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

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

I'm a meat eating, speciesist and proud of it. Humans always comes first, animals always come in second. (y)

So, when you have sex with animals, your needs come first, and if the animal is being raped it doesn't matter because you come first, right?

Can we please ban this zoosadist from the site?
 
So, when you have sex with animals, your needs come first, and if the animal is being raped it doesn't matter because you come first, right?

Can we please ban this zoosadist from the site?
Whoa.

He didn't answer your question yet, and he hasn't specifically said anything even close to what you said he is implying.
 
So, when you have sex with animals, your needs come first, and if the animal is being raped it doesn't matter because you come first, right?

Can we please ban this zoosadist from the site?

That s one heck of a conclusion ya came to.
 
Well, let me tell you why I wouldn't go *quite* that far, and see if maybe you'll want to revise your opinion slightly. Being a speciesist is really a vague thing. I don't find much use for the term. We are *all* speciesists. When I suggested maybe I shouldn't kill clothes moths, a new qualifier got introduced out of the blue: self awareness or self consciousness or something. Little insects don't count. And then it's just a matter of degree after that.

The old joke goes, Man asks his waitress, "Would you sleep with me for a million bucks?" She says, "Of course," and smiles. Then he asks, "Would you sleep with me for 10 bucks?" She snarls back, "No way. Say, just what do you take me for?"

He says, "Oh, we've already established that. Now we're just negotiating the price."

So it seemed to me with speciesism. We *all* are speciesist. So that concept really has lost its persuasive weight, not a real big debating point. Easily dismissed.

But... wait a minute now. You *also* said animals *always* come in second. No they don't. We also negotiate *that* price.

You wanna try to hurt my dog? I might just shoot you in the guts then explain to you before you've bled completely out, why I'm taking a human life to defend an animal's. That's my companion animal. I love that animal. I will defend *that* animal's life with my own, taking yours if I have to.

What's up with that?

What's up with that is that human beings constantly choose what animal is worth more than some other animal to *them*. And THAT's what scares the hell out of me about this whole argument between animal "consumers" and animal rights activists -- I would kill a human to defend the life of an animal. Why wouldn't *they*?

Listen how deadly serious this is, when *I* hear it:

If "ethical vegans" truly... I mean, TRULY believe animals' rights deserve equal protection to humans', but aren't out trying to defend those animals' lives with their own lives, IMHO, someone needs to call BS to their face. Otherwise, if they mean what they say, they represent a mortal threat to *me*.

To stop me from "murdering" innocent animals, at least one of them has to feel passionate enough to try to stop me, right? Or would they be willing to take my life to stop me? Or at least, would they lay down *their* life in exchange for an animal's? Jump up and say, "Take me instead"?

I would not just stand there and watch someone murder my friends and neighbors, or massacre a crowd gathered in a church or mall. I'm going to kill the person trying to do that. I'm equipped, prepared and trained to do that. I'm not going to just open up my laptop and post mean things about them in Facebook. I'm going to stop them. If I have time, know about it in advance, sure, I'll call a cop. But if the cops aren't coming, *I'm* going to do it. Outnumbered, out-gunned, doesn't matter. I can't live with *myself* if I just go somewhere and cower. At some point, you turn and fight to defend.

Where are the ethical vegan defenders? Where are the animal rights activists?

Just 12 blocks from my house, about 1 mile from here, is a meat packing plant. Animals are brought in truckload after truckload, all night and all day, alive, unloaded, killed and slaughtered in a long process. Surely there are loud-mouthed ethical vegans in my town. Surely there are animal rights activists here, who say they believe animals deserve equal protection.

What are they doing about this steady mass murder? Just talking big on Facebook accounts? -- Or are they planning a bloody plant takeover in private?

Knowing that I am a hunter, knowing my career as a hunting safety instructor, where were they all season long, when my dogs and I were getting up two hours before dawn, heading out to our favorite wildlife areas? Not a single person blocked our route.

