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

[Zoo50]

okay more of your opinions

Enjoy your dinner - I'm eating steak and love it. Also love the cow it came from - Have a nice day

If you eat animals, you don't love them, even if you say you do. You are treating them as objects / commodities, not beings worthy of moral consideration.

Also, by eating meat, you are treating non-human animals differently than you treat humans (i.e. speciesism). If you really were to treat other animals as equals, you wouldn't support killing them.

 

[knotinterested]

If you eat animals, you don't love them, even if you say you do. You are treating them as objects / commodities, not beings worthy of moral consideration.

Also, by eating meat, you are treating non-human animals differently than you treat humans (i.e. speciesism). If you really were to treat other animals as equals, you wouldn't support killing them.

I wonder if you kill insects?

 

[FeralLovin']

If you eat animals, you don't love them

Would it be so hard to believe that the animals I consume, I do not love, but the animals I do love, I fuc- don't eat?

 

[Hewflungpew]

I have a simple solution: eat them all. Get protein and a salad in one
Lmao

 

[Tailo]

I believe @knotinterested when she says that she loves cows, yet eats them, and I also agree with @Zoo50 that you can't both love cows and eat them. I can agree with both of you because I think you have different concepts of love in mind when you use the word in this thread. So you have more of a linguistic misunderstanding there than contradicting opinions. I guess that @Zoo50, in some sense, also loves some plants and yet eats veggie meals, while @knotinterested would probably say that parents who kill their children to eat them obviously didn't love them, in a different sense.

I love dicks, dogs, ducks, pasta and my parents—and mean love differently for each of them.

 

[HyperWoof]

I think we should eat a lot less meat. It’s bad for the environment and needlessly kills animals. I believe we can love animals and still sometimes use them for our survival, however we must be far more thoughtful in how we do this. Native Americans would hunt, they would catch an animal, thank the Spirits for the gift and/or the animal’s Spirit, and use as much of the animal as possible.

In capitalist society, keeping zoos in check is profitable. Most of us would rather marry our animals than eat them. We make love and not war and are therefore a threat to the military-industrial complex.

A common native american hunting tactic was driving entire HERDS of buffalos off of cliffs by setting the forest literally on fire and picking out the best scraps from the bottom.... The idea that the people here before us were somehow these hippy animal lovers that did nothing but smoke peace pipes and hold hands with everyone is just romanticized white washed bullshit

Zoos make love and not war...what? What does that even mean? Are you suggesting zoos are....pacifists because we enjoy fucking animals?

 

[Zoo50]

Would it be so hard to believe that the animals I consume, I do not love, but the animals I do love, I fuc- don't eat?

In response to this quote (and others), I want to correct what I said earlier:

If you eat animals, you only love some animals, and you can't claim to love all animals.

actually meat eating is more ethical than sex with the animal, as humans are omnivores, and other animals such as dogs and wolves, are considered carnivores, meat eating is something that occurs in nature.

edit(was typing a response and forgot to clear the previous one xD)

Wrong -- killing and murdering a living being (such as a dog or a pig) is more unethical than having sex with a being. The "humans are omnivores" argument is nonsense because humans don't have to be "omnivores".

Also, @SkawdtDawg -- that was an excellent post. I agree with everything you said -- it's true that (in your hypothetical scenario), would a person kill a middle-aged dog and eat the dog just to satisfy their temporary desire for something that "tastes good"? That's why the pro-meat-eating arguments are nonsense -- meat-eating treats animals as mere objects (when they should be treated the same way humans treat one another -- with moral respect).

A human would never kill another human or a dog, and in that same way of thinking, other animals (such as pigs) should also not be killed.

 

[TogglesHappyZoo]

OK, so, I thought I'd weigh in here as a zoo who just ate a couple of hot dogs for dinner. So here's my unsolicited opinion.

Meat consumption is healthy, in moderation. But the fact of the matter is that, in the US and in other developed countries, our meat consumption is not sustainable and contributes significantly to global warming.

How Eating Less Meat Could Help Protect the Planet From Climate Change

More people switching to plant-based diets could help to halt climate change

time.com

^incidentally, Time tends to skew conservative, so I hope this is a reputable enough source for everyone to agree upon.

Not only that, but while eating meat itself, I believe, can be done in an ethical, responsible, and respectful manner, the modern factory farm industry is... well, it's an ethical nightmare, on every single front you can imagine, from the torture of the animals, to the effect on our environment, to the exploitation of poor people, to the fact that it's literally a breeding ground epidemics such as swine flu. No matter how you slice it, the meat industry is a travesty, and for the bulk of us, eating meat sustains that terrible industry into perpetuity, and it's destroying the fucking world.

