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

[BlueBeard]

Oooo... That's an ancient, diabolic trick in argument: "In the 'fullness of time,' once you've seen it properly as I have -- you'll agree with me." (No worries. I've used that myself. Usually it was, I was tired of the topic, though).

So, basically, your answer to my question is, "We won't impose it on anyone. We'll wait for them to become enlightened at their own pace. Likely going to be the well-off cultures first. As they have increasing experiences with filling, inexpensive meat alternatives, they'll eventually give up killing animals for food." ... And I am guessing you'd add, "And as those options are made available worldwide, those in less fortunate cultures who are struggling simply to survive will give up meat-eating, too."

And you regard hunting (and fishing) as archaic traditions that are on their way out. Correct?

 

[BlueBeard]

I'm going back to unwatching the thread for now. I'm starting a different one to explore the attacks on "speciesists." That right there is, I think, what the OP should fear most -- vegans who keep using that word in a way that is an actual threat to the zoophile community -- just as he feared.

Can you be a zoophile and not speciesist? (How?) I am very curious about that. Seems like even a shallow investigation of Speciesism requires you to narrow your definition considerably to reconcile those two concepts, being non-Speciesist *and* a zoophile. I mean, Flemish Giant? That's a speciesist creation -- unless someone has a description of a breeding program that doesn't employ speciesist operating principles.

 

[SigmaTheZeta]

Oooo... That's an ancient, diabolic trick in argument: "In the 'fullness of time,' once you've seen it properly as I have -- you'll agree with me." (No worries. I've used that myself. Usually it was, I was tired of the topic, though).

So, basically, your answer to my question is, "We won't impose it on anyone. We'll wait for them to become enlightened at their own pace. Likely going to be the well-off cultures first. As they have increasing experiences with filling, inexpensive meat alternatives, they'll eventually give up killing animals for food." ... And I am guessing you'd add, "And as those options are made available worldwide, those in less fortunate cultures who are struggling simply to survive will give up meat-eating, too."

And you regard hunting (and fishing) as archaic traditions that are on their way out. Correct?

I am certain that you will hunt for the remainder of your natural life, but I am also certain that the generations to come are going to grow up eating lab-grown meat that is inexpensive. If you attempted to talk most of them into coming with you on a Paleolithic nostalgia hunting trip, maybe you would even get a few takers. I won't even try to talk you out of it. If you want to try to recreate the "back to nature" movement single-handedly, then I would even support you if it were something that had meaning to you. I simply have a fairly well-founded idea of how long it would last. Maybe there ultimately will be a "back to nature" movement in another generation, composed of people that see lab-grown meat as being "materialistic" and not spiritually connected with its animal origins. Such movements do not last forever, though, and without the driving force of necessity, it is hard for me to conceive of hunting lasting until the end of the 21st Century.

 

[Andriodog]

I pretty sure those plants that alot of eat are alive too. Oh and plants i meaning where all the veggies grow and fruit.

 

[Zoo50]

*sigh*

I'm not just "wrong" but a cold-hearted murderer? Okay. Let's run with that.

The way you're raging is kind of scary, dude. Couple that with your opinion that animals have a right to life equal to a human being's, I'm somewhat concerned what you might actually do to stop the cold-blooded "murder" of a chicken, cow or deer. Not shoving, just making sure I'm hearing you right.

Well, I find your attitude towards animals to be kind of scary (because you apparently don't have any empathy for other living beings. If you did have empathy, you wouldn't support killing them -- in the same way you probably wouldn't support killing a dog). You seem to not be able to comprehend the suffering that occurs when people hunt / slaughter animals.

The best way to stop chicken, cows and deer from being killed is to change the laws (so that killing an animal needlessly is prohibited), but in order to do that, there needs to be more support for the rights of animals. In the meantime, people can simply stop eating meat.

Can you be a zoophile and not speciesist? (How?) I am very curious about that. Seems like even a shallow investigation of Speciesism requires you to narrow your definition considerably to reconcile those two concepts, being non-Speciesist *and* a zoophile. I mean, Flemish Giant? That's a speciesist creation -- unless someone has a description of a breeding program that doesn't employ speciesist operating principles.

Yes, one can be a zoo and not a speciesist. Being inclusive of other species is not speciesist. I don't think you understand what speciesism is. When lawmakers make laws banning sex with animals, that is a speciesist act, because it is designed to limit legal sex to only one species (humans). So, by opposing those laws, one is going against that speciesism.

 

[DarcMarc]

It's good that people are trying to abolish meat-eating. Slaughter is an inherently immoral act (because it robs a being of his/her life). Billions of animals are cruelty tortured and killed in factory farms every year. People shouldn't eat meat, and they should instead eat plant-based foods.

I will point point out eating less meat is a good thing overall but all those highly processed plant-based foods contain just as much, and in some cases even more, salt, cholesterol, fat, and sugar as any processed meat.