I am NOT calling them cowards. I am NOT saying I don't believe them. I am saying I HAVE to believe them. I take them seriously, at their word. And I'm keeping my back to the wall because of it. There HAVE to be people hunting me for my beliefs. They can't all just be pacifists. They can't all be chicken. Someone out there wants to kill me because I "murder" animals, or kill those who murder them for me to eat.

If we allowed certain humans to be hunted every day? Oh you betcha there'd be lines of people holding hands, lying down in front of your pickup truck, or ... even taking up arms, putting red dots on your breast and forehead yelling "Stop where you are. Not today, murderer. Over my dead body, not today." They would do this -- and have done this, throughout history -- even when it meant their own death.

People elect to sacrifice themselves rather than permit innocent people to die. Those who believe animals are as important as people? Gotta figure, they will do the same.

Someone says they don't like to eat animals because it's inconsistent with their values and perspective, fine by me. I nod and smile. But if someone starts telling me I'm a "murderer"? If they spit hatred at other people, who don't share their beliefs, it puts me on guard. Now things have been taken to a new level. It's not a matter of personal choice anymore. To call someone a murderer does that. We execute murders in some states. And in those we don't, we simply invoke federal law, supersede the state's own laws, and give them lethal injection anyway.

Being called a murderer raises the bar to lethal heights and tosses a noose over it.

That's the thought the scares the shit out of me. That there is an animal rights activist who isn't just all talk. That there's one right here where I live, who probably thinks the same things of me that were said in here. Who now poses a threat to *me*, because if animals are just as important as people, then it is easy to imagine one of us is going to have to kill the other -- the difference in opinion is that great.

It becomes survival of the fittest -- or the best armed. That's the power of hate speech. It's generally why we don't allow it. To the accuser, it was just hyperbole, maybe. Maybe. But to the accused, we just don't know. Did you *mean* -- truly mean -- you thought animals need protection same as humans? Because -- we kill other humans to protect humans.

And STILL it isn't that simple. Because, like *you*, I would tend to think my species was king of the hill. Humans above all other species.

But I told you earlier, I would kill you to defend my dog. I'd kill a human being to protect an animal. What the hell, man? Am I speaking out of both sides of my mouth?

Sure I am. And I'm guessing, so would you?

These topics, the discussion can escalate to lethal levels. One of us shows our teeth, meaning it as a smile. The other sees it as a threat and growls. Then two dogs get tangled up and bloody each other.

These things are not simple. Not to be taken lightly. No perspective here either right or wrong. Just lethal *because* all sides are human.

You, too, are an animal. Most vegans I met were not just against killing non-human animals, but also against killing humans. They simply don't want to kill, neither a cow nor you. They are very pacifist indeed. But maybe, just like you, they would still defend their own companion animals with their life. I see protecting family as a just slightly extended form of self-defense. Trust, responsibility, love ... these personal bonds can make you become one entity—family—and it is this one entity that is defending itself then.

There are people who do more than trying to convince people not to hurt non-family animals though, Animal Liberation Front and Sea Shepherd Conservation Society for example. They are prosecuted and labeled terrorists for their actions, although even they do what they can in order not to hurt people.
 
There are people who do more than trying to convince people not to hurt non-family animals though, Animal Liberation Front and Sea Shepherd Conservation Society for example. They are prosecuted and labeled terrorists for their actions, although even they do what they can in order not to hurt people.
Bovine Fecal Material. They turn non-native animals with diseases loose from labs into the surrounding countryside. They burn buildings and vehicles, endangering civilians and first responders. They harrass and threaten workers like truck drivers that simply had a delivery somewhere they didn't like. That does *NOT* sound like "they do what they can in order not to hurt people", that sounds like terrorism.
 
If vegans don't take action, they are accused of being keyboard warriors who don't stand behind their claims. If they do more, they are terrorists ...

Bovine Fecal Material. They turn non-native animals with diseases loose from labs into the surrounding countryside.