Further, most of the meat we eat in America is highly processed, and therefore carcinogenic. These hot dogs I just ate could give me cancer in the end. Bacon, sweet, wonderful bacon, is just fat and cancer.

At the very least, we westerners have a moral imperative to eat less meat, because regardless of how you feel about animals -- which should be a consideration if your a zoo -- our meat consumption is not sustainable.

The tricky part is that meat -- and in particular processed meat -- is more affordable than a lot of other options. If you factor in time as a currency, it's a lot cheaper to get a 4 for $4 meal at Wendy's than it is to get $8 Impossible Whopper.

I'm a chubby guy. Cute, but chubby. My meat consumption and sedentary lifestyle in front of a computer are prime factors in that. This year, I'm going to cut back on my meat consumption -- for my health, for my concern about animals, for my concern about our environment, and because I'm an anti-capitalist pig what hates corporate exploitation.

If you're a proud meat eater ---- whatever. OK. But it may be worth your consideration to cut back on your meat intake, because regardless of how you morally justify it as a natural part of our diet, the way we consume it and the amount we consume are anything but natural.

 

[TogglesHappyZoo]

This year, I'm going to cut back on my meat consumption -- for my health, for my concern about animals, for my concern about our environment, and because I'm an anti-capitalist pig what hates corporate exploitation.

I just want to add that this is not going to be easy for me; as an autistic lad, my food tastes are pretty rigid, and processed foods -- particularly meats -- are a substantial part of my diet. Cutting back on them means cutting back on almost everything I'm willing to eat. But I feel compelled to try, and I hope that other people might feel compelled to at least consider trying.

 

[knotinterested]

I'm reading this and get the impression that you think having sex with an animal is an act of exploitation and is harmful to the animal. If the animal is penetrated it is definitely being exploited but may or may not be being harmed. In nature inter-species sex happens but it is very rare and only occurs under extenuating circumstances. Even the sex that occurs between a male dog and a human female is unnatural and while the animal is not exploited an extenuating circumstance is present. If that same male dog were in a room with a female dog that is in heat and the same human female wanting the dog to fuck her, then that make dog is going to choose the female dog every time. Because there is no choice for the male dog he goes ahead and has sex with the human female. edrIs this correct? I used sex with an animal as an illustration to say that if I'm being hypocritical because I say I love animals and still eat them then it is also hypocritical to not respect the animal's natural tendency and to use that animal for your own sexual gratification. The human having a brain that allows us to reason things out, to know things that the animal will never be able to understand, has knowledge that each species has male and female in order to reproduce and also has knowledge that having sex with a different species is a violation of the laws of nature. Yes I know that too, but I'm not hypocritical in that I will admit it. Also I don't go around calling anyone a hypocrite that has an opinion that differs from mine unless they first call me one and have faults that are the same to whatever degree. In other words I don't like the pot calling the kettle black.

 

[HyperWoof]

As a generalization this is true. But, of course, there are murderers and people who have a moment of rage. Most societies see dogs and cats as pets and other animals like cows and pigs as food. They'll cry and call for the torture and death of people who harm dogs and cats, but mock vegans who make a fuss about cows and pigs being slaughtered by the billions early in life, and they'll also call them militant and terrorists. There is definitely a different mindset between species.

What's interesting to note is that in many other cultures, dogs and cats are seen as food. But, oh, does our culture hate them. Racial slurs fly. These are "meant" to be pets! People will protest with a burger in hand. Do the dogs and cats in other cultures have a different level of consciousness and intrinsic value, or are our perceptions of animals' values rather based on what's been indoctrinated into us by our culture? After all, pigs have been shown to be more intelligent than dogs. And then other cultures see cows as sacred. Whatever a person's decision is (to eat animals or not), I think that we should evaluate if we would make the same choice if our culture had no influence on us.

Another thing to think about is: if we love some animals and kill others, what is the reason for how we group them? What is it about some animals that gives them less of a right to live than others? Do we think that some just don't suffer as much, or do we just pick and choose our favorites and disregard the rest?

You chose an interesting hill to die on. I don't have an issue if a countries culture has dog on the menu, I think it would make terrible meat and they don't have much on them. But the issue is with how they are kept and treated. Ever seen how these dogs are stored? Like discount books in a library bin. Do you know how dog is usually cooked in China and south asian countries? I'll tell you. They are skinned and then boiled ALIVE. It's always interesting to me how all the animal activist groups play the safe route and go for countries like Canada or the US, where regulations are quite strict and demanding (and getting better) Yet will jump to another countries defense who treat animals like we treat cockroaches.