If your going to be eating more plants they should be fresh, or frozen if not in season, and have as litte processing as possible.

 

[InfiniteSkril]

If you've read this post this far you're probably as far out as any hardcore activist.

 

[ArticWolf]

Skawdtdawg,

Right after I started posting (posts which were respectful rebuttals to previous comments) knotinterested took issue with the fact that I was replying, as if I was out of line for doing so:
The post you mention was made because you had responded to neutral statements made by Knotty95. This would have been better to make your own post to say the things you said without quoting Knotty95. Your direct reply was in effect to oppose her statements.

I immediately apologized and explained that I didn't want to have a hostile conversation:

Then she responded that it was actually fine:

So I thought, "Good, all is well." And then she started calling me a hypocrite and claimed that I called her one, even though I didn't. She also claimed that I was throwing rocks, which I never did:

Maybe she got my words mixed up with someone else's. I'd be happy to accept that if that's the case. But, I didn't call her a hypocrite, and I didn't "throw rocks". Then she called me a hypocrite again:

Then she accused me assaulting people, which I never did:

Then she called me a hypocrite again:

And again:
The above are repetitious, and again these are places where she is pointing out that by the definition you are being hypocritical.
Then she called me narrow-minded:
Yes, in the context that you find supporting animal rights orgs and charities irrelevant and fail to understand that supporting them shows that you have love for animals A point she was trying to make in defense of the claim by the vegan side that you can not love animals and still eat them. Also to say that if the vegans loved animals as much as they claim they would be doing these little things in addition to their diet.

She also claimed that I called people speciesist, immoral, and hypocrites, and that I insulted people--none of which is true. These are false accusations. And then she claimed that I think I'm better than everyone else. Then she claimed I had a bad attitude, even though I've been civil and respectful:
She probably meant in the context that your side has called or does or has the bad attitude. In the debate arena you often means your side.
Maybe she is confusing my posts with someone else, but I never said those things that she's accusing me of saying. It would appear she is either confusing me with someone else or thinks she can invalidate my argument by calling me a hypocrite and claiming I said things which I never said.
Again possibly the side you are on could be her meaning as that happens very often.
Maybe it would have been considered a point if I wasn't called a hypocrite over and over. I see that she doesn't take kindly to being called a hypocrite, so why would she find it acceptable to call me one when I never called her one? Either way, she's splitting hairs and getting stuck on definitions. Even if the Merriam-Webster definition were in conflict, vegan is the colloquial term for people who abstain from animal products. By her definition, NO ONE could be vegan.
It isn't her definition but rather the definition from Merriam-Webster. Now remember that as I will explain below.

She could have just as easily called me a hypocrite using the label she wanted me to use (which was rather long and windy--image having to say that every time you tell someone what you are)! Does this really surprise you in this day when political correctness reigns supreme?

ArticWolf said:
The all or nothing argument has no bearing due to the fact that is you are not within the confines of the definition. I agree it is petty when you are making all the effort you are to be a vegan, but technically her analysis is correct.
Her analysis is incorrect. She is trying to find fault in a place where there is none, even though it has no bearing on the argument at hand. It's just a distraction.
No, you are wrong here. The definition of "Vegan" from her resource, says that it is a person that does not use ANY animal products. These would also include items that are manufactured out of your control. You yourself have stated several times that it would be impossible to be 100%.
The definition of "Hypocrite" is a person who acts in contradiction to their stated beliefs or feelings. So technically, even if only by 1% her analysis is correct like it or not and there is no argument possible.

However, the manner in which she has used it is only to say that vegans are not without a small degree of fault and therefore their shouldn't act as though they are innocent.

Another thing here is that you are taking these arguments to personally. Your side can be stated as you call me this or that and it's ok. blah blah blah. Has Zoo50 said to or called her immoral, she doesn't love animals, a speciesest, or a hypocrite? The answer here is YES. So the vegan side, your side has called her these things. In a debate when one speaks from one side that statement can be applied as if everyone on that side had said it. When she says you said this or that it can be understood that she really means that the vegans said this or that. Likewise it works for you in the same manner.


Thanks. I'm just trying to be thorough. I understand and can see your effort to do so but by doing this you can inadvertently open a door that is unintended. There are so many points I want to rebut and I don't think I'm changing the context one bit, nor ignoring the entire picture. If a person begins to reply to each point of your fractionalization as I am doing in this paragraph they can carry the conversation in a wrong direction in their reply although I am not going to demonstrate that here. Instead I am showing how ridiculous it can get. The thing is, I actually agree with a lot of the statements, but not the conclusions that were reached, and I want to show WHY they don't follow. Instead of breaking it all apart you can say I agree with xxxxx but my conclusion would be xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx. By doing it in this manner the person trying to follow along only has to read what you had said instead of having to re-read that part of the other persons statement. AND I'm stopping this nonsense ( Fractional answers). So, I don't really know what to do. On the other hand, I have no problem if someone wants to us fractionalization in response to my points. I think I'd actually prefer it.



