not using a single atom of animal substance in literally everything) is so extreme that if people tried to follow it, no one would be vegan. That's not the point of being vegan. As @SkawdtDawg said, it's about doing what is practically possible. And avoiding meat is easy to do.

People have to start somewhere, and they can start by not eating meat, not wearing leather belts, etc.

No - you can't see past your own nose. I am using the world renowned defining authority Merriam-Webster as a point of reference of what a vegan is and thereby stating the obvious. Why would you call yourself a vegan when you could just say that you are a strict vegetarian and point out the other things you are against? Is calling yourself a vegan so important? Or is it that you want to argue about the definition as per Merriam-Webster? Hell while I am asking questions why did you respond to the definition I presented above with ANGER? Are you pissed off at the Merriam-Webster or just me?

 

[knotinterested]

You're splitting hairs. Vegans are against using animal products (in food, clothing, etc.) -- that's it. It doesn't mean they are hypocrites, because vegans never claimed to be 100% perfect. Once again you are using this "all-or-nothing" nonsense to justify eating meat.

Your definition of "vegan" (i.e. literally not using a single atom of animal substance in literally everything) is so extreme that if people tried to follow it, no one would be vegan. That's not the point of being vegan. As @SkawdtDawg said, it's about doing what is practically possible. And avoiding meat is easy to do.

People have to start somewhere, and they can start by not eating meat, not wearing leather belts, etc.

Oh and I don't have to justify eating meat!

 

[knotinterested]

@Zoo50 All of what you said is irrational.
You want to say that "IN YOUR OPINION - blah blah blah. Quit saying things like they are facts when they are only your opinion.
If all animals are lumped into one category and it is morally wrong for me to kill an animal for food then it is equally wrong for any animal to kill another animal for food. That is true weather they understand it or not. You want to provide reasons that make it ok for animals to kill other animals and thereby make it wrong for the human animal to kill other animals.
You use morals as if they were a sword to cut down others that would disagree with you. However it is fact that all of us have different morals. Because we all have different morals it makes it wrong for you to morally kill an animal for food. It does not mean that I have the same moral beliefs as you and morally to me it is not wrong to kill another animal for it's resources.
Is it wrong for me to shoot a coyote that is trying to kill one of my animals? When you are faced with a 50 pound coyote chasing one of your cows or calves to kill it then you can make that decision so you don't have to answer that one because anything you would say would just be speculation, just your opinion of what you might do and that has no bearing on what you would really do.

 

[SigmaTheZeta]

I am going to speak as someone that has been a meat-eater for about 36 years of their life and actually remains rather divided on whether to remain one or not.

I will tell my vegan friends precisely why I have never actually been bothered by the fact that furry animals had to die horribly for my meat.

The fact of the matter is that I did not give a happy fuck about them, either way.

This might come as a shock to you, but you must understand that there is a distinctive reason why I treat both my non-human pets and my fellow human being differently, or rather, there are several.

For one thing, my fellow human beings and I have a sort of peace treaty between each other. In fact, it is most incredibly unnatural for a human male to survive for very long after having reached adulthood, assuming that he got to adulthood in one piece at all. Prior to what came to be thought of as "civilized warfare," in which inter-tribal warfare in some parts of the world ceased to be entirely a bloody massacre and became merely a risky endeavor in which one was merely in grave danger of getting killed rather than having a rather laughable probability of surviving, especially after one's own tribe had been defeated, humans did not really take kindly to encountering humans that they were not actually related to, and as a matter of fact, they saw any human being that they were not related to in a similar light to how one might see a goblin or an orc from out of an AD&D game or a mutated virus zombie from out of one of those Survivor games. They saw their fellow human being as a hideous parody of a proper sapient creature that ought to be destroyed violently before they spread their disease existence to others, although their women were often regarded as just barely acceptable to take as concubines and therefore violently rape and exploit for menial labor. This might have gone on right up until the present, but they came up with this clever idea where they would try doing this "war" thing according to a set of rules with certain limitations on how many of each other they were really allowed to murder and how ruthlessly they were allowed to commit such murders and what sorts of tactics were regarded as sufficiently "honorable" to warrant those using them not being exterminated as expeditiously as possible. In other words, they developed the raw tissue of what eventually was transformed into a system of law, and those that were prepared to abide by such laws tended to have fatter offspring and fatter wives than those that did not, resulting in them vastly outnumbering their relatively lawless rivals.