Dogs boiled alive and eaten in Vietnamese meat market

Heartbreaking pictures show a dog meat market in Vietnam where stolen pets are rammed into cages and delivered to restaurants to be skinned and boiled alive. An anonymous animal rights activist too…

nypost.com

 

[HyperWoof]

???



I know all about the dog markets. I'm not sure what your point is. When have animal activist groups ever defended those countries that treat dogs this way? I wonder, would most dog zoos here be okay with eating their lovers? They gave them a good life, after all, so why not put them on the menu, right? Or is it that their own dogs are special just because they are "theirs"?

You just did. You made the strawman argument that the issue is with dogs being eaten, not that the main issue is the abhorrent conditions they are kept in. And dogs are companion animals, bred for loyalty and to work and live alongside man. So yes using them as a food source is completely different than a pig, who was bred for the sole purpose of being eaten, There is an order to life like it or not.

How do you propose culling of overpopulated animals occurs in this utopia of yours?

And as for your comments on how omnivores are living a life that is non sustainable...well i'd love to see your peer reviewed sources on that.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284712516_Energy_use_blue_water_footprint_and_greenhouse_gas_emissions_for_current_food_consumption_patterns_and_dietary_recommendations_in_the_US

Animals have been around for hundreds of millions of years and in vastly greater numbers, a few centuries of livestock aren't going to change anything

 

[animalzrule]

"That's just the way it is. Some things will never change." Things are the way they are because people make them that way. But we are people. We can change things if we don't like them.

Except for nature? You try to change how nature works you fuck up the planet, but vegans must not understand much how the world works and all of that or this shit they spew wouldn't exist.

 

[animalzrule]

Actually, there would be LESS health problems. Prostate cancer, diabetes, and heart disease would plummet. We would need LESS space because we wouldn't be breeding billions of animals into existence each year, so we wouldn't need to be feeding them, either. We'd only need to feed ourselves.

So how will you take care of those billions of animals we bred? You can't just kill them off that would be wrong. Only feed ourselves? And what about the domestic animals? WHO is going to take care of them? Themselves?

 

[HyperWoof]

"An animal can be bred for a certain purpose. We can breed dogs for dogfighting. Humans can be bred to be slaves if we want. None of what they are bred for has any bearing on how we should treat them or if we should kill them or not."

How we should treat them? Sure, all animals with reasonable levels of intelligence require proper treatment. Cutting an animals life short for the benefit of man is not immoral. It becomes immoral when it is done out of cruelty, malice or for an unjust reason. We have the intelligence as a species to be able to decide when that is applicable and not. To suggest that the killing of any animal for any reason is immoral is thinking about issues by only looking at the top most layer.




"That's just the way it is. Some things will never change." Things are the way they are because people make them that way. But we are people. We can change things if we don't like them.

Aye we can! And I am proud of the accomplishments we have made as humans in this regard. However just because some people don't like how a portion of the world turns, does not justify an entire remodel of a species diet.


"Why do we have overpopulated animals? Could it be because humans aren't responsible with dogs and cats? Or because we've killed off so many predator species because we don't want them killing our livestock?"

We have overpopulated animals no more so than a land without humans would have overpopulated animals. Nature takes care of that well enough with her own ways, so no that's not a fair argument. Yes humans have been responsible for lots of issues regarding animals in the past, not today. How do we deal with the wild boar issue introduced from past errors? Do you "ethically" leave them alive? When is it okay to kill an animal?
Is it really more moral to let nature kill off tens of thousands of animals with starvation and disease rather than provide a much more humane and sustainable death?


https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00139157.2015.1025644

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/10/105002

The first link is addressing the issue of global overpopulation and the amount of people who are rising out of poverty, which leads to a larger meat consumption (and food in general) Yes this is an issue. But maintaining national population growth AND switching to a plant/seafood based diet as the USDA recommends results in a GREATER usage of water, C02 in the atmosphere and emissions if the caloric intake remains the same as the average omnivore in the US.

The second link is making the suggestion that the majority of cattle ranches and farms should switch to poultry for better sustainability (Something I'd regrettably admit might be necessary to make beef more of a rarity) ...Are you suggesting that chickens and other birds are okay to kill?



By the way, it may sound like i'm angry or being snarky with you (I have a hard time debating without taking that tone somehow), but I respect that your arguments, although far from similar to mine, come from sound logic and reasoning, the other 2 vegans plaguing this thread are kind of lightweights both of those traits.