I think I was debating each point in its entirety... I'm sorry if it seems like I'm dense and not getting it. I just never realized there was a problem and am not really sure what to do about it. In any case, I think the original topic had already run its course, as we had come to the conclusion that the majority of vegans don't want to take people's pets away from them.
Actually it never got going because the thread was hijacked almost immediately.

Actually if I were as concerned as you seem to be why not send her a private message and ask if she was insulted? meant to insult you? or other questions you have. In all I have seen from her she is extremely positive and tries to help everyone so I would bet that she would answer without question.

I hope this was helpful and if you reply please only make a few points if you are going to fractionalize. I don't have the time to look it all up as I have had to do with this to see what the context of use was.

Good Day

 

[BlueBeard]

I can't make you do anything you don't want to do, but are you aware the meat consumption is linked to diabetes, and removing it from one's diet can cure it?

https://health.clevelandclinic.org/how-to-reduce-your-risk-of-diabetes-cut-back-on-meat/

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/09/170905134506.htm

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/323518.php#3

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5466941/

https://www.webmd.com/diabetes/news/20190725/plant-based-diet-helps-keep-diabetes-at-bay#1

https://spectrum.diabetesjournals.org/content/25/1/38

https://www.webmd.com/diabetes/veganism-for-people-who-have-diabetes#1



It's actually cheaper to eat a plant-based diet if you're not eating all the plant-based meat substitutes. Even plants containing incomplete proteins can make complete ones when combined. It's really a non-issue for poor people. I speak from experience! Now, in situations where there's famine and in places like the frozen tundra, they have some justification for doing what they have to in order to survive. But most of us are not in that situation, so we can't necessarily use a remote tribe in special circumstances to justify our actions.

Hey! Never knew that. So I went to read them. (By the way, you can tell me what to do -- free speech -- and you can even slap a Like on a post two minutes after it was posted calling me a callous murderer, hypocrite and a lot of other unsavory things, after claiming its *you* who've been brutally and repeatedly attacked by mean-spirited people for your opinions (you *liked* when Zoo50 did that? You excuse his behavior, when it's the epitome of behavior you said you didn't like in this forum?).

Anyway, free speech. But me, I would not myself go so far as to give nutritional/medical advice to another individual who mentioned they are following the instructions of their health care professionals. I'm going to keep to the advice of my physician, endocrinologist and nutritionist -- who've helped me go from A1Cs of 10 and greater to 5.6 following their instructions.

That said, please also consider while the headlines in many of your links all yell "MEAT!" -- that's an exaggeration of what they say when you actually read them.

Several of those sources don't need repeating, since they are reporting the findings of the same recent Chinese (Singaporean) study. It confirms historic suspicions and links between red meat and chicken with diabetes. Note, though, that the study narrowed down "meat" to just red meat and poultry containing heme-iron -- evidently not chicken breast (which is what we eat here at this house almost exclusively when it comes to chicken). The study actually ends up recommending we do keep eating that.

And when anyone says "red meat," they're generally referring to beef. I already said we don't eat much beef here. I like beef, fine, but it's too expensive to buy, and I ain't been hunting much cow lately. As for the chicken -- which I eat a LOT OF -- check out what the study actually concluded:

Senior author of the study Professor Koh said, "We don't need to remove meat from the diet entirely. Singaporeans just need to reduce the daily intake, especially for red meat, and choose chicken breast and fish/shellfish, or plant-based protein food and dairy products, to reduce the risk of diabetes. At the end of the day, we want to provide the public with information to make evidence-based choices in picking the healthier food to reduce disease risk."

My daily intake of animal protein is already limited. I have a healthy, balanced diet and exercise routinely. I have excellent health.

Oh, and the dairy products thing -- I don't drink milk (of course), and I don't eat ice cream at all. But I do eat cheese in almost all of its forms! (Love hard cheeses, aged Gouda...mmmm...). And shredded sharp cheddar on my salads. And I have non-fat yogurt for a midmorning snack with 3/4 TBS of crunchy peanut butter and a tiny sprinkle of mini chocolate chips (So... now someone's going to go search for cheese studies. Oh, and someone will want to know why I added fat BACK INTO nonfat yogurt. LOL.... I'm matching the proportions of carb/fat/protein on a protein bar. I think protein bars are too expensive, too, and my nutritionist told me how to mimic them using yogurt. Only thing I leave out is whey protein).

So look -- you don't want to eat meat. Great. You've told us why. Your motives are laudable. I didn't even complain when you "like" Zoo50's antisocial (somewhat sociopathic) attacks on people throughout the thread without hesitation. I can say I don't agree with your position or your admiration of that guy. I just scratch my head that you don't see they hypocrisy in *that* -- but I have stayed silent about it.

I don't even have a problem if you go so far as to say, "I wish other people like you wouldn't eat meat."