Well, I tend to follow the laws that say that I am not allowed to murder people for the same reasons why dogs do not often prefer to shit where they are also inclined to sleep: it is sort of an instinct that I am compelled to follow. Do not get me wrong, by the way: there have been times when I have heard about rampage shootings and thought wistfully about how amazingly effective such behavior is at gloriously driving home the point that, as a matter of fact, one actually is not satisfied with present conditions and frankly has the most profound possible contempt toward those that have participated in keeping them that way, not really any sort of lofty sense of respect or esteem at all and certainly not jealousy. This type of behavior is simply handily intercepted by the fact that that type of behavior is not really allowed.

In fact, it takes quite a lot for me to say that I should do something that is not really allowed. A law or a rule or a guideline must be borne out of the most hideous possible malfeasance and misconception and brazen unabashed hypocrisy that the human mind can possibly dwell upon without coming down with a sense of adequately morbid disgust to induce explosive emetic expulsion in even the most seasoned mountebankerous buffoon. The sodomy laws and, by extension, the anti-zooey laws are a prime example: although I do, in fact, absolutely and profoundly reject them with unbridled and hostile contempt, I do not do so either lightly or comfortably, and if I have reached such a point, then one must truly be certain that I am inclined to subject anybody that attempts to shame me over it to violent pugilistic bombardment until such point as they either shut up for a while or are driven into a long-term coma. In general, I am a very lawful person, which is based on my trust in society to at least try to be at least somewhat tolerable in terms of what sorts of laws it chooses to author, and when that trust is betrayed, suffice it to say that I am rather pissed.

However, there is a deep cultural context to why I do not go around murdering my fellow man for any reason at all.

When I adopt an animal as a pet, you could say that I am adopting that animal, on an individual basis, as a member of my tribe. As such, I think that, due to my relationship with that animal, I have the hope that human laws will be somewhat applicable to this, my adoptive family member.

On the other hand, if I have not adopted an animal as a pet and that animal does not somewhat resemble animals that I have as pets or have adopted as pets in the past, you are asking quite a lot more out of me than you might logically think that you are by asking me to care a flying purple two-dicked fuck about it.

In fact, the sheer fact that @SkawdtDawg shares with me a common identity as a zoo and, in spite of what I perceive as slowness of metacognition (although swifter than some others on this person's side of the discussion), is not, as far as I can tell, an outright punk, is really a large contributor to the fact that I am willing to care a flying purple two-dicked fuck about the welfare of an even-toed ungulate. It is apparently important to this person that I adopt all ungulates into my tribe, be they odd-toed or even-toed, so in the spirit of relatively even-tempered acquaintance, I am willing to go along with the idea.

What has started to gradually sway me on that was that I already cared somewhat more than a flying purple two-dicked fuck about @SkawdtDawg, and it seemed to deeply distress him that I was perfectly alright with eating his animal friends.

For better or for worse, though, I actually am swayed considerably more by personal drives than I am by abstract ethics. I am not a robot that just runs a script that is based on a particular meta-ethic and spits a feed from out of a slot in its face bearing the output. I am as much of an animal as a wild wolf, a moose, a seagull, or a mouse. Regardless of the fact that I actually do have substantially higher than ordinary intellectual capability, that is only a very small part of what motivates my morality.

Therefore, I would suggest to my friend (assuming that I may call this person a friend) @SkawdtDawg that it would be prudent to try to step back from staying engrossed so in conflict with those that are on the other side of the discussion, and instead of focusing on winning battles of syllogisms with them, he should focus on polishing off his skills at, firstly, finding potential friends he might have something in common with and, secondly, building up such friendships. This might not result in miraculous and sudden conversion experiences, but it just might result in getting individuals such as myself and @Tailo to view their way of thinking with more open minds.

Humans are still just animals. If we zoos aim to succeed at winning society over to our side, then it would serve us well to make peace with that fact. We do not attempt to win over the trust of a dog by telling him a stream of syllogisms that demonstrate precisely why it is to his benefit to trust us and then rage at the animal for not comprehending the simple and easy to understand logic of such syllogisms, but we make friends with a dog by making one small gesture of friendship at a time and steadily building up a sense of trust. Humans really love to pretend that they are, on this level, different from dogs (and horses, for that matter), but they are quite frankly fooling themselves. Patience and courtesy does a lot more than a syllogism.

