Animal Rights and Vegetarianism/Veganism

[Cliche Guevara]

The idea of Vegetarianism ultimately boils down to the notion that we not so different from animals and we as humans should extend the basic liberties and freedoms we extend to our human kin to our "animal brethren" However,

I think it can be said with certainty that animal rights are already comprehensively developed and it is irrational to go beyond the rights they already have. It is obvious that animals have the right to be protected from inhumane and cruel treatment but to go so far as to say that they deserve rights is a radical shift from from idea that animals should be treated morally.

The certain notion of rights is a purely man made concept and it is only man who employs such a concept. Monkeys and dogs feel no remorse when they attack and rape each other. Why do humans have idea of rights? Because they wish to live in a condition of mutual freedom and respect. Animals would be unconscious of idea of having rights and giving them rights will not change the way they act. They will not act more ethically or even comprehend what has transpired if they are given rights. Animal rights only sets limits on human behaviour. This is why, nothing beyond protection should be given to the animals.

As i said, Animals rights in reality are really limits on human rights. What right do humans have to make use of animals? We have every right. Every animal of the animal kingdom of which humanity is surely a part of has the intrinsic right to use of a fellow animal for food or shelter. Every animal takes advantage of this right. However, humanity has intellectually developed far enough that we have now come to using animals for purposes other than food or shelter, we now test life saving drugs on animals or use them as companions. If they are not being cruelly treated, than is not any existence outside of death more humane than the animals being killed as food. It is true more animals are dying, but that does not not make it immoral.

Because of the massive industry we have based on animals, of course there will be a few incidents of animal cruelty. But just because it happens in isolated cases does not mean that the thriving and lively industry should be shut down.

Suppose animals did have rights? Is it really possible to believe that they indeed have rights? How far do these rights go? For instance, let us say a farmer has killed several dozens of rats in a attempt to make his environment safe for his family and livestock. Does that equate to mass murder for the animal rights advocate. It may, but I assure you it would not be that way for the majority. Labelling animals as having rights, is not going to change the human condition. We are made to employ the use of animals.

Once again, let us suppose that we did give animals rights equalling our own basic rights. Would we all live in virgin forests gathering nuts and fruit. This great society is held together directly from the use we have made of animals. Imagine how humanity would have developed without the horse, the cow, the chicken. It is strange to say the least that we should now be giving animal rights when so much of our lifestyle today is based on animals.What gives us the right to give animals rights at the expensive of human rights. Hundreds of products are based on animals, thus creating hundreds of thousands of jobs. We would effectively destroying the lives of humans for the sake of making ourselves feel better about the way we treat animals.


Because of the size of the animal industries, of course there will be a few incidents of animal cruelty. But just because it happens in isolated cases does not mean that the thriving and lively industry should be shut down. Would we ban the act of swimming because a few people drown each year? Giving animals rights is illogical to say the least.

Animals on one hand kill and maim each other. It is a well documented fact that polars will and I quote “ The older males are known to kill the younger males when fighting over carcasses”

Why is it that while we let this occur, if animals have the same intrinsic value as humans. Why is it only humans that are prosecuted when they kill children. The reason is that humans are fundamentally different from there animal kin. We have the capacity to make choices, and we possess free will to act ethically or not. And we also respect the rights of other human beings.

Perhaps even the law should make some provisions to ensure that wanton torture and mistreatment of animals are minimized. But this is not because animals have rights, which they cannot have given their nature as instinctual driven beasts instead of moral agents. Talking, therefore, about animal rights is a confusion and misguides our thinking about our proper relationship with the rest of the animal world.

[Kim Jong Il]

If it weren't for meat eating man ever could have become an intelligent organism; as meat is digested much faster than vegetation and thus allows more blood to be allocated to the brain. By reverting to plant-eating, man could potentially devolve, something that is becoming an ever-increasing risk given the number of idiots that fall victim to the propaganda of animal rights activists and vegetarians.

[Cliche Guevara]

Very interesting, if true, and it seems reasonably logical. But I don't think we are at a point where we could 'deevolve' vegetarians can get all the nutrients and protein they need and you can actually live a more healthier life by going vegetarian (i did it for non bullshit reasons for 4 months) and its actually quite fun.