Releasing animals with diseases sucks just like releasing animals into the wild which are sure to die there because they are not adapted to that environment or have not learned how to survive on their own or—probably worse—who will destroy the local eco-system which is not adapted to them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If vegans don't take action, they are accused of being keyboard warriors who don't stand behind their claims. If they do more, they are terrorists
There's a *VERY* large spread between Ghandi and Bin Laden. Guess which one was more effective?
 
There's a *VERY* large spread between Ghandi and Bin Laden. Guess which one was more effective?

So far I'd say Gandhi, but I would also say that it is too early to make a final judgement. Both had a profound influence on history, that's for sure, and I really don't like the influence Bin Laden had. I mean, not just the murder of people he schemed and financed and his followers carried out. But also the reaction in the "Western world" he provoked. Unfortunately he was rather successful.
 
I really don't like the influence Bin Laden had.
Bin Laden had a lot in common with Yasser Arafat, a rare talent for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory by doing something dramatic. Militarily, his greatest success was the equivalent of hair pulling, makes you opponent mad enough to hurt you more than anything else. Recent history certainly bears that out. And that is exactly what ALF/ELF are doing.
 
@BlueBeard @Andriodog

Several times he has said that he enjoys murdering animals. He makes it clear to others that he enjoys that. If that is how he things about eating them and murdering them, how is he during sex? Think about it. He has made it clear that his pleasure comes first, even at the cost of murdering animals, if he does not care about murdering them, you think he will care about not raping them? The guy is obviously a zoosadist without a drop of compassion. Else, why would he go around gloating about his enjoyment at murdering animals?
 
@Aluzky. Ya know, if went around making flimsy evidence, I would be no different than Wolfia right now.

@Gemini75. Yes he a meat eater and a speceist okay, I get that. But through his posts, i never gotten the clue that he was into zoosadism or raping animals. Granted humans come first and animals second. There are more zoos whom have that line of thinking than we would like to believe.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bin Laden had a lot in common with Yasser Arafat, a rare talent for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory by doing something dramatic. Militarily, his greatest success was the equivalent of hair pulling, makes you opponent mad enough to hurt you more than anything else. Recent history certainly bears that out.

I think, militarily, his greatest success was in his participation in the efforts to drive the soviets out of Afghanistan. The jihadists were supported by the US back then, by the way. Anyway, measuring Bin Laden's influence by his direct military actions would be short-sighted. Terrorism is not about winning a battle. He was an inspirational, ideological leader and his ideology lives on. There is a deeper divide between the Sunni world and the West today that he wanted and achieved. We don't know yet how this will develop further. Lost battles won't stop it. They may even make it stronger. You can't bomb hate away. That's what many people in the West still don't seem to get.

Maybe the disappointment of locals will stop it when they realize that the ideology just doesn't work nicely where it succeeds—like in Egypt, where people got rid of Mubarak's government (which cooperated with the West and Israel and which Bin Laden hated) only to find that the religious successors didn't improve the country at all.
 
The jihadists were supported by the US back then, by the way.
They were supported by a friend of mine, Congressman Charlie Wilson. Look up and watch the movie Charlie Wilson's War. It's fairly accurate as far as it goes. When Charlie burned out and retired, no one picked up the torch. The Taliban felt they had been used and abandoned and set out for revenge.

If you want someone to blame, it's no doubt the Brits started the ball rolling. After WW1 they walked away from all the promises made by T E Lawrence and left a huge clusterfuck in most of the Middle East.
 
Why is it that "Vegans" first attack is Morality?
The moral values each person has is as different as there are shades of gray. To put it plainly there is no guilt felt by most people that eat meat and morality is not even a consideration. Morality is a human concern toward other humans, not a concern toward animals. Vegans try to expand morality to animals in order to use it as a point of argument and inflict guilt upon those that oppose their view on the matter.