I would ask that @SkawdDawg, in the interest of creating one more person that has the capability of changing the minds of skeptical non-zoos, actually start watching lectures on persuasion itself. There is an entire psychology that is behind how it is properly done and how to go about doing it successfully with results that can be replicated.


@SkawdtDawg, I humbly request that you watch this or any other high quality educational video on persuasion and then start directly applying its lessons to this discussion. I am going to set you a goal to spend at least five solid pages of this discussion concentrating on sticking to such rules for persuasion as fastidiously as you possibly can. I can guarantee that if you chose one apparently wavering (or at least not devoutly pig-headed) individual, here, and made a concerted effort to apply soundly advised persuasion techniques to that person, then you would find yourself to be substantially less frustrated with how this discussion is going. I am asking for this as a gesture of friendship toward me and as a zoo to whom it is deeply beneficial if other zoos are highly skilled at changing people's minds about things at all.

Human beings are considerably less frustrating when we make up our minds to put their natural psychology, which is not principally all that much different from that of a dog or a horse, on our team.

 

[knotinterested]

I avoid animal products as much as humanly possible. Let's review the Merriam-Webster definition of vegan again:

"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)"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vegan

I consume no food that comes from animals. I also abstain from using animal products. Abstain:

"to choose not to do or have something : to refrain deliberately and often with an effort of self-denial from an action or practice "

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abstain

I choose not to use animal products when I have control over it, and at the very least refrain deliberately and often. I don't see a contradiction.

Also, since vegans don't claim to be perfect (at least most of us, haha), and the general consensus among vegans is that a person can't be 100% vegan, we are living the lives we are persuading others to live. There is no hypocrisy. We're not expecting anyone to be held to a higher standard than we hold for ourselves.

I don't call myself a strict vegetarian with beliefs against the slaughter of animals for the production of food and other animal products because it's easier to say vegan, and the definition is the same.

Obviously the definition is not the same. However I appreciate your answer. I even respect that you try to do the things that you do. If I were of that belief then I would join you but I'm not so I won't.

 

[knotinterested]

Okay, let's say we call ourselves "strict vegetarians with beliefs against the slaughter of animals for the production of food and other animal products" and not use the label "vegan". You'd still be playing the hypocrite card because you'd say that it's impossible to go through life without inadvertently using some kind of animal product. At this point you're just being combative on a non-issue.

No I'm not I am just showing you one of the errors in your presentation.

 

[Zoo50]

Oh and I don't have to justify eating meat!

So you basically just admitted that you don't have any good arguments justifying meat-eating.

If all animals are lumped into one category and it is morally wrong for me to kill an animal for food then it is equally wrong for any animal to kill another animal for food.

This is nonsense. It is not wrong for non-human animals to kill other animals because they don't understand morality the way humans do.

Also, you're the irrational one, not me. You keep defending unethical practices (such as murdering animals) while simultaneously claiming to love them.

Because we all have different morals it makes it wrong for you to morally kill an animal for food. It does not mean that I have the same moral beliefs as you and morally to me it is not wrong to kill another animal for it's resources.

You're just using "moral relativity" as excuse to keep eating meat, even though all the arguments against eating meat are more compelling than the arguments for it.

Is it wrong for me to shoot a coyote that is trying to kill one of my animals?

Yes, it is wrong for you to shoot a coyote.

 

[SigmaTheZeta]

Thanks for sharing your input. There are certainly reasons why society has developed the way it has, based on trying to survive. But, I've found that basing morality around the well-being of as large of a circle as possible and treating others with kindness works the best. It becomes so apparent when you're an outsider and not a part of a group that only looks after their own. I think a large part of my moral system is because I care about others; other humans, and other animals. I don't like being the cause of suffering. It's hard to understand those who don't feel that way, who only care about their own interests and maybe those closest to them.

You think I have a "slowness of metacognition"? I don't think that's warranted. I assure you I'm not a punk, either. I'm a person who cares about animals and am trying to persuade others to, as well. I'm not out to pick fights or troll. You may call me a friend, though. I appreciate that you've been willing to listen and try.