But when you lean toward a presumption that only your and Zoo50's opinions are valid, you've crossed the line. Ain't nobody has to put up wit dat shit. You two can SHARE your opinion, and that's fine. Bashing other people who's opinions differ from yours? Probably should stop short of that.

Time to let it go, bro. Initial premises do not align. There is no common ground from the get-go, other than none of us wants to see animals in misery. We *can't* change each other's minds. It's almost exactly like the abortion issue. One side, "What, you don't care about babies' lives?" That's a STUPID accusation. And it's why the argument's going to derail. Because the "other" side says, "What, you don't care about women?" And OF COURSE both sides do. And then some zealot blows up an abortion clinic, because... they are "pro life."

And going so far as giving out medical advice you simply Googled? That's... well, I appreciate your concern. So hot list away -- I actually did learn something there, even though it does not actually apply to *me*, your selected audience for that. But it probably has some benefit for others who are "porking on beef," pardon the pun).

 

[SigmaTheZeta]

I will acknowledge that the extra-firm tofu can be made as a slightly believable substitute for scrambled egg-whites. It might have slightly superior flavor but is clearly a different thing. I hate trying to pretend that something that is not meat or eggs is meat or eggs, honestly. I am going to say, it tastes like perfectly good scrambled tofu.

The trick turned out to be the addition of a small quantity of nutmeg. Without the nutmeg, it tastes like construction material. The nutmeg offsets that sense.

 

[ArticWolf]

Skawdtdawg,
I have a right to respond to points that are made. Knotty95's statements were not neutral, and my responses were to rebut her statements. If she didn't wish to continue on, then no worries.
Okay, If you want to disagree with these statements, and you did, then in your mind they aren't neutral.
"I have a lot of respect for vegans who don't force their lifestyle down other peoples throats." and,
"One can very much love animals & be for animal rights but still eat meat. I respect a vegans choice not to eat meat & I expect the same courtesy in return."

By definition, knotinterested also fits the criteria of speciesist, yet I chose to not call her that because I wanted to be respectful of her. She accused me personally of saying things I never said, and using the fact that someone else on my side did so is not fair to me.
Okay, that's fair but let's look at it from this viewpoint then, When you click the like button for someone's post you are in effect advocating everything they stated in their posts and even though you may not have said it you have now become partner with those statements. You must be aware that Zoo50 has called her many things and insulted her in almost every post where he has commented in response to her posts. Through this thread you have clicked like showing your approval in around 80% of Zoo50s posts.

Vegans don't claim that a vegan has to love animals, so it's not a competition of who loves them more. A person can dislike animals and still see what we do to them as an injustice. We do point out the inconsistency in claiming to love animals (in the context of caring for their well-being) when a person causes suffering and death to them. Also, many vegans do donate to animal charities, and how much a person loves animals can't be measured simply by how much money they donate.
You are correct, there is no competition, but she wasn't trying to say that there was one either. She was just using that to further illustrate 2 points, one that making these donations shows that you do love animals, and two a defense against vegans making statements such as meat eaters are hypocrites by saying that they love animals and yet eat them. BTW this is where the vegans had called the meat eaters hypocrites FIRST before the tag was applied back onto the vegans.

In fairness, the other side often has a bad attitude as well. I think it's most fair to treat each individual as they treat others rather than treating them by the side they are on. I refuse to let how someone else on a side acts toward me dictate how I treat another person on the same side. I treat each individual on a case-by-case basis, because there are many styles of giving the same message.
A Bad Attitude should be expected because the vegan attitude, telling others what they are doing is wrong, etc., has placed them in a defensive position. I understand your thought on treating the individual on a case by case basis, but consider the double-teaming that you and Zoo50 are guilty of in responses back to knotinterested. On more than a few cases you yourself responded to posts where she had responded to something Zoo50 had stated and similarly Zoo50 responded back to her where she had responded to your posts.
You keep saying that she had attacked you and I as stated only found the hypocrite thing to be what you might have considered an attack. It was not an attack. An attack would have been to call you a moron, or call you an idiot, or on a lesser scale to tell you that you don't know what you are talking about, but none of those things occurred.

This thread in fact did get going on the topic of "vegans taking pets away", though that's not what the majority of it is now. Knotinterested made false claims against me publicly, so that's why I want to address them publicly.
I am not aware of any false claims that were made against you personally, but that is irrelevant and you have already said things publicly even though she is not here to defend against the things you have said. However, I doubt that she will return to this thread after leaving even to rebut the things both you and Zoo50 said after she had bid you both pleasant days on her departure. By your insistence saying that you didn't want to offend anyone I had thought that you were concerned whether you had insulted her and suggested that you contact her in that concern. I had thought that it was beyond the vegan vs meat eaters statements of this thread and that your concern was genuine.

I've tried to answer this as reasonably as possible.

Good Day

 

[CetaceanLover23]

Ecoterrorists are dangerous individuals.

They are nothing like the vegans that I have known.