Its just if you don't eat animals for the sole reason that you love them cuddly wuddly baby seals and veal, its completely hypocritical and inane.

[Kim Jong Il]

Vegetarians cannot get adequate protein nor other nutrient intake however that's not necessary to live "healthily"; it's the fact that because vegetation takes so long to digest man will allocate more blood to other areas of the body and lose the qualities he adopted gradually, just an astronaut in space gradually loses bone mass and muscular strength he developed in a less antigravitational environment. There's no such thing as a healthy food intake or a healthy life, longevity and one's resistance to the ailments is a hereditary trait.

This (http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Mind-Intellect-Beyond/dp/0195182480/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1233378413&sr=1-2) is a very comprehensive insight as to how meat eating impacted human evolution.

[Yggdrasil]

However, Kim Jong, there are several species of animals that are both highly intelligent and vegetarian, namely the parrots. Did you know parrots have been shown in studies to be smarter than dogs, cats, and ? There have been several studies, some of which have spanned decades, that have shown that parrots can not only remember words, they have an innate cognitive ability, as well as possessing a process of logical thinking, and basic mathematics. Researchers have compared the intelligence of an African Grey Parrot to that of a 6 year old human child.

[puzld]

... humans are fundamentally different from there animal kin.

This I think is the most important point, and I agree. And it is the basis for not extending human rights to animals.

But what has certainly been lost is the respect for animals. You just can't develop the type of respect for animals that humans once had when you are completely removed from the intimate knowledge of the animal and its habitat, and from the stalking, killing, butchering and preserving of the meat.

[Cliche Guevara]

Completely true, i've recently been taking a class on plant and society which covers the history of our hunter gatherer ancestors and their relationship with the hunted. They respected the hunt to an almost deified point, and made use of almost all parts of the animal.

In a sense since we have our meat delivered to the stores in neat little packages, we take it for granted, but in the past when survival of your clan/tribe depended on the success of hunt, you would definitely have more reverence to the animal kingdom.

But I would like to point out that respect and extending rights to animals (i.e limiting human behaviour because animals cannot be magically given rights) are two completely different things. Because something is respected does not mean they have certain inalienable rights (as in the right to not be hunted just because we had the temarity to survive and reach the top of the food chain)

[Dog]

My "big picture" view is that it doesn't matter. What many humans don't understand is that the universe does not give a fuck. If Joe Schmoe rapes 10 babies and killls 1000 schoolchildren, it really doesn't make a lick of difference when you consider that we are smaller than atoms relative to the universe.

I obviously am not pro-child-rape/murder, but whenever people talk adamently about morals, as though they are some cosmic truth, I really just have to tell them to shut the fuck up. The only cosmic truth is cosmic indifference.

That said...here are the facts of life:
1) All living beings need energy.
2) Animals can get energy from other animals, plants, or both.
3) Humans are omnivores who need to eat plants and animals in order to be healthy.
4) Nom nom.

[Kim Jong Il]

However, Kim Jong, there are several species of animals that are both highly intelligent and vegetarian, namely the parrots. Did you know parrots have been shown in studies to be smarter than dogs, cats, and ? There have been several studies, some of which have spanned decades, that have shown that parrots can not only remember words, they have an innate cognitive ability, as well as possessing a process of logical thinking, and basic mathematics. Researchers have compared the intelligence of an African Grey Parrot to that of a 6 year old human child.

Despite some of the demonstrations of those birds they still lack the cranial capacity and the physical characteristics to ever become as intelligent as man; as after all it's been demonstrated that man's ability to display emotion and create metaphors, ethics, and so on was what got the ball rolling as far as our self-awareness is concerned. And so you have to take in to account the different physiological peculiarities of different animals, even our fellow apes. The silverback gorilla is one of the most massive, powerful animals on Earth despite living off of vegetation for most of it's life. That's because they produce a greater amount of sex hormones naturally than humans.

[NaiveMonarch]

Meat is fucking tasty, as soon as vegetables are tastier than meat, I'll go vegetarian.