I'll make an effort to watch the video you linked. I'm always open to self-improvement. Right now I'm just doing the best I can.

Meta-cognition is difficult for most people that have never really thought very much about thinking itself, and even for those of us that are attempting to learn it actively, it does not come easily.

An example of metacognition would be, "Well, I obviously have the feelings about this that I do because I have actually fucked some of them, and grew rather attached." It would pay quite a lot to examine your motives beyond just abstract ethics.

Many vegans, in my experience, are not perfectly aware of the simple humanity that lies at the heart of their own motives. They tend to appeal far too much to abstract ethics and logic, and they forget that these were not really entirely their reasons behind changing how they thought about this sort of thing.

In some cases, I think that people can be embarrassed to expose their human motives for their beliefs because it seems like they are admitting that they are not really motivated by a sense of moral purity or inherent rightness, and maybe they are fearful of coming across as shallow. However, this is really a fallacy: primal drives and experiences that touch a primal part of ourselves are a valid part of why we form these kinds of opinions. Ultimately, you are not less noble if a part of you is motivated by the same drives that cause a mare to stand between you and her foal if she has not become acquainted with you yet. That actually makes you more human, not less, and more likable, not less. If you can also succeed at explaining how you ultimately connected these experiences with abstract philosophy, then that actually comes across as extremely impressive.

I am not dwelling upon that simply because I see it in you, but this is true for almost everybody. When they get caught up in a heated debate, they often become embarrassed of their own vulnerability, and this makes them less convincing, not more. It constitutes a large part of why these debates go around and around in circles for generations without ever getting anywhere.

Your animal drives are a part of what make you human, not the opposite of being human. Without those drives, you are barely more than a robot and warrant substantially less empathy. Without empathy, morality is toothless, so it is very difficult to persuade someone to change their morality with a mere heartless syllogism.

I think that everybody runs afoul of this when they are attempting to argue morality.

A few hours' insight as to the most deeply instinctive reasons behind your beliefs and as to how your personal experiences have shaped your beliefs will always deliver the strongest tools for changing the minds of others, and the reason why is that they are motivated by the same drives. The strings that pulled your heart can also pull theirs. This is why metacognition is of inestimable value.

 

[knotinterested]

So you basically just admitted that you don't have any good arguments justifying meat-eating.

When I say that I don't have to justify eating meat it means just that AND NOT WHAT EVER YOU WANT TO SAY IT MEANS. Again your arrogance and lack of cognitive ability show.

This is nonsense. It is not wrong for non-human animals to kill other animals because they don't understand morality the way humans do.

Also, you're the irrational one, not me. You keep defending unethical practices (such as murdering animals) while simultaneously claiming to love them.

You don't do anything other than run your mouth and irrationally at that. You only run your mouth with the same rhetoric over and over - You don't support any animal rights organizations - You don't try to help animals by supporting any charities - You don't make any effort to organize a movement in favor of animal rights. You are what my dad used to call static, that is people that make a lot of noise but don't do anything to make any difference.
At least I do support a few animal charities which would say that I at least love animals enough to put money toward their well being and not just run my mouth.

You're just using "moral relativity" as excuse to keep eating meat, even though all the arguments against eating meat are more compelling than the arguments for it.

What color is the sky in your world?

Yes, it is wrong for you to shoot a coyote.

So you would just stand there and let a 50 pound coyote kill a 1500 pound animal because you say it is wrong to kill the coyote and protect the other animal. YOU ARE TOTALLY WHACKED - TOTALLY UNREASONABLE - TOTALLY ILLOGICAL = TOTALLY IRRATIONAL

 

[FeralLovin']

 

[knotinterested]

View attachment 42527
View attachment 42528

LOL He gave me an Angry on a post where I had only pointed out the Merriam-Webster definition of Vegan. I guess he doesn't like the truth.

 

[1KnottyGirl]

Hey TC he was angry at me after I had said I went back to eating meat after 2 years and felt much healthier. He told me that I didn't try hard enough and that I was selfish to eat meat instead of keeping on having headaches, not sleeping very good at night, having no energy, bad skin problems, and a host of other things that went away within days of returning to eating meat. So he was saying that I should have all kinds of health problems or I was selfish for eating meat and not having the problems I was having.
So as I see it he can just be angry and I will be happier and healthier.