Why do "Vegans" use examples to illustrate their points that are as different as oranges and apples?
Do you understand why people tell others that rape, murder or stealing is morally wrong? People tell others to not do those because it is harmful to others to do that. Just like being non-vegan is very harmful to others compared to being vegan. So, can you understand why we care about your non-vegan diet? If you think we are wrong, do you also think is wrong to tell people to not murder, or rape, or steal?
"Rape, murder or stealing is morally wrong," YES it is morally wrong, but again morality is a human concern and these are things committed by one human against another human. Not only that but there are laws existing in every state in the US and all over the World making rape, murder and stealing against the law so it is a legal issue as well. There are no laws anywhere that make it illegal to eat meat and it isn't a moral issue either because the meat you're eating isn't from a human. Apples and oranges!

Why do "Vegans" argue that the production of meat is harmful to the environment?
Well, yes it is harmful to a small degree. But if you're going to go into the environment for your argument then why not tackle a real problem that is 159 times more harmful and something that is becoming a real concern in the world. What you ask, it's Styrofoam.
Styrofoam is made from polystyrene, which is a petroleum-based plastic. Styrofoam is actually the trade name for polystyrene. It’s popular because of its light weight, good insulation properties, and advantage as a packing material for shipping without adding weight. Unfortunately, for all of Styrofoam’s good points, data has shown that Styrofoam also has harmful effects.
Styrofoam is non-biodegradable and appears to last forever. It’s resistant to photolysis, or the breaking down of materials by photons originating from light. This, combined with the fact that Styrofoam floats, and this means that large amounts of polystyrene have accumulated along coastlines and waterways around the world. It is considered a main component of marine debris.
Styrofoam has health risks associated with the manufacture of polystyrene, air pollution is another concern. The National Bureau of Standards Center for Fire Research has found 57 chemical byproducts released during the creation of Styrofoam. This not only pollutes the air, but also results in liquid and solid toxic waste that requires proper disposal. Another cause for concern are the brominated flame retardants that are used on Styrofoam products. Research suggests that these chemicals may have negative environmental and health effects.
So are "Vegans" that use the environment as part of their argument involved in any anti-styrofoam campaign? Probably not, and that is because the environment is not their concern. If the environment were their concern then they would be doing something toward that end.

Why do "Vegans" say they are standing up for animal rights?
This is something I tried to address in a few different threads. In my mind I would think that anyone so concerned with an animals right to life would be involved in groups that promote animal rights. I would think that they would support animal charities. I would think that they would be politically active along these lines. However, when you ask a "Vegan" what animal rights group they belong to, or what animal charities they support, or are they politically active in these matters, then you will hear excuses one after the other about how the vegan lifestyle isn't about that but about living free of animal products as much as possible.
In my mind this is only polishing a small part of the surface and leaving the larger and more difficult parts for someone else. My Father always said if you are going to start something then you have to see it through and do the job to your very best ability.

One of the things that I dislike about "Vegans is the disrespect they have for others. This seems to be the norm. They don't seem to understand that people see things differently than they do and they try to make people qualify their meat eating tendencies as if they have to have a reason.

The simple fact will always be that there is no right, and there is no wrong in the things you do unless you are breaking the law. So if you want to eat meat, then enjoy, and if you don't want to eat meat, then enjoy. AND if you want to have sex with animals, enjoy and don't get caught.
 
I'm vegan, and you don't see me going around telling meat eaters "stop eating meat or I'll fuck your grandmother". In fact It never even occured to me that I should attack others just because they are not vegan. Seems like a waste of time to me. Also who's got the fuckin' time? Who's got the time to go around attacking non-vegans? I don't! I've got shit to do. Don't you have shit to do? I rest my case.

(Now re-read in George Carlin's voice ;) )
 
Airliner pilots? Not to sound rude, but who the fuck is afraid of airliner pilots? And why?
In Raleigh, we recently had an incident of some coyotes wandering out onto the runway, and the planes that were trying to land had to circle around while terminal staff tried to figure out how to get them to move.

We are always going to have urban wildlife, and that wildlife will always interact with us. Within another couple of generations, the coyotes are going to be so accustomed to us that, one day, a coyote is going to be found sleeping in someone's back yard, and the owner will not even know the coyote is there until the police come knock on their door to scold them for "keeping an exotic pet." Dogs and cats used to fill a certain niche in our lives, but now, with "humanitarian" moves to "make sure every dog has a home," we are driving them out of the niche. Something else will eventually find its way into that niche.