[Cliche Guevara]

Ill just wait for replicators star trek style give dolphin a try

[Lord_BTY]

I was raised semi-veg (no red meat), to stop playgroups from feeding me pig's testicles , then turned full vegetarian, then fishatarian (only fish) then full vegetarian, then fishatarian again then full canivore :)

I was 13/14 by this time...

I was thinking by that time "What are humans meant to eat?"

I was also deconstructing and questioning my own seemingly entrenched beliefs...

I was rather precious

Eventually decided "fuck it... I'ma eat meat yo!"

(I was also very much into hip hop at the time)

MWAH XXXX

[Cliche Guevara]

I was a lacto ovo vegetarian for 6months, than someone offered to take me out for lobster.

[Mister B]

I think it's fine if a person goes vegetarian/vegan because they want to. The people I have a problem with are people who say "meat is murder" or some bullshit like that. As has been stated above, animals eat meat. Other animals eat each other. Humans eating meat is completely natural. It has proteins we need. A vegetarian or vegan has to take protein supplements to get what they do not get due to lack of meat in their diet.

[BornToKill]

By reverting to plant-eating, man could potentially devolve.

Note that this is bullshit; this is based on the presumption that offspring will inherit acquired genetics, something which was believed in the 19th Century. Just because the parent has become stupider due to vegetarianism (if this is true) it does not mean thier child will also be stupider, as the person's genes will not have changed no matter what they eat.

[Kim Jong Il]

I never said that a human being would risk becoming stupider by becoming a vegan/vegetarian, they're retarded from the get go should they decide to even consider doing so. I find your critique of this to be somewhat insulting of my intelligence; you claim what I have to say is pseudo-science yet you do not understand that macro evolution occurs over a period of hundreds of generations, I never implied someone was going to become a subhuman by being a vegetarian nor did I imply that their children would. Just as man gradually evolved to become self-aware and intelligent he would have to devolve gradually to a less fortunate state of mind. Inheritance of acquired genetics is not bullshit.

[scovegner]

Well I am vegan myself, there's so much in this thread I could say about but don't really have the time to / be bothered lol ..
Just a few thoughts:
Animals have the same organs, skin, eyes, brains, heart, lungs, etc etc, in many ways very similar to us but we view them as somehow differently solely because we can't communicate with them?
Regardless of their similarity to us, they have the capacity to feel pain, regardless of their intelligence of what is going on they have emotions too.
Don't make up bullshit how we 'need' meat, veg*ns have the capability of just as good a diet with varied sources to be just as good as one with meat, (sauce: http://www.eatright.org/cps/rde/xchg/ada/hs.xsl/advocacy_933_ENU_HTML.htm).
Why does natural always = right?
And veg*nism isn't all just about animal rights either, plenty of other reasons including health, the environment, for me it's a combination of all of those things and just the fact that if I believe in something, I'll go for it 100% and not just some half-assed 'welfare' measures which mean bullshit to the actual quality of life of those we share the planet with, my philosophy is that all living things need an appropriate amount of respect, and killing an animal and eating it isn't my idea of respect.

Not trying to start an argument, I know there'll be shitloads of people going on the defensive but I'll just add this to the thread and say no more :)

[Kim Jong Il]

Vegetables also have organs and respond to stimulus; however they, like non-human animals aren't self-aware and that's why they do not adopt these foolish, man-constructed conceptions of "morality", they do not have the capacity to do so. Veganism is the product of a feminized understanding of the world. Ever seen a house cat torture it's pray before consuming it? Yet most Americans would never consider eating one, because of their feminized ideas of "cuteness" and morality. Why do you extend these concepts of "morality" to a nature and a fauna that doesn't respect them? If it weren't for meat eating you never could have adopted this retarded ass lifestyle, if you're a vegan thank a meat eater.

[scovegner]

Vegetables also have organs and respond to stimulus; however they, like non-human animals aren't self-aware and that's why they do not adopt these foolish, man-constructed conceptions of "morality", they do not have the capacity to do so. Veganism is the product of a feminized understanding of the world. Ever seen a house cat torture it's pray before consuming it? Yet most Americans would never consider eating one, because of their feminized ideas of "cuteness" and morality. Why do you extend these concepts of "morality" to a nature and a fauna that doesn't respect them? If it weren't for meat eating you never could have adopted this retarded ass lifestyle, if you're a vegan thank a meat eater.