Is me being a member of the Sea Shepherd society make me an eco-terrorist?

 

[SigmaTheZeta]

Is me being a member of the Sea Shepherd society make me an eco-terrorist?

I do not know anything whatsoever, either way, about Sea Shepherds. Do you herd aquatic sheep?

Yes, I looked you up on Wiki. Sounds like a wildlife conservation group.

 

[caikgoch]

Sounds like a wildlife conservation group.

It is a conservation group with a few eco-terrorist members.

 

[CetaceanLover23]

I do not know anything whatsoever, either way, about Sea Shepherds. Do you herd aquatic sheep?

Yes, I looked you up on Wiki. Sounds like a wildlife conservation group.

What's wrong with wildlife conservation? In fact if Sea Shepherd were an eco-terrorist group, we would kill people. But we don't kill people. In fact since SSCS's inception, we have not caused a single injury, or death to poachers or our own crew. We follow strict guidelines that we DO NOT harm anyone for any reason. Sea Shepherd in fact have never even been convicted of a felony. Why? Because we obey the law as stated in the United Nations World Charter for Nature. So no, we (and I) are not eco-terrorists. Poachers are the real eco-terrorists.

 

[CetaceanLover23]

It is a conservation group with a few eco-terrorist members.

Really? That's certainly news to me considering I've been a member since I was 11 (I am 20 now).

 

[SigmaTheZeta]

It is a conservation group with a few eco-terrorist members.

Oh, so then no, someone is not an eco-terrorist just because someone in the same club happens to be off their rocker.

What's wrong with wildlife conservation?

There is nothing more wrong with it than being interested in playing bagpipes while marching through the Scottish Highlands. I have generally thought positively enough of it.

In fact if Sea Shepherd were an eco-terrorist group, we would kill people. But we don't kill people. In fact since SSCS's inception, we have not caused a single injury, or death to poachers or our own crew. We follow strict guidelines that we DO NOT harm anyone for any reason. Sea Shepherd in fact have never even been convicted of a felony. Why? Because we obey the law as stated in the United Nations World Charter for Nature. So no, we (and I) are not eco-terrorists. Poachers are the real eco-terrorists.

Safety is a great idea, and I agree with it!

 

[ArticWolf]

Those quotes are fairly neutral, but other parts of the post weren't. All I wanted to do was share my input and why I disagreed with the parts that weren't neutral.



Maybe that's the case, but when I clicked the like button, it was because I agreed with Zoo50 was saying, not necessarily the method in which it was delivered. In my mind, when I click on something, it's not necessarily an endorsement of the entire message, rather that there were certain parts I really liked.



Fair enough, but I personally tried to avoid throwing labels at people and focused on the actions more than the person.



To be fair, vegans are quite outnumbered here, so we tend to team up. But, I tried to not make my responses feel like attacks. Knotinterested also called me narrow-minded.



As I pointed out earlier, she stated that I personally called her speciesist, immoral, a hypocrite, and that I think I'm better than her and also was assaulting people. These are false accusations. She made these accusations and then left before I could defend myself to her. I'm still going to defend myself. If she had simply said she was going to leave, I would have left it at that.

I was genuinely concerned about whether I had offended her back around page 6. Then she said it was fine, so I continued posting. But then she started calling me names, so, eh.

There's probably not much point in continuing the who offended whom portion of this discussion any further. I hope both sides at least understand each other a little better now, and people know that my intent isn't to offend or attack anyone.

As stated previously there isn't anyplace where you were attacked and you didn't attack either, it was just heated debate. I hope our conversation serves to help you in future debates. I also agree this who offended whom portion has run it's course.

Good Day

 

[Zoo50]

No, you are wrong here. The definition of "Vegan" from her resource, says that it is a person that does not use ANY animal products. These would also include items that are manufactured out of your control. You yourself have stated several times that it would be impossible to be 100%.
The definition of "Hypocrite" is a person who acts in contradiction to their stated beliefs or feelings. So technically, even if only by 1% her analysis is correct like it or not and there is no argument possible.

However, the manner in which she has used it is only to say that vegans are not without a small degree of fault and therefore their shouldn't act as though they are innocent.

You're missing the point. No one is 100% perfect, and the fact that knotinterested is even making that argument at all is splitting hairs. A vegan is someone who doesn't use animal products, period -- this includes food, clothing, soap, etc. The use of incidental animal residue in odd places (if it can't be avoided) doesn't make a vegan a hypocrite. As @SkawdtDawg said, knotinterested's definition of "vegan" is so ridiculously extreme that if someone tried to follow it, no one would be vegan. You're also ignoring the fact that meat-eaters are far more "at fault" than vegans. Meat-eaters and vegans are not equally at fault.

Actually if I were as concerned as you seem to be why not send her a private message and ask if she was insulted? meant to insult you? or other questions you have. In all I have seen from her she is extremely positive and tries to help everyone so I would bet that she would answer without question.