Coyotes are increasingly a part of urban wildlife, and as an animal that lives around people, they are going to become increasingly intermingled with the lives of humans. We used to have dogs running through the streets. Coyotes will ultimately do the same.
 
In Raleigh, we recently had an incident of some coyotes wandering out onto the runway, and the planes that were trying to land had to circle around while terminal staff tried to figure out how to get them to move.

We are always going to have urban wildlife, and that wildlife will always interact with us. Within another couple of generations, the coyotes are going to be so accustomed to us that, one day, a coyote is going to be found sleeping in someone's back yard, and the owner will not even know the coyote is there until the police come knock on their door to scold them for "keeping an exotic pet." Dogs and cats used to fill a certain niche in our lives, but now, with "humanitarian" moves to "make sure every dog has a home," we are driving them out of the niche. Something else will eventually find its way into that niche.

Coyotes are increasingly a part of urban wildlife, and as an animal that lives around people, they are going to become increasingly intermingled with the lives of humans. We used to have dogs running through the streets. Coyotes will ultimately do the same.
First of all, that has NOTHING to do with airline pilots. In fact I don't see where airline pilots even fit in the equation. Second of all, want to know why wildlife is becoming more prominent in urban developments? Because we have taken away THEIR land. So it's no wonder animals are entering in the "civilized world" (humans are not civilized just so you know) looking for food and shelter. Because we, humans, have taken it from them without permission.
 
@CetaceanLover23

Airline pilots have to use RDU Airport's runway, and the coyotes were sleeping on it. That was the point.

Also, the fact that we have abundant game in the area and relatively few same size rival predators makes this area very tempting for them. Some people take the name "City of Oaks" a little bit to heart, and because of that, we have squirrels everywhere. In Raleigh, you will often see the road practically pave with squirrels. We used to also have cats everywhere eating most of the squirrels, but we rounded all of the cats up.

Once established here, a family of coyotes is not about to go hungry, and they love places like runways.
 
You, too, are an animal. Most vegans I met were not just against killing non-human animals, but also against killing humans. They simply don't want to kill, neither a cow nor you. They are very pacifist indeed. But maybe, just like you, they would still defend their own companion animals with their life. I see protecting family as a just slightly extended form of self-defense. Trust, responsibility, love ... these personal bonds can make you become one entity—family—and it is this one entity that is defending itself then.

There are people who do more than trying to convince people not to hurt non-family animals though, Animal Liberation Front and Sea Shepherd Conservation Society for example. They are prosecuted and labeled terrorists for their actions, although even they do what they can in order not to hurt people.
Yes. And bottom line for my concern is, careful. Hate speech has lethal results. I was trying to be careful not to implicate "most vegans" as a concern. It's those who go all rally-activist, escalate things to the point where I need to keep one hand on my sidearm, watch my back. That's a lethal situation, all's I'm saying.

On the other point, even pacifists have historically laid down their lives for others. I don't think we see as much of that, people who willingly die to save animals in general, like at a slaughterhouse, do we? Shoot. Now I'm going to get distracted, go off looking for accounts of those. Not that, you know, a slaughter house is actually going to let a human take a cow's place or a pig's place. But are there many accounts of PETA folk or activist vegans taking a bullet for an animal?
 
@BlueBeard @Andriodog

Several times he has said that he enjoys murdering animals. He makes it clear to others that he enjoys that. If that is how he things about eating them and murdering them, how is he during sex? Think about it. He has made it clear that his pleasure comes first, even at the cost of murdering animals, if he does not care about murdering them, you think he will care about not raping them? The guy is obviously a zoosadist without a drop of compassion. Else, why would he go around gloating about his enjoyment at murdering animals?
What is it with connecting death and sex? I never got that in literature, either. That constant association. And in the movies, even -- sheesh! A bomb is about to go off, destroy a city, and the hero and femme fatale suddenly look at each, then pounce on each other and get naked.