No plants have any form of central nervous system and they're classed scientifically as distinct.

And there's a tribe up in the himalayas that's vegan by choice and has been around for like 2000 years ..

Also, wtf connects care for others with femininity and wtf is wrong with femininity? lol

[Kim Jong Il]

They're living organisms, in chewing them you are taking life from the planet. Is the central nervous system a soul? Non-human animals are not self-aware. When you behead a chicken you behead an animal that does not have a personality, a name, or any aspirations of the sort, you are simply taking away it's ability to do one thing and one thing only, like any other organism: exploit the environment. All living organisms must take life to sustain life. Abstaining from eating meat is not moral, in fact it's delusional as those who abstain from doing so are in denial of the way of nature in our universe.

And once again you display your susceptibility to vegan lies and propaganda; there is no Himalayan vegan tribe and never was. Regardless 2000 years is hardly enough time for evolutionary change to occur to a species as a whole.

http://www.biblelife.org/hunza.htm

[scovegner]

http://www.biblelife.org/hunza.htm

FMD you really think that's a decent unbiased source? I am open that it might not be true that they're vegan etc but do you really think a website promoting a low carbohydrate diet and a 'bible life' website are good sources of information? If you have a decent source then show it :)

[Kim Jong Il]

It's all over the web; even the theists are well-aware of the lies propagated regarding the Hunza tribes. Misinformation about them is often engineered through misinterpretations of historical documents, purposeful or not, by people looking to add a gimmick to whatever lifestyle, diet, or longevity product they're promoting at the time.

[scovegner]

It's all over the web; even the theists are well-aware of the lies propagated regarding the Hunza tribes. Misinformation about them is often engineered through misinterpretations of historical documents, purposeful or not, by people looking to add a gimmick to whatever lifestyle, diet, or longevity product they're promoting at the time.

Show me a source then, if it's all over the internet shouldn't be hard to find ..

And I'm not exactly sure if it was the 'hunza' tribes though, probably was but thought I remembered it with a different name .. not sure

[Cliche Guevara]

Well I am vegan myself, there's so much in this thread I could say about but don't really have the time to / be bothered lol ..
Just a few thoughts:
Animals have the same organs, skin, eyes, brains, heart, lungs, etc etc, in many ways very similar to us but we view them as somehow differently solely because we can't communicate with them?
Regardless of their similarity to us, they have the capacity to feel pain, regardless of their intelligence of what is going on they have emotions too.
Don't make up bullshit how we 'need' meat, veg*ns have the capability of just as good a diet with varied sources to be just as good as one with meat, (sauce: http://www.eatright.org/cps/rde/xchg/ada/hs.xsl/advocacy_933_ENU_HTML.htm).
Why does natural always = right?
And veg*nism isn't all just about animal rights either, plenty of other reasons including health, the environment, for me it's a combination of all of those things and just the fact that if I believe in something, I'll go for it 100% and not just some half-assed 'welfare' measures which mean bullshit to the actual quality of life of those we share the planet with, my philosophy is that all living things need an appropriate amount of respect, and killing an animal and eating it isn't my idea of respect.

Not trying to start an argument, I know there'll be shitloads of people going on the defensive but I'll just add this to the thread and say no more :)

I respect your views and opinions (not just cause you're a mod lolol), anyway for me respecting an animal has less to do with killing and eating, and more to do with respecting our history with these animals and understanding that humanity is the way it is because of our relationship with the hunt. That respect should insure that we do not abuse them or consume them beyond their means to survive (like the buffalo)

[scovegner]

I respect your views and opinions (not just cause you're a mod lolol), anyway for me respecting an animal has less to do with killing and eating, and more to do with respecting our history with these animals and understanding that humanity is the way it is because of our relationship with the hunt. That respect should insure that we do not abuse them or consume them beyond their means to survive (like the buffalo)

If I'm reading you essentially respect the right of the species, but maybe not so much the rights of the individual animals making them up?