I disagree -- I thought knotinterested was insulting people on many occasions, and treating arguments against meat-eating as personal attacks (she was also getting defensive when her flawed arguments were questioned).

you *liked* when Zoo50 did that? You excuse his behavior, when it's the epitome of behavior you said you didn't like in this forum?

Well, you did talk about how you killed a deer in pretty callous terms (e.g. graphically describing how its blood soaked your hands, how you liked killing the deer, etc.) If you respected a being's right to live, you wouldn't have killed the deer in the first place.

I didn't even complain when you "like" Zoo50's antisocial (somewhat sociopathic) attacks on people throughout the thread without hesitation.

Your description of when you killed a deer is somewhat sociopathic, as it shows no empathy whatsoever for another living being. (In your description, you also seemed indifferent to the deer's suffering). The two sentences below (which you said on page 23) are pretty sociopathic:

"The first time I felt the bright white fur of a whitetail in my hands with windchills at 40 below, how the blood rushed out and soaked my gloves, and tearing them off, how sinking my hands beneath her steaming entrails into her still liquid blood, warmed them. How I wanted to smear it on my cheeks and howl like a wolf at the rising moon!!!"

Like I said, this shows no empathy for another living being's suffering, and it shows you are basically getting pleasure from being cruel to another animal.

But when you lean toward a presumption that only your and Zoo50's opinions are valid, you've crossed the line.

The reason the vegan view is valid is because it involves not supporting cruel, harmful and unnecessary practices (namely animal slaughter). Not all opinions have equal weight. Clearly the view that people shouldn't eat meat is more valid because it involves considering the interests of other animals (other than just humans).

other than none of us wants to see animals in misery.

The current factory farm / slaughter industry has tons of animal misery. And when people buy meat, they are supporting that industry.

Also, many vegans do donate to animal charities, and how much a person loves animals can't be measured simply by how much money they donate.

This is true. I'm so tired of people like knotinterested saying one has to donate to charities to love animals. Not eating meat (and not using animal products) is better than donating to charities.

In fairness, the other side often has a bad attitude as well.

I don't think most meat-eaters are inherently bad people, I just think they have really bad habits (namely meat-eating and using animal products).

"I have a lot of respect for vegans who don't force their lifestyle down other peoples throats."

Meat-eaters force their lifestyle on animals (e.g. animals who are slaughtered). Do meat-eaters (who criticize vegans) even think about that fact?

You must be aware that Zoo50 has called her many things and insulted her in almost every post where he has commented in response to her posts.

I called her a speciesist because she's a speciesist. That's not an "insult" per se, it's an observation based on what she's said. Also, I did point out her inconsistencies (such as claiming to love animals while also eating them), and she responded with defensiveness, insulting people, and sticking with her flawed arguments. Basically, when her inconsistent positions were pointed out, she simply called the other side hypocrites, instead of admitting that her own positions were hypocritical.

She was just using that to further illustrate 2 points, one that making these donations shows that you do love animals

If someone donates to a charity and then steals from a store, the fact that they stole from a store is still wrong. If someone donates to charity and still eats meat, the meat-eating is still wrong.

BTW this is where the vegans had called the meat eaters hypocrites FIRST before the tag was applied back onto the vegans.

It's simple: meat-eaters are hypocrites, and vegans are not. Besides, when someone is called a hypocrite, it's petty for them to say, "no, you're a hypocrite" (instead of actually analyzing why they were called a hypocrite in the first place).

You keep saying that she had attacked you

@SkawdtDawg keeps saying this because she did attack him (for example, by calling him "narrow-minded". I think she called me that as well).

I do not know anything whatsoever, either way, about Sea Shepherds

The Sea Shepherd organization is a conservation organization, and an animal rights organization. They've done animal activism things in the past, such as trying to prevent whales from being killed by the Japanese.

 

[Aluzky]

Not a vegan. Yes yes yes I know: I’m an evil carnist bloodmouth who after several heartfelt attempts to go plant based could not keep it up healthwise.

I'm not aware (and the world is unaware) of a single medical reason for why a human would be unable to thrive on a vegan diet.

So, either you are lying, or you have ONE OF A KIND diseases that only you have. Occam's razors leans toward you telling a lie. But hey, feel free to mention which unique illness you have that makes it IMPOSSIBLE for you to have a vegan diet.

All that aside there is a growing number of vegans who seek to destroy domestic animals. Frankly I view such people as being bossy busybody little parasites, they have no lives and are only happy getting on everyone else’s nerves.

Same way rapists see people who push for consensual relationships as: bossy busybody little parasites that have no lives and are only getting in the nerves of rapists by making laws to punish rape.

Do you understand that Vegans in general wants to stop the abuse of animals by giving them rights?

They’re the type of people who would run in front of a galloping horse, scream at the rider then act shocked when the horse kicks them and even try to sue. Why? Oh because to them riding a horse is evil and clearly the horse is being forced to carry you. Have a dog on a leash, is the dog a seeing eye dog? Oh! You’re no better than that horrible Michael Vick!