Like, I'm a pilot, right? I cannot for the life of me imagine I've lost both engines, a wing has snapped off, the world is rushing up to me and my last thought is, "Better get these pants off, jack off one last time quick" or "Hey, lady in the back, you feeling it, too? Get up here, then! We only have a minute."

Yet, I come into Zooville and cannot get away from the sex(rape)/death connection for two seconds.

Aluzky et al, ... First. Can you please stop calling it murder? Not really carrying any weight because, of course, it *isn't* murder. By definition it isn't murder. Murder is unjustifiable homicide as defined by law. There is no such law regarding death of animals, so "murder" does not apply (not yet). You only *want* it to apply. You in particular, Aluzky, value "rational discussion." You want evidence, well reasoned, to support a conclusion. So you kinda wanna avoid misuse of terms and slanted language. Calling it "murder" is an attempt to slander an action with a misapplied word's pejoratively affective power, its emotional evocation. And that's not a persuasive argument.

But you can call it unjustified killing, sure. I'll go with you for a walk down that path peacefully and thoughtfully. That's fair.

And second, this weird leap from killing to raping. I do not rape my food ever, folks. I doubt many people here do. "You will kill it; therefore, you will rape it."

Naw. Hellz bellz. I can turn it on/off. Right now, mid February? Deer are cute things. The does are pregnant. The bucks have lost their antlers. And I am content to take photographs of them, love to watch their sleek forms. They're beautiful. They're absolutely beautiful creatures. When hunting season comes, and one is walking toward my stand where I lie in ambush -- perhaps with a bow, perhaps with my blackpowder rifle -- I am a hunter, and that is my prey. I see bratwurst, deer jerky, steak, ground venison, sliced heart sizzling in butter as I bone it out on the patio out back.

The beast in me comes to the surface. Its heartbeat pounds in my veins. All my senses are primal, bestial, predatory. FUCKING INVIGORATING. Love it? You damn betcha I love it. Raw!!! I am an animal, as Tailo said earlier. I am taking an ancient role, I am feeling my natural self in ways I never do the rest of the year. The rest of the year, this part of me lies dormant. But in hunting season? -- Good god, I love the beast in me. And that same deer is different. Now it's prey.

I do not know why you don't understand this. You love animals, but you don't get this? Your dog understands this, but you don't get it?

Talk about animal abuse -- To own a hunting dog and not take it hunting, now that's ABUSE! My Labs have been AKC-registered animals from long lines of pheasant-hunting champions. Come with me and just watch how they transform in demeanor, even in body language, when they see me take a shotgun from the vault and case it. They go nuts! And in the house, awesome dogs. Gentlemanly dogs. Family dogs. But in the field. Damn! Look at their wide eyes, their ears, how they're set. How in tune, how fine-tuned these little hunting machines are.

If not for my dogs, I probably would not hunt pheasants or rabbits anymore. If not for my boys, I would not hunt deer. (I'd still eat burgers, though).

You believe you understand animals, yet you don't understand that you are a predator? You completely baffle me. You are not a sheep nor deer nor cow nor horse. You are a human being, an apex predator.

But oh well. I don't pressure you or judge you. As I have said many times to different vegans here, I admire your motives and nod to them in genuine respect. You value life. But so do I. Death is part of life.

You be you. I'll be me. I take great pleasure -- during that time of year, when I am a willing volunteer in a highly successful conservation program -- taking up my role as predator and excelling at it. I respect that you do not feel the same way. And that's fine.

But when someone says irresponsibly and cheaply that *because* I am a hunter, because I am an omnivore, because I eat meat -- I am a rapist? What the hell is wrong with you? How do you keep attempting such an inductive leap without hurting yourself? I mean, that's a pretty wide chasm, and you keep trying to jump it like it was a crack in the sidewalk.

I DO NOT FUCK MY FOOD, so how could I "rape" it?

Maybe there are people who can do that. But to keep assuming *all* of us who eat hamburgers or hunt rabbits would rape them???

We have simply GOT TO get away from that dumb assertion. It's just... dumb.