[genericwittyusername]

I'm a vegan. I don't scream at people to stop eating meat. I am appalled at certain practices, like factory farming. I'm don't strictly object to free range farming, although many times the label "free range" can be certified by the fda if (in the case of chickens) the animal is exposed to a wire 4X4X4 cage.

Why am I vegan? We can survive and be healthy without causing other creatures (who can feel pain and simulate depression--it's called learned helplessness), and I think that, as a moral agent--regardless of how an objective universe may act, we are still subjective creatures--if one is able to make an ethically purer choice, one has an obligation to make that choice.

This is only my personal view, you don't have to yell at me. I'm not telling you to stop eating meat. I think everyone should try vegetarianism, or at least to boycott the factory farming industry (support local farmers!) at some point in their life.

[genericwittyusername]

wtf is wrong with femininity? lol

I like the way you think. I believe large portion of the problems with our world are caused by a dominant patriarchal consumerism and a sense of entitlement to use the world to our benefit without regard for the consequences of our actions. If we are to be stewards of this complex ecosystem, we should act responsibly.

[Cliche Guevara]

Why am I vegan? We can survive and be healthy without causing other creatures (who can feel pain and simulate depression--it's called learned helplessness), and I think that, as a moral agent--regardless of how an objective universe may act, we are still subjective creatures--if one is able to make an ethically purer choice, one has an obligation to make that choice.


You know you raise a very good point. I don't exactly know how to respond about making ethically purer choices. And I was thinking, If we could grow steak on trees, everybody would be planting cowtrees and would leave cows alone, which does indicate the ethical aspect of killing animals for protein.

I fully respect the vegan choice and infact I think its admirable, but ultimately I think my utilitarian end result orientated view on ethics and morality, I find Veganism a lost cause of sorts.

But I always assumed that we developed in a way were our existence hinged on making use of animals (whether for meat or other useful animal products), Although we can get all the vitamins and essential amino acids we needs from plant and non animal product, that only covers one aspect of the ethical dilemma of making use of animals. Every day you probably run into hundreds of animal products, or products that have been made possible do to animal products, or the energy provided by it. I'm sure the poor Chinese labourer who weaved your shirt would not have been able to do so without the subsistence provided by the eggs the family chicken lays or etc. (that was more of a parody than a real example btw). Also, I would feel guilty every time i smelt perfume and thought it smelt nice. (alas another joke)

For the most part, I think what i mean is that I am lazy, I agree that not eating meat is more ethically pure, but for the most part humanity is still in a position where we have to make use of these animals (whether we put animal foreskins on burn victums, or test life saving drugs , or simply for food).


Also, you mentioned we are the moral agents and I'm glad you did not argue that animals have souls or something.

But I agree everybody should attempt it once in a lifetime, maybe they will love it. Most vegetarians I know love it.

[Lysergic Rain]

I'm a vegetarian. My reasons are politically motivated, I don't give a damn about animal rights. The fact is that there isn't enough meat to go around, livestock makes a significant contribution to greenhouse gasses, its cheaper to not eat meat, in many cases its healthier. The meat people eat isn't exactly healthy. Cheeseburgers and what not. Imagine how much we would cut down on obesity if we got rid of meat.

As long as you still eat eggs and drink milk, being vegetarian is very healthy.

[Cliche Guevara]

yes lacto ovo is very doable on a budget. but if you are vegan or pure vegetarian, its rather hard to find 55g of protein to eat and its rather expensive to eat vegetarian a restaurant.

[Lysergic Rain]

its rather expensive to eat vegetarian a restaurant.

hell no. Its way cheaper. I always end up spending $3-4 less then my friends on a meal.

lasagna cheaper then burger
cheese pizza cheaper then pepperoni

meat is fucking expensive

[scovegner]

For me, it's simply that the taste of meat in my mouth for 5 seconds does not equate to the beauty and complexity of life :)

[Slave of the Beast]

My "big picture" view is that it doesn't matter. What many humans don't understand is that the universe does not give a fuck. If Joe Schmoe rapes 10 babies and killls 1000 schoolchildren, it really doesn't make a lick of difference when you consider that we are smaller than atoms relative to the universe.