 

[knotinterested]

Yea I know what you are saying because nothing will ever make a difference to his narrow minded view. He is proof positive that you can not please everyone!

 

[1KnottyGirl]

Well I'm not even willing to try when it comes to him.

 

[knotinterested]

I don't know how he is on other things but I will say that he is like a brick wall on this vegan thing, and he has morals that are good too if you think the way he does. So I'll give him leeway on other things.

 

[1KnottyGirl]

Yea, you're probably right.

 

[knotinterested]

I hope that one day we live in a world where a person has to justify eating meat to the rest of the world.

If we would have to justify eating of meat then I would hate to think of all the other things that we would have to justify as well. No thanks on that world. And not because of the eating of meat but because it would be a crappy world.

In his defense, he's pretty consistent with what he's saying. He's passionate about animals' well-being and is doing what he can to defend them. I don't see the relevance in supporting animal rights organizations or supporting charities. Those would be a plus.

Of course not because you are as narrow minded as he is. You can't see how all those organizations help animals and you can't see how supporting them says in loud language how much you truly love animals. You can't see that supporting them with your hard earned money shows that you do more than the average person and you are not just rattling your jaw about doing something.

That's great that you support animal charities. But that's a separate issue and what we'd call a bonus. I'd ask, why not also consider the well-being of the animals that you eat?

As a person in my position I do as much as I can to support the well being of the animals under my control. I believe in "Grass fed" rather than grain fed which is a lot more in cost. During the winter our cattle are sheltered and fed hay and silage. This also means that they do not receive all the hormones and antibiotics given regular cattle that are gown faster. On the far reaching plus side of grass fed beef is the fact that the animal in most cases will get to live longer lives. Grain fed beef will be at finishing weight 1200 pounds at 2 years of age. Grass fed cattle will not reach this weight until around 4 years old. It should be obvious but it does cost twice as much to raise cattle that are grass fed and the cattle get to live 2 years more than they would have had money been the only concern.
BTW cows age 12 years to our 1 year and by age 5 they are already showing many signs of aging. By age 8 there are many that can't even walk and have taken a simple fall to break legs and eventually cause death. Even dairy cows usually only work out to be around 7 years of age.

I'd personally try to find a way to not kill the coyote if it were possible. I think that if you had to do it to defend another animal's life, you'd at least have a justification for doing so. Then again, aren't you going to kill the animal, anyway? So, are you really saving them? Or is it less about concern for the animal than property being stolen from you? If you shoot the coyote, you'll also kill the calf or cow later anyway, so then you've killed two animals instead of one.

Actually no I am not going to kill the animal. I raise them and then sell them. Yes in the end it will be killed for it's resources which are used pretty efficiently today. But to answer more accurately I am in effect killing one animal and prolonging the life of the other. Not to mention the horrific way it would die through much pain and suffering if the coyote were allowed to kill it.
We have found animals the morning after they had been killed by coyotes and it was not a pretty site. To have died in that manner must have been terrible for the animal. And there is no way on this earth that I could just stand-by and allow that to happen.

 

[knotinterested]

We already have to justify things like theft, violence, and war. We can't simply do something because we want it; there has to be a good reason. Cannibalism would be justified if we were stuck in a situation where we'd otherwise starve. If a human (or other animal, for that matter) kills and eats an animal, it should be because they are in a survival situation. I guess it would be a crappy world for you because it goes against something that you practice. But, it would be a better world for animals.

Why do you bring out examples that are already negative. Of the first 3 things you used as an example the only one needing justification is "War" and that is because the government would loose the support of it's people if they didn't justify it. Theft and violence in most forms is against the law and there is no way to justify that.

My view is actually broad. I see how my actions effect those outside of my circle and consider them as well. I once was a meat-eater and once I become more educated, I decided eating animals was cruel and stupid. I can see how organizations help animals, and I have stated such. But, like I said, those are bonuses. All the money in the world isn't going to help the animals that are mistreated and killed by your eating of them.

I am not just rattling my jaw; I walk my walk. I advocate for others to remove animal products from their lifestyle as much as humanly possible, and I do the same. I'm talking about cutting out that harm that you're causing. Also, this internet forum is just one form of advocacy. I have several others that I use in person.