Rein it back in to just talking about how vegans prefer not to eat animals because they don't like how the animal suffers, both at the moment of its death and, in the case of livestock, the conditions it lives in while it is raised till time for slaughter.

Or let's go back to the OP's concern that vegans are going to cost us, eventually, our right to own companion animals. We hunters and Burger King fans were not his concern. Vegans were. I would say the majority of vegans are not the OPs concerns. But a small minority, yes. There is an activist component that concerns him. And it concerns me. Taken to its inevitable conclusion, aren't animal activists leading us to a conclusion that we should not be interfering in the lives of animals at all?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Why is it that "Vegans" first attack is Morality?
The moral values each person has is as different as there are shades of gray. To put it plainly there is no guilt felt by most people that eat meat and morality is not even a consideration. Morality is a human concern toward other humans, not a concern toward animals. Vegans try to expand morality to animals in order to use it as a point of argument and inflict guilt upon those that oppose their view on the matter.

Why do "Vegans" use examples to illustrate their points that are as different as oranges and apples?

"Rape, murder or stealing is morally wrong," YES it is morally wrong, but again morality is a human concern and these are things committed by one human against another human. Not only that but there are laws existing in every state in the US and all over the World making rape, murder and stealing against the law so it is a legal issue as well. There are no laws anywhere that make it illegal to eat meat and it isn't a moral issue either because the meat you're eating isn't from a human. Apples and oranges!

Why do "Vegans" argue that the production of meat is harmful to the environment?
Well, yes it is harmful to a small degree. But if you're going to go into the environment for your argument then why not tackle a real problem that is 159 times more harmful and something that is becoming a real concern in the world. What you ask, it's Styrofoam.
Styrofoam is made from polystyrene, which is a petroleum-based plastic. Styrofoam is actually the trade name for polystyrene. It’s popular because of its light weight, good insulation properties, and advantage as a packing material for shipping without adding weight. Unfortunately, for all of Styrofoam’s good points, data has shown that Styrofoam also has harmful effects.
Styrofoam is non-biodegradable and appears to last forever. It’s resistant to photolysis, or the breaking down of materials by photons originating from light. This, combined with the fact that Styrofoam floats, and this means that large amounts of polystyrene have accumulated along coastlines and waterways around the world. It is considered a main component of marine debris.
Styrofoam has health risks associated with the manufacture of polystyrene, air pollution is another concern. The National Bureau of Standards Center for Fire Research has found 57 chemical byproducts released during the creation of Styrofoam. This not only pollutes the air, but also results in liquid and solid toxic waste that requires proper disposal. Another cause for concern are the brominated flame retardants that are used on Styrofoam products. Research suggests that these chemicals may have negative environmental and health effects.
So are "Vegans" that use the environment as part of their argument involved in any anti-styrofoam campaign? Probably not, and that is because the environment is not their concern. If the environment were their concern then they would be doing something toward that end.

Why do "Vegans" say they are standing up for animal rights?
This is something I tried to address in a few different threads. In my mind I would think that anyone so concerned with an animals right to life would be involved in groups that promote animal rights. I would think that they would support animal charities. I would think that they would be politically active along these lines. However, when you ask a "Vegan" what animal rights group they belong to, or what animal charities they support, or are they politically active in these matters, then you will hear excuses one after the other about how the vegan lifestyle isn't about that but about living free of animal products as much as possible.
In my mind this is only polishing a small part of the surface and leaving the larger and more difficult parts for someone else. My Father always said if you are going to start something then you have to see it through and do the job to your very best ability.

One of the things that I dislike about "Vegans is the disrespect they have for others. This seems to be the norm. They don't seem to understand that people see things differently than they do and they try to make people qualify their meat eating tendencies as if they have to have a reason.