I obviously am not pro-child-rape/murder, but whenever people talk adamently about morals, as though they are some cosmic truth, I really just have to tell them to shut the fuck up. The only cosmic truth is cosmic indifference.

That said...here are the facts of life:
1) All living beings need energy.
2) Animals can get energy from other animals, plants, or both.
3) Humans are omnivores who need to eat plants and animals in order to be healthy.
4) Nom nom.

Excellent post.

I'm a vegetarian. My reasons are politically motivated, I don't give a damn about animal rights. The fact is that there isn't enough meat to go around, livestock makes a significant contribution to greenhouse gasses, its cheaper to not eat meat, in many cases its healthier. The meat people eat isn't exactly healthy. Cheeseburgers and what not. Imagine how much we would cut down on obesity if we got rid of meat.

As long as you still eat eggs and drink milk, being vegetarian is very healthy.

My thoughts exactly, the consumption of meat is a grossly inefficient use of resources. In conjunction with what DerDrache has said, it doesn't matter a fuck in abstract terms of universal rights, but it does matter in real terms of damaging our global ecosystem.

[Kim Jong Il]

Really? So crop dusting, plowing, tractors and the semi trucks used to haul several thousand consecutive tons of vegetables each year are less harmful to the ecosystem than transporting livestock to a slaughterhouse wherein which they are shot in the base of a skull with a small caliber rifle? Also, do you have any evidence that either damages the ecosystem?

[scovegner]

Really? So crop dusting, plowing, tractors and the semi trucks used to haul several thousand consecutive tons of vegetables each year are less harmful to the ecosystem than transporting livestock to a slaughterhouse wherein which they are shot in the base of a skull with a small caliber rifle? Also, do you have any evidence that either damages the ecosystem?

Animals consume huge resources in what they eat, I think it was beef that needs 64kg of feed just to produce 1kg of meat, 80% of the soy grown in the amazon is fed to animals, mainly chickens ..
If you want an in-depth (very, it's a few hundred pages long) report on the environmental effects of meat have a look at 'livestock's long shadow', commissioned by the UN ..
http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/FAO/livestocks_long_shadow.pdf
Should work, if it doesn't just google the above phrase and there's loads of other copies on the net ..
Quick summary:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livestock's_Long_Shadow

[Slave of the Beast]

Really? So crop dusting, plowing, tractors and the semi's used to haul several thousand consecutive tons of vegetables each year are less harmful to the ecosystem than transporting livestock to a slaughterhouse wherein which they are shot in the base of a skull with a small caliber rifle?

Well obviously food has to be produced simply to feed livestock, rather than to directly feed humans. Therefore, relative to edible arable produce, meat is an environmentally damaging product.

Also, do you have any evidence that either damages the ecosystem?

Methane production, destruction of rainforest, increased consumption of water*, increased production of CO₂*, increased eutrophication of waterways*...

The results revealed that production of livestock feed consumes nearly 100 per cent of water and land and 70 per cent of the nitrogen needed by the industry. Therefore, the researchers suggest that the most effective methods for reducing the environmental impact of meat production are to improve the efficiency with which feed volume is converted to meat and to increase per-hectare yields of feed crops. Small changes to the contents of animal feed may produce disproportionate benefits or costs elsewhere. For example, reducing soybean use in European animal feed would lower the associated ‘indirect’ cost in Brazilian rainforests, which are rapidly being swallowed up for soybean agriculture, although it would not necessarily prevent this damage from happening.

Source. (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/pdf/119na6.pdf)

* Relative to arable farming.

[Kim Jong Il]

Animals consume huge resources in what they eat, I think it was beef that needs 64kg of feed just to produce 1kg of meat, 80% of the soy grown in the amazon is fed to animals, mainly chickens ..

It's simply not true that a cow needs 64kg of feed to produce 1kg of beef. 80% of the soy grown in the amazon should go to animals, soy products are estrogenic and thus contribute to the already ridiculous hormonal fluctuations in western males. Care to explain how a great volume of consumption hurts the ecosystem? I see no evidence that it does.