I'm not even going as far as to say, "I am a great animal lover." A person doesn't even have to like animals to realize that what we do to them is wrong and be against it. Meanwhile, I actually HAVE donated to charities AND spent time volunteering. But you know what, it's not a competition.

Are you implying that eating meat is done by uneducated people? I think what you meant was that once your moral compass changed you felt guilty eating meat and you stopped. I don't think that a person's intelligence level has anything to do with their choice of eating meat.

An occasional donation is not supporting. Supporting would be to make regular donations. Maybe you call it bonuses because it is something others are doing that in the long run helps what you believe in but doesn't actually cost you anything out of your pocket. So in that respect you would still only be rattling your jaw.

That's great that you look after their well-being. But, the act of killing them in the end is still wrong. Dogs age faster than humans, as well, but that doesn't give us reason to kill them partway through their life so we can eat them. Dairy cows age early because the milking process depletes their bodies of nutrients like calcium. Their bodies break after an average of 5-6 years and they are sold for slaughter. Some thanks after a life of slavery.

The lifespan of a cow is about 20 years:

"Domestic cows can live to 20 years; however, those raised for dairy rarely live that long, as the average cow is removed from the dairy herd around age six and marketed for beef."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dairy_cattle

Also:

"Breeding stock may be allowed a longer lifespan, occasionally living as long as 25 years. The oldest recorded cow, Big Bertha, died at the age of 48 in 1993."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cattle

Yes, Cows can live 18-20 years or even 48 years, but it’s not normal or even the average. People can live to 120 but it’s not the norm.
This chart shows the relation between human and cows.

I don't trust the things stated by wikipedia simply because anyone can add their input to the things already there. I usually research things to at least the next level. When they mention breeding stock they are referring to the bull only, and even then their reference of 25 years is ridiculous. Try finding resources in areas like American Cattle Breeders Association, The Angus Association. etc.
As I said before cattle show signs of their age by age 7 or 8. You can see that they walk differently and sometimes have real problems.

Someone kills the animal, and you paved the way. It's not at all efficient to use an animal for their resources, especially if it's the way you do it, which costs more money and takes more time, and as a result, more resources. Still, a cow dying by a coyote would be pretty horrible. It's just another point against there being a merciful god.

Your suggestion then would be to kill the animals earlier as in grain feed animals that only live half as long in order to be more efficient. It greatly surprises me that you would be against that which causes the animals to live longer.
The reference "Merciful God" has always meant God's mercy toward mankind and has nothing to do with nature.

 

[Silvervine]

Vegans survive and thrive

It's awesome that you've done that, and I can honestly say you seem like one of the few semi-decent vegans I've met. Most of them have been shitty with me, generally acting like they're better because they don't eat meat. Keep being awesome, because it's the good ones that will convince others.

 

[Zoo50]

When I say that I don't have to justify eating meat it means just that AND NOT WHAT EVER YOU WANT TO SAY IT MEANS. Again your arrogance and lack of cognitive ability show.

You (the one who is typing in all capital letters) is arrogant, not me.

You don't do anything other than run your mouth and irrationally at that. You only run your mouth with the same rhetoric over and over - You don't support any animal rights organizations - You don't try to help animals by supporting any charities - You don't make any effort to organize a movement in favor of animal rights. You are what my dad used to call static, that is people that make a lot of noise but don't do anything to make any difference.

I make a difference because I don't eat meat and don't use animal products, so I don't contribute to the horrid animal slaughter / factory farm industry (which you do).

At least I do support a few animal charities which would say that I at least love animals enough to put money toward their well being and not just run my mouth.

It baffles me that you contribute to animal charities, yet support killing / murdering animals. If you really loved animals, you wouldn't eat them.

So you would just stand there and let a 50 pound coyote kill a 1500 pound animal because you say it is wrong to kill the coyote and protect the other animal. YOU ARE TOTALLY WHACKED - TOTALLY UNREASONABLE - TOTALLY ILLOGICAL = TOTALLY IRRATIONAL

Maybe it would be a good idea to use a tranquilizer dart to tranquilize the coyote. That way both of them would live. It's not "irrational" and "illogical" to support keeping a being alive (i.e. not killing them).

[Image]

All you can do is laugh because your arguments defending meat-eating suck.