 

[FeralLovin']

They emit greenhouse gases

And I'm doing my part by eating those gassy animals and saving the planet one mouthful at a time. Not all heroes wear capes. I wear a napkin in the collar of my shirt.

 

[ashamedmisanthrope]

So how will you take care of those billions of animals we bred? You can't just kill them off that would be wrong. Only feed ourselves? And what about the domestic animals? WHO is going to take care of them? Themselves?

Stop breeding them for our consumption would be a start ?

 

[TogglesHappyZoo]

Hm. My points have been sorely ignored, while people continue to make some pretty perplexing arguments. The mind boggles.

The idea that veganism is antithetical to being a zoo is perhaps the most mind-boggling claim of them all. I can't think of anything more zooier-than-thou than being vegan. Like... to me, that's quintessentially zooey, almost obnoxiously so. I feel ashamed to be a zoo that still eats meat, like I'm being a massive hypocrite, while I see many of you not only eat meat with pride, but with a sort of cavalier ostentatiousness. Which, to me, is quintessentially American, almost obnoxiously so.

I don't judge people for eating meat, tbh. It's part of our culture. But the overzealousness and the fallacious justifications are a little unbecoming.

OK, then. I should probably unsubscribe from this thread. Neither am I a key player, nor am I particularly interested in the rather extreme nature of this discussion.

 

[caikgoch]

Stop breeding them for our consumption would be a start ?

Whamo Presto, it's done! Now, all of those animals are wandering out there, wild and free. Do you believe that they are NOT going to breed for their own reasons? Even one breeding pair and a permanent no kill order will inevitably lead to overpopulation.

 

[Tailo]

So @caikgoch, would you be fine with factory farming forbidden? Only meat from free-ranging, naturally reproducing animals hunted for population control would be allowed—and your concern would be solved.

Vegans may still not be perfectly happy then—but making vegans happy isn't the point anyway. It would reduce a lot of suffering in animals and it would reduce stress on our planet. Can we agree that a reduction of suffering would be good?

 

[FeralLovin']

Hm. My points have been sorely ignored, while people continue to make some pretty perplexing arguments. The mind boggles.

The idea that veganism is antithetical to being a zoo is perhaps the most mind-boggling claim of them all. I can't think of anything more zooier-than-thou than being vegan. Like... to me, that's quintessentially zooey, almost obnoxiously so. I feel ashamed to be a zoo that still eats meat, like I'm being a massive hypocrite, while I see many of you not only eat meat with pride, but with a sort of cavalier ostentatiousness. Which, to me, is quintessentially American, almost obnoxiously so.

I don't judge people for eating meat, tbh. It's part of our culture. But the overzealousness and the fallacious justifications are a little unbecoming.

OK, then. I should probably unsubscribe from this thread. Neither am I a key player, nor am I particularly interested in the rather extreme nature of this discussion.

Good luck with the veganism Toggle. Just don't wind up like the typical vegan that thinks they're god's gift to this dying planet and shit gold since they only eat plants.

 

[knotinterested]

I don't think the vegan argument will every end. Nor do I think that the consumption of meat is going to end. And I'll add that I don't think the production of meat for market is going to ever end.
The one thing I have noticed throughout this thread is that the vegans are not able to respect those of us that eat meat. While we on the other hand have tried to say that it is fine for you to do what you want but we're not wrong for what we do. Then we are attacked, told we don't love animals, called hypocrites, and tried to be made ashamed. This is the way vegans treat others? I wouldn't want any part of being vegan just because of that! I wouldn't want to be associated with that type of behavior. So go ahead and criticize me.
The way the vegans - not all but too many treat others has made me even more determined to remain a meat eater for the rest of my life.

 

[ZTHorse]

I'll reiterate a point that keeps being ignored.

Veganism is practical if the free market can with technology make a vegan diet more tasty, less expensive with superior health over diets with meat consumption. When the normie craves vegan food over the previous meat diet they enjoyed, without cohersion or shaming, throwing blood on people or moral crusaders, then veganism will have won. Then people will have moved on.

Like electric cars, once battery and charging technologies make it practical for the normie to have, all cars will be retrofitted to electric and new cars will all be electric. Who wants to mess around with cams, cynlinders and torque peaks when electric is superior in every single way?

Thats how vegans will have to convince the world is make it impractical to eat meat anymore. Also not by some stupid manipulation like making meat more expensive because that doesnt solve the human craving for it, you need to get a superior craving for vegan food to replace it. The rest will fix itself.