If you want an in-depth (very, it's a few hundred pages long) report on the environmental effects of meat have a look at 'livestock's long shadow', commissioned by the UN ..
http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/FAO/livestocks_long_shadow.pdf
Should work, if it doesn't just google the above phrase and there's loads of other copies on the net ..
Quick summary:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livestock's_Long_Shadow

I wonder if they've ever produced studies on the environmental affects of vegetation and grain production? Could it be that the majority of UN members, most of them being liberals, have a vegetarian, climate-crisis agenda?

[Kim Jong Il]

Well obviously food has to be produced simply to feed livestock, rather than to directly feed humans. Therefore, relative to edible arable produce, meat is an environmentally damaging product.

You do understand that the premise of feeding livestock is that so they can go on to feed humans, correct?



Methane production, destruction of rainforest, increased consumption of water*, increased production of CO₂*, increased eutrophication of waterways*...


Where exactly is the evidence that any of this is contributing to a climate crisis on Earth? Do you have any, from a non-biased source? Trees can be planted and cut down again and again, they're not a limited resource like petroleum.


[url=http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/pdf/119na6.pdf]Source.[url]

* Relative to arable farming.

Sources without an agenda please.

[scovegner]

Please realise there's much more to environmental damage than just 'global warming' ..

[Kim Jong Il]

Was not implied.

[Slave of the Beast]

You do understand that the premise of feeding livestock is that so they can go on to feed humans, correct?

No shit, Sherlock, the problem you clearly don't understand the concept of waste.

Where exactly is the evidence that any of this is contributing to a climate crisis on Earth? Do you have any, from a non-biased source? Trees can be re-planeted, they're not a limited resource like petroleum.

IPCC (http://www.ipcc.ch/)

Sources without an agenda please.

Either the information is correct or not. I'm guessing that the lack of a direct refutation is because you can't refute it.

[Kim Jong Il]

No shit, Sherlock, the problem you clearly don't understand the concept of waste.

You clearly don't understand that many animals reproduce and mature much faster than vegetation, such as chickens, and that they offer a variety of other products such as eggs and milk. It's more expensive to run a chicken farm that produces hundreds of chickens every ten weeks than it is to fly planes to dust crops, run huge ass machinery to uproot them, transfer them in ample time, etc. A chicken or a cow can be grown anywhere in the continental US, specific varieties vegetation on the other hand..



IPCC (http://www.ipcc.ch/)

Down's syndrome?



Either the information is correct or not. I'm guessing that the lack of a direct refutation is because you can't refute it.

You haven't provided me with any? I will gladly refute what you have to say.

[Slave of the Beast]

You clearly don't understand that many animals reproduce and mature much faster than vegetation, such as chickens, and that they offer a variety of other products such as eggs and milk. It's more expensive to run a chicken farm that produces hundreds of chickens every ten weeks than it is to fly planes to dust crops, run huge ass machinery to uproot them, transfer them in ample time, etc. A chicken or a cow can be grown anywhere in the continental US, specific varieties vegetation on the other hand..

Let's take the less costly alternative then...

Down's syndrome?

Greenhouse gases. If you can't work out why they're relevant, don't bother responding.

Either the information is correct or not. I'm guessing that the lack of a direct refutation is because you can't refute it.

For example, reducing soybean use in European animal feed would lower the associated ‘indirect’ cost in Brazilian rainforests, which are rapidly being swallowed up for soybean agriculture, although it would not necessarily prevent this damage from happening.

You haven't provided me with any? I will gladly refute what you have to say.

You can read, can't you?

[Kim Jong Il]

Let's take the less costly alternative then...

My mistake, although I clearly meant the inverse.



Greenhouse gases. If you can't work out why they're relevant, don't bother responding.

I can't, can you provide me a non-biased source, which the IPCC is not, that suggests greenhouse gasses damage the environment? And, since you clearly subscribe to this particular conviction, wouldn't you defend livestock farming which emits far less greenhouse gasses than vegetation production, which has been the point I have been trying to convey to you for the past twenty minutes, which you have evaded consistently?

My reading comprehension skills are just fine; I'm afraid I can't say the same for you, did you not catch my point that rain forests can be re-planted and cut down again and again and again, and that humans shouldn't consume soy?