LOL He gave me an Angry on a post where I had only pointed out the Merriam-Webster definition of Vegan. I guess he doesn't like the truth.

I did that because you said it was good for someone to think that humans are "superior" to other animals (humans are not superior to other animals).

Hey TC he was angry at me after I had said I went back to eating meat after 2 years and felt much healthier. He told me that I didn't try hard enough and that I was selfish to eat meat instead of keeping on having headaches, not sleeping very good at night, having no energy, bad skin problems, and a host of other things that went away within days of returning to eating meat.

The reason I called you selfish is because all of the reasons you give defending meat-eating (not having headaches, the quality of your sleep, your energy, etc.) are all self-interested -- that is, they only take into account your own interests, and not more important interests (such as an animal's right to live). Your meat-eating diet involves unnecessary animal cruelty and suffering.

So he was saying that I should have all kinds of health problems or I was selfish for eating meat and not having the problems I was having.

No -- as @SkawdtDawg has shown, it is possible to have a vegan diet and be healthy. Being vegan does not automatically equal "unhealthy" -- that is a stereotype. Don't blame your health problems on being vegan.

So as I see it he can just be angry and I will be happier and healthier.

So apparently you have no problem with being happy at the expense of an animal's life.

Yea I know what you are saying because nothing will ever make a difference to his narrow minded view. He is proof positive that you can not please everyone!

Actually, the reason I'm not narrow-minded is because my "circle" of moral value (i.e. which beings are treated with moral respect) involves non-human beings of many species, in addition to humans. In contrast, your speciesist view only includes humans.

Well I'm not even willing to try when it comes to him.

[In reply to above 2 quotes:] So now you're arguing about me rather than about veganism (ad hominem).

I don't know how he is on other things but I will say that he is like a brick wall on this vegan thing

When it comes to not tolerating slaughter and hunting (which involves animal abuse, animal cruelty, animal torture, animal murder, etc) then one should be like a brick wall.

I believe in "Grass fed" rather than grain fed which is a lot more in cost

The whole "grass-fed" thing is a propaganda label designed to make people feel better -- "grass-fed" animals are still murdered (in the slaughter industry), so it doesn't matter if they were treated "nicely" before being killed, because the act of killing a being is itself immoral.

Grain fed beef will be at finishing weight 1200 pounds at 2 years of age. Grass fed cattle will not reach this weight until around 4 years old.

Stop callously talking about cows as though they are objects. You go on and on about how people should donate to charities, but then you negate your moral-ness by treating living beings as exploitable objects.

BTW cows age 12 years to our 1 year and by age 5 they are already showing many signs of aging.

It is immoral to kill an old animal, in the same way that it is immoral to kill an old human (except possibly for medically-assisted euthanasia).

Actually no I am not going to kill the animal. I raise them and then sell them. Yes in the end it will be killed for it's resources which are used pretty efficiently today.

While you don't physically kill the animals, your acts support their killing, so you are partly responsible for their demise. And it is not "efficient" to kill an animal -- it is very inefficient, and demands more resources than plants alone.

 

[FeralLovin']

All you can do is laugh because your arguments defending meat-eating suck.

Defending something implies that it's in danger and since meat eating isn't in danger, I shall continue laughing at your guy's expense.

 

[knotinterested]

You (the one who is typing in all capital letters) is arrogant, not me. This is the most childish response possible. Yes you did - No you did - No I didn't you did - No it was you This is the mentality you are using. Grow up and accept the fact that not everyone is going to have the same beliefs as you do and therefore they are not going to act the same as you.

I make a difference because I don't eat meat and don't use animal products, so I don't contribute to the horrid animal slaughter / factory farm industry (which you do). You are a liar - You do use animal products - you are typing on a keyboard that has plastic keys and animal products were used to make those keys. Therefore even though it is a small part you still contribute to the horrid animal slaughter / factory farm industry.

It baffles me that you contribute to animal charities, yet support killing / murdering animals. If you really loved animals, you wouldn't eat them.
It baffles me that you DO NOT contribute to animal charities. If you really loved animals, you would financially support organzations that are trying to help animals. This is more proof that you only rattle your mouth.