You are building a straw man fallacy and attacking a straw man. Are all vegans like that? NOPE. Are some vegans like that? Maybe a few among millions. You are exaggerating Vegans to the extreme and then generalizing that all vegans are like that. Which is also a hasty generalization fallacy. Anyways, by making that straw man, you would only have valid reason to attack vegans that are mentally insane, mentally stable vegans like myself would had nothing to do with those insane vegans nor with your arguments against insane vegans.

I mean we’ve had a few of those parasites in the zoo community, for example that whiny little bitch Aluzky(or whatever the fuck he calls himself these days). When he was on Reddit(his actions directly led to /r/zoophilia getting the ban hammer)

If being part of the zoo community makes me a parasite, then congratulations, you just called every zoosexual that is part of the zoo community, a parasite.

When he was on Reddit(his actions directly led to /r/zoophilia getting the ban hammer)

They changed their site policy and so they had to ban anything that could be seen as animal abuse, me alone had nothing to do with that. I was not the only person doing zoo activism on the site. If you really think zoo activism on reddit was the reason for the ban of the zoo-sub-reddit then blame me and all the other dozens of zoosexual activists that make comments on reddit defending zoosexuality and educating people about it.

he would go out of his way to harass people that had obligate carnivorous pets or people who didn’t feed their dogs processed shit laughingly passed off as “vegan food.”

Harassing is a TOS violation on Reddit. So I won't do that, even if it was not a rule violation of the site, I would still not do that. So easy for you to come and make false allegations (lies) about me without any proof at all.

Well really he’d harass anyone he came across

Are you perhaps confusing the act of replying to a comment in a PUBLIC FORUM as harassment? Because that seem what you are doing.

Will you call this post harassment just because I'm replying to you? Again, harassment is a rule violation, not only in the whole reddit but also in the sub-reddits. You would get banned from a sub-reddit of banned from reddit if you go around harassing people. Was I ever banned from reddit or any sub-reddit for harassing? NOPE. If I was really harassing people, why didn't nobody report me? Why didn't you report me? Or more exactly, I know you reported me but the mods responded to you with: His behabior does not qualify as harassment. Sorry.

So quit misusing and watering down the word harassment.

then get salty whenever he was told to go fuck himself.

Sorry but, I'm a composed person, I do not get "angry agitated or upset" when doing online or in real life debate. Your claim that I get salty is nonsense.

Aluzky told people that injured carnivores should always be killed in order to prevent harm to prey animals, which is horrifying because he claims to be a veterinary technician.

First: I didn't finish the VT course, though sure I have done a little bit of work as a semi-VT without having the papers that I'm one.

Second: I didn't said that injured carnivores should always be euthanized. If it is an endangered species at risk of extinction, I can see a valid reason to make an exception there.

The point of me saying that an injured carnivore who is not endangered should be euthanized, it is because this is the action that causes less harm and most happines from an utilitarian ethical point of view.

Lets use a coyote as an example, they are not a species on the brink of extinction or endangered. Lets say a coyote gets run over by a car and a "good person" wants to save his live because every animal life is precious. He takes the animal to a rescue group full of "good people" that also wants to save animal lives. Say the coyote break several bones but can do a full recovery in 4 or 5 months. Do you know what coyotes eat during those 4 to 5 months? On his majority MEAT. Where does meat comes from? From murdering animals. From where are those "good humans" getting all the meat for the coyote? From murdering animals with their own hands or paying others to go murder animals. So, lets do the math:

Option one: We euthanize the coyote on day one. How many animals die because of this action? ONE.

Option two: We try to save the coyote because "every life counts" and we keep the coyote alive and in the 4 to 5 months of recovery and maybe a month of rehabilitation later he is set free in the wild. How many animals die because of this action? At least 6+ or more animals the size of a deer had to be murdered to feed the coyote. Or maybe he was feed mise, in which case, tens of thousands of animals where murdered to feed him. Or maybe one or 2 cows where murdered to feed him (him getting food from different cows at different months) Doing the math, the answer is MORE THAN ONE animal had to be MURDERED if you try to keep the coyote alive.

I know you are too dense to understand why euthanizing the coyote is the most ethical option, you hve show over aand over an inability to do rational thinking. But I will try to explain again... maybe you will understand this time...

You see, carnivorous animals feed on meat, to rehabilitate them some times you have to kill 2+ or thousands of other animals to save them because they have to EAT ANIMALS. If your goal is to SAVE ANIMALS, it makes no sense to save one animal knowing that you will have to murder several other animals to save that ONE animal. (clap) Do (clap) you (clap) understand? (clap)

Good person argument: Hmm yea I want to save this coyote but I will have to murder several other animals to feed him to save him, but that is OK because I'm saving ONE animal and that is today good deed. Derp. 111‼

When saving animals, you must not only think about the animal you save, but also any other animals that will be murdered in the process of saving that animal. Some times the right option is not to save, but to give a humane death to the animal.