The simple fact will always be that there is no right, and there is no wrong in the things you do unless you are breaking the law. So if you want to eat meat, then enjoy, and if you don't want to eat meat, then enjoy. AND if you want to have sex with animals, enjoy and don't get caught.
Since 1988, I have actually been an "activist" against styrofoam! For real. I will not use it, I do not accept it from fast food places. I protested at fast food places and led protests against them. Been yelled at by staff and had food thrown at me. Gotten banned from some of them. LOL (though, dude -- I didn't *do* anything but talk too long, and maybe a little too fast, hold up lines, make a little bit of a scene as I did my preachy thing).

It keeps coffee warm for five minutes but lasts eternity in the environment, never ever to be restored. Although making paper products initially makes a greater impact on the environment, the damage done by styrofoam is forever.

My great demand on them? -- Give customers the option to have their burgers served in cardboard or just the paper sack. Corporate offices said styrofoam was cheaper, and until customers demanded otherwise and were willing to pay a few cents more, they would stand pat. Guess what? Some institutions went back to their cardboard containers (the ones they used pre styrofoam). Some permitted customers to request it not be served in styrofoam. Yay! Little victories. But most customers? They could care less.

Right on, KnotInterested! Was thrilled to see you mention this!

And you vegans, I "get" your persistence. It was/is the same as mine regarding styrofoam. But guess what? I *never* called people who used styrofoam "planet murders" or people who evidently would "rape" the planet. I just wanted them to be aware, allow them the opportunity to come to the same conclusion *I* did.

That's my recommendation to *you*. Let us be aware. Lead us by your example. But put down the holier-than-thou stuff. Other people, with great big, fully working, Homo sapiens' brains just like yours, might come to a different opinion than you. You need to respect that. Or else don't be surprised when you get some pretty firm pushback.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
@CetaceanLover23

Airline pilots have to use RDU Airport's runway, and the coyotes were sleeping on it. That was the point.

Also, the fact that we have abundant game in the area and relatively few same size rival predators makes this area very tempting for them. Some people take the name "City of Oaks" a little bit to heart, and because of that, we have squirrels everywhere. In Raleigh, you will often see the road practically pave with squirrels. We used to also have cats everywhere eating most of the squirrels, but we rounded all of the cats up.

Once established here, a family of coyotes is not about to go hungry, and they love places like runways.
So do deer and geese. I'm *much* more afraid of geese. They fly low down the runway as if maybe thinking it's a course of water??? But the Giant Canada geese here are not real mobile in flight. They can turn their large carcasses about as well as a novice bowler can bowl. Just keeping it out of the gutter is a chore for them. Since planes are about as tough as flying beer cans (empty ones, with no beer left in them), they'll come right through a wing. Or windshield.

And deer? We call 'em goats. At my home base, here, sometimes I'll come in to land and have to go around, radio the FBO to come chase them off. They see a truck coming along the runway? They tear out of there! Trucks can mean hunters. But planes? They ain't afraid of no planes. Planes here have never shot at them.
 
If vegans don't take action, they are accused of being keyboard warriors who don't stand behind their claims. If they do more, they are terrorists ...

Releasing animals with diseases sucks just like releasing animals into the wild which are sure to die there because they are not adapted to that environment or have not learned how to survive on their own or—probably worse—who will destroy the local eco-system which is not adapted to them.
Naw. In my case, in my posts, I have never implicated "vegans" as a class of people in general to be worried about. Only the ones who keep calling me a murderer because I eat/hunt animals. That raises the bar. THOSE vegans are the ones who have my full attention and concern. Just what are they saying?

1. There are vegans who believe no animal -- even those BELOW them -- should suffer just because a human wants to eat and finds them tasty. They can take no pleasure from food deriving from the mistreatment of an animal. I can actually like these guys. I think they're pretty cool.

2. But there are also vegans who keep asserting that taking the life of an animal is as heinous as taking the life of a human. They don't seem to believe that there are animals "below" humans.

Well, now, whoa. Hold on there. That takes the discussion to a whole new level. That last group, the one who thinks I'm "murdering" animals, is either talking bullshit or I need to arm myself and maybe be looking left and right awhile before coming out of my door. There's the problem with, you're either an "keyboard warrior" or a "terrorist." Not all vegans. Those vegans.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top