 

[caikgoch]

So @caikgoch, would you be fine with factory farming forbidden? Only meat from free-ranging, naturally reproducing animals hunted for population control would be allowed—and your concern would be solved.

Vegans may still not be perfectly happy then—but making vegans happy isn't the point anyway. It would reduce a lot of suffering in animals and it would reduce stress on our planet. Can we agree that a reduction of suffering would be good?

Of course you would have to fence every road to prevent traffic deaths. And every crop to keep them from eating all our food. And every residence, school, park, and town to keep the children safe. Maybe it would be simpler to just fence the animals in.

 

[caikgoch]

Like electric cars, once battery and charging technologies make it practical for the normie to have, all cars will be retrofitted to electric and new cars will all be electric. Who wants to mess around with cams, cynlinders and torque peaks when electric is superior in every single way?

That's total pie in the sky. Electric cars will never be superior to internal power plants unless you completely rebuild the electric grid with cheap room temperature super conductors. All a rechargeable electric car does is move the power generation from the car to a plant 1500 miles away via a 15% efficient transmission and to get that much efficiency you need a $200k cutting edge battery.

 

[ZTHorse]

That's total pie in the sky. Electric cars will never be superior to internal power plants unless you completely rebuild the electric grid with cheap room temperature super conductors. All a rechargeable electric car does is move the power generation from the car to a plant 1500 miles away via a 15% efficient transmission and to get that much efficiency you need a $200k cutting edge battery.

*facepalm

What part of better battery tech did you miss? Im talking like graphene batterys that charge in under 5 minutes and hold their lifespan for 10 years.

Where did you get that 15% number? Even if that is the case, 1kwh produced burning natural gas in a highly efficient turbine and having transmission losses is better than gas stations. Period. Especially with the new HVDC lines being invented.

Simple analogy. Produce 1kwh of power from your car engine vs producing it from a powerplant. Also the powerplant can centralize costs involved with it and the epa regulations. We dont need egr, cats, and all that emissions garbage choking engines now, its handled by the powerplants already rn.

.08c is damn hard to beat when you have the .gov out of the way, some places can get industrial rates for as low as .03c per kwh. No way around it, its way more efficient to go all electric.

The only reason you are driving gas engine is because battery tech is garbage rn. Literally no reason when you have instant torque from electrics.

 

[caikgoch]

The only reason you are driving gas engine is because battery tech is garbage rn.

The only reason you're driving a gasoline engine is because gasoline was a hazardous material that lamp oil factories paid to have disposed of when early automobiles were being invented. Everything else is more efficient.

Where did you get that 15% number?

Transmission losses X conversion losses X friction losses + parasitic loads under best possible conditions. If you can plug your electric car directly into your backyard windmill, it's perfect. On the public grid, not so much.

Don't forget that we haven't considered the far more efficient Diesel power plants or emissions. There are negative emissions diesel cars.

 

[Tailo]

Of course you would have to fence every road to prevent traffic deaths. And every crop to keep them from eating all our food. And every residence, school, park, and town to keep the children safe.

But caikgoch, we already have animals out there in the wild! You make it sound as if it would be an unrealistic utopia, while free-ranging, naturally reproducing animals are actually a reality now and always have been.

 

[ZTHorse]

The only reason you're driving a gasoline engine is because gasoline was a hazardous material that lamp oil factories paid to have disposed of when early automobiles were being invented. Everything else is more efficient.


Transmission losses X conversion losses X friction losses + parasitic loads under best possible conditions. If you can plug your electric car directly into your backyard windmill, it's perfect. On the public grid, not so much.

Don't forget that we haven't considered the far more efficient Diesel power plants or emissions. There are negative emissions diesel cars.

Wow the level of ignorance is strong here.

(Citation needed on that 15% please) I dont remotely believe that number on face value. Why? Because if you read an electric bill, they seperate generation costs and transmission costs but they waive that transmission costs to basically nothing when you use high kwh loads, like a charge station would be doing.

Batteries as they are now, in a tesla costs like 15$ to charge. Even now its cheaper.

Litetally all businesses run 3 phase, 208v, 480v or 600v and the grid is already providing that service. The amperage loading the lines would increase and that would be a simple switch to higher voltages to lower the amperage on current HV power lines.

You cannot beat the efficient natural gas plant. You cannot produce power more efficiently with your tiny engine in your car.

 

[knotinterested]

ZTHorse said it best. When and if there is a viable option to eating meat then the argument has merit. Right now I enjoy the taste of meat and when they produce aomething that is in the same price range and has all the same rich delicious flavor then I will make my choice. Until then I will continue to enjoy eating the things I love.