He handles injured animals and with Aluzky being a vet tech I have to wonder if he’s killed people’s pets, possibly even their lovers just because the creature was an obligate carnivore?

I'm not legally allowed to touch such medicines and no, I would not do something like that.

I have absolutely nothing against vegans but if you’re one of those “no animal companions zoophilia is rape how dare you give a carnivore meat reeeeeee!” types you can kiss my hairy White ass.

Your post totally reek of anti-veganism. Your reasons to not being a vegan are lies. Your claims about me are lies. Why should we believe that you are not anti-vegan when you have used so many lies already?

 

[FeralLovin']

Lets use a coyote as an example, they are not a species on the brink of extinction or endangered. Lets say a coyote gets run over by a car and a "good person" wants to save his live because every animal life is precious. He takes the animal to-

Anybody willing to handle an injured predator to haul it somewhere and be healed Disney princess style, is deserving of a Darwin award.

 

[Aluzky]

Anybody willing to handle an injured predator to haul it somewhere and be healed Disney princess style, is deserving of a Darwin award.
View attachment 50551

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/12/04/eli-boroditsky-coyote-manitoba-canada-car/

↑
Man takes coyote on the back of his car to vet, thinking he was an injured dog.
FYI: The coyote was pretty friendly.

 

[SigmaTheZeta]

I am more afraid of getting bitten by a keeshond than by a coyote. They are only problematic to farmers that own chickens. And airliner pilots.

 

[SigmaTheZeta]

Spoiler: And here is what coyotes have got to do with airliner pilots

https://www.journalnow.com/news/local/coyotes-a-growing-problem-at-rdu-airport/article_6e90a504-6b84-58d6-8a82-48f5cd9ecf02.html

 

[FeralLovin']

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/12/04/eli-boroditsky-coyote-manitoba-canada-car/

↑
Man takes coyote on the back of his car to vet, thinking he was an injured dog.
FYI: The coyote was pretty friendly.

Also a Darwin award nominee. If that coyote wasn't as banged up and in a state of shock, he could have potentially been in an in closed space with a frightened and hurt animal.

Edit: But kudos to the person for wanting to help what they thought was a dog they found. Their heart was in the right place.

 

[SigmaTheZeta]

Come to think of it, I am more afraid of squirrels than I am of coyotes.


I see a dude commuting to work. I am an avid defender of urban coyotes. We can learn how to coexist with them.

I do not see them as inherently dangerous animals.

 

[Aluzky]

Come to think of it, I am more afraid of squirrels than I am of coyotes.

This animal is responsible for billions of animals deaths and millions of human deaths
↓

Spoiler

Humans

↑
I'm more afraid of this animal than a coyote.

 

[SigmaTheZeta]

Coyotes are the new hepcats:

 

[Aluzky]

Absolutely Agree. I have no hard feelings against vegans until they start pushing their ideas about meat eating on me.

I wonder:

Do you have problems when people push their ideas that rape (rape defined as: non-cosnensual forced sex with a human or animal) is wrong on you? Do you rape?
Do you have problems when people push their ideas that murder (murder defined as: non-consenusal and unjustifiable termination of a human or animal life) is wrong on you? Do you murder?
Do you have problems when people push their ideas that stealing (stealing defined as: To take some one else property without permission with the goal of not returning it back) is wrong on you? Do you steal?

Why would you dislike when people tell you that it is wrong to torture and murder animals against their will without a valid reason? Do you torture and murder animals directly or indirectly by paying others to do it? It is guilty that makes you dislike it? To me, it sound like you harbor guilt.

Disclaimer: This comment has been edited to make it 2 times more clear for people with a reading handicap. Ganbatte caikgoch.

 

[FeralLovin']

I wonder:

Do you have problems when people push their ideas that rape is wrong on you? Do you rape?
Do you have problems when people push their ideas that murder is wrong on you? Do you murder?
Do you have problems when people push their ideas that stealing is wrong on you? Do you steal?

Why would you dislike when people tell you that it is wrong to torture and murder animals against their will without a valid reason? Do you torture and murder animals directly or indirectly by paying others to do it? It is guilty that makes you dislike it? To me, it sound like you harbor guilt.

I think anyone would have a problem with any extremist (in this case, you the vegan) is when they behave like a pompous ass and attack people for having opinions and lifestyles that are contrast to their own. Being called speciest and a murderer (as you may have seen through this thread) also won't make people change their lifestyles to fit your beliefs. If it does, then that person was already looking for a lifestyle change. Though it would have been easier and less offensive to offer help to those seeking such changes rather than accusing them of "murder." As for me, a person that is content with their lifestyle choice, will gladly tell any extremist (you the vegan) that has an issue with my lifestyle, that you're a fucking moron.