[Slave of the Beast]

My mistake, although I clearly meant the inverse.

Really? It looked fairly consistent with the rest of the illiterate twaddle you've so far posted.

I can't, can you provide me a non-biased source, which the IPCC is not, that suggests greenhouse gasses damage the environment? And, since you clearly subscribe to this particular conviction, wouldn't you defend livestock farming which emits far less greenhouse gasses than vegetation production, which has been the point I have been trying to convey to you for the past twenty minutes, which you have evaded consistently?

Arable farming does not produce the same level of greenhouse gases, although arguing this point is going to be a complete waste of time, because apparently there's some kind of eco-conspiracy going on of which the majority of the science community is an active participant.

Any source I therefore provide will inevitably be ridden with bias. :rolleyes:

My reading comprehension skills are just fine; I'm afraid I can't say the same for you, did you not catch my point that rain forests can be re-planted and cut down again and again and again, and that humans shouldn't consume soy?

Trees can be replaced, habitats and species which have taken millenia to evolve cannot, fool. In any case as long as there is massive demand for profitable livestock feed, that replanting will never happen, on the contrary; massive destruction will continue to occur. A statement for which I've already provided a fucking source!

[scovegner]

Seriously, fucking read the report I linked to, it goes way in depth into all the byproducts and uses of animals and the environmental impacts ..

[Bender]

Reporting in with minimal information.

I treat my dog like a part of the family.

Outback Steakhouse is the fucking shit.

[scovegner]

What makes you think that animals do not have a spirit? You've just stated it and not provided any justification for it ..

[Who's Got The Crack?]

Animals shouldn't have the same rights as humans, they are lower in the food chain and will be used accordingly, that is how the world works.
But, I do believe they should be treated well and be killed quickly and painlessly.

[Hemitrocks]

the original statement about animals being abused occasionally isnt true. the majority of the meat we all eat is from animals that were treated cruely. the corporations only care about money and so doesnt the rest of the world. the reason they treat them so cruely is to make more money and so when a new business with good morals comes into the picture it doesnt last long because it costs more to treat the animals right. im not some crazy vegan but its a fact that the majority of the meat industry treats animals cruely. especially in america. business and morals do not mix in america. its the fucked reality

[Shrike]

Been a vegetarian for 10 years now, fuck all y'all.

[Jive Talka]

Why does natural always = right?

:facepalm:

[Mullen]

I need to take some calves to the sale barn next week..

[Figure-8]

the original statement about animals being abused occasionally isnt true. the majority of the meat we all eat is from animals that were treated cruely. the corporations only care about money and so doesnt the rest of the world. the reason they treat them so cruely is to make more money and so when a new business with good morals comes into the picture it doesnt last long because it costs more to treat the animals right. im not some crazy vegan but its a fact that the majority of the meat industry treats animals cruely. especially in america. business and morals do not mix in america. its the fucked reality

There is something deeper.

That it's not for money.

[Mullen]

There is something deeper.

That it's not for money.

I'm pretty sure it's for money.

[Figure-8]

And if it wasn't?

[Ambient]

What makes you think that animals do not have a spirit? You've just stated it and not provided any justification for it ..

Oh, that is not my oppinion. In my oppinion, if human beings have soul, then the logical conclusion is that all living beings have soul.

[007GoldenShower]

One thing that gets to me is caged hens. That shit needs to go.


That's all I have to say.

[dantheman72]

I was a lacto ovo vegetarian for 6months, than someone offered to take me out for lobster.

if you have done as much acid as i have...you wouldnt eat anything with a face....:eek:

[Figure-8]

Vegetarianism as saving the animals is opinion.

Health isn't.

[Irukanji]

Humans kill each other for kicks and giggles, even killing people who are equal to them in every way. We kill animals as a source of sustenance, because they are a pest, or because we can.

I believe animals should be killed as swiftly as possible to minimise the pain inflicted in the animals last seconds. Plus, the faster it dies, the better the meat tastes, so it's win/win.

[Figure-8]

^ That's kosher, you don't do it and you'll pristine you risk fear contaminating the meat. At least that's what they called it, in various ways.

There is something to the mind and emotions and the death process, and the taking of that in for life.