Maybe it would be a good idea to use a tranquilizer dart to tranquilize the coyote. That way both of them would live. It's not "irrational" and "illogical" to support keeping a being alive (i.e. not killing them). Wrong again - The coyote would only return to kill again.

All you can do is laugh because your arguments defending meat-eating suck. All you do is keep presenting the same argument which you seem to think everyone is bound to agree with even though every person has different moral values but you fail to see it or accept it. In all this you insult everyone that disagrees with you. Therefore you suck.

I did that because you said it was good for someone to think that humans are "superior" to other animals (humans are not superior to other animals). That was in a preceding post. If humans are not superior then give me 3 examples of animals being equal to humans and DO NOT answer with morally, right to life, or desire to live as your examples.

The reason I called you selfish is because all of the reasons you give defending meat-eating (not having headaches, the quality of your sleep, your energy, etc.) are all self-interested -- that is, they only take into account your own interests, and not more important interests (such as an animal's right to live). Your meat-eating diet involves unnecessary animal cruelty and suffering. EVERY person will do what they can to improve their own life and their own health. You just want to say everyone is wrong when it goes against what you feel. You DO NOT consider what others have done and the reasons they do the things they do. You only see black and white, and that is not logically sound and it shows a severe lack of reasoning ability.

No -- as @SkawdtDawg has shown, it is possible to have a vegan diet and be healthy. Being vegan does not automatically equal "unhealthy" -- that is a stereotype. Don't blame your health problems on being vegan. Again you just want to say everyone is wrong when it goes against what you feel. You DO NOT consider what others have done and the reasons they do the things they do. You only see black and white, and that is not logically sound and it shows a severe lack of reasoning ability.

So apparently you have no problem with being happy at the expense of an animal's life. Apparently you are unable to understand even the simplest of statements and then on top of that you still interject your own idea which is also said as an insult.

Actually, the reason I'm not narrow-minded is because my "circle" of moral value (i.e. which beings are treated with moral respect) involves non-human beings of many species, in addition to humans. In contrast, your speciesist view only includes humans. Another statement completely out of context which demonstrates your narrowmindedness. If you weren't so narrow minded then you would be able to understand what was being said and respond properly.

[In reply to above 2 quotes:] So now you're arguing about me rather than about veganism (ad hominem). LOL So you think someone was arguing about you?

When it comes to not tolerating slaughter and hunting (which involves animal abuse, animal cruelty, animal torture, animal murder, etc) then one should be like a brick wall. If that is what you believe but you should not be surprised when you meet someone like me that does not believe as you do that I would be like a brick wall also.

The whole "grass-fed" thing is a propaganda label designed to make people feel better -- "grass-fed" animals are still murdered (in the slaughter industry), so it doesn't matter if they were treated "nicely" before being killed, because the act of killing a being is itself immoral. So then that would mean that you don't actually care how they are treated in their lives. You don't care that they get to live twice as long. That fact alone make you a hypocrite.

Stop callously talking about cows as though they are objects. You go on and on about how people should donate to charities, but then you negate your moral-ness by treating living beings as exploitable objects. Livestock are bred and born to serve primary as food. When they are slaughtered and cut into various pieces of meat and sold in supermarkets then later cooked and consumed by those who want to do so then they have fulfilled their purpose. You may not like it but that is how it is in the world we live in today.

It is immoral to kill an old animal, in the same way that it is immoral to kill an old human (except possibly for medically-assisted euthanasia). Says you - I'm really getting tired of your continued expression as if it is fact. Name one place on earth where it is illegal.

While you don't physically kill the animals, your acts support their killing, so you are partly responsible for their demise. And it is not "efficient" to kill an animal -- it is very inefficient, and demands more resources than plants alone. HOW Explain this to me since you state it like it is a fact.

And SkawdtDawg Don't jump in here and answer this as you have been doing every time I ask Zoo50 something. If you want to say something here then first allow him to answer.

 

[knotinterested]

What about all the animals that are killed in order to grow and produce plants used in the vegan diet? During crop production and harvest rabbits, squirrels, mice, pheasants, quail, doves, and snakes amounting to Millions of animals die every year to provide products used in vegan diets. So the vegan position is inconsistent.
While meat eaters are the cause of animal deaths on one hand the vegans are the cause of animal deaths on the other hand. Nobody is without blame. The fact remains that to live you must kill.