Veganism...why?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NEXT
 

FelixG:
snip

Abandon4093:
snip

Jessy_Fran:
snip

Ok admittedly the initial post I do think could have been handled with a bit more decorum, but it's not like this reaction should come as a shock just look at the majority of the previous posts describing vegans as hypocritical and snobby, not to talk for everyone but this is pretty much what its like in the real world as well and it can get very frustrating very fast to continually hear the your believes belittled and scoffed at.

The_Lost_King:
I don't even understand vegetarians. It isn't like they are making a difference. They aren't saving any animals by giving up meat. The only way to stop us from killing animals is to have everyone be a vegetarian and that isn't going to happen because it is the laws of nature for us to eat meat. If we start becoming herbivores next thing you know Monkeys are top of the food chain.

Well thats... Crazy.

We're top of the food chain because we're the smartest animals out there. If Cheetahs were smart enough to corral and breed Springboks instead of having to risk life and limb trying to stalk, chase, and eviscerate them, they would be right up there with us... So no, on an intellectual level, Monkeys would never be top of the food chain, even if we all immediately became vegan.

As it is, we're the only animals that have successfully beaten the natural order of things. I don't necessarily feel any guilt about that, but I do worry that our current habits are so unsustainable we're ultimately going to end up destroying ourselves - which is, ironically, the natural order of things - a Predator thrives when there is a large stock of it's prey, as the Predator thrives, the Prey dwindles, which causes the Predator to starve, and then they dwindle, allowing the Prey to thrive...

The difference, of course, is that when we inevitably begin to dwindle (having fucked up our environment), we're taking our prey down with us.

Anyway, that as an aside, you argue that Vegitarians and Vegans aren't achieving anything, because the rest of us still eat meat... I would argue that such changes as they're trying to make don't happen all at once. It takes time - there are more Vegans now than there were in the 1900s, by the 2100s there'll be more still, and so on, and so on. I don't know if everyone will eventually go that way, but I do believe there will come a point where enough of them do it to make... Whatever difference it is, they want to make.

Thankfully I won't be around to see those days, but I do worry that my children or grand children may decide to go Veggie or Vegan, and given that I take pride in belonging to the one species that has conquered all others (pride being an emotion I can feel and understand, unlike most of the other species out there), I wouldn't approve of that.

Of course, I consider how my Grandparents feel about Gay people and Gay Marriage (They're against it), and I wonder if my stance on Vegans isn't exactly the same as their stance on gays (after all, I don't condone veganism because 'it isn't natural', a similar argument used against Gays by such people).

...

Hmmmmm...

Well, once again I think I've managed to identify a prejudice I have, appreciate that it's wrong of me for having it, and still have no intention of changing my opinion. Vegans are wrong. However, they're not hurting me with their choices, and generally I'd say they don't bother me or try to ram their opinions down my throat (the exception being the PETA retards who hang round outside my local KFC). So, let 'em have their crazy opinions about food, and let them fail to appreciate the irony of arguing against modern farming practices for being so artificial, whilst they ram vitamin and mineral pills created in a laboratory down their neck.

Captcha - 'tastes good'... You said it you sentient son-of-a-bit.

KingsGambit:

Daystar Clarion:
snip

Elizabeth Haydon fan I presume? :-) Haven't read SoA in a long time, you just reminded me!

Also, this is funny:

image

Holy crap, I laughed very hard at that.

Jammy2003:

FelixG:

Calling people blind and ignorant because they disagree with you. Arrogant check!
Claiming to speak for those who have no voice, Snobby check!
Calling people illogical while they themselves use products made from animals. Hypocrite check!

So as I said, gives the people they are trying to defend a bad name.

Actually I think the blind and ignorant was aimed at the first half the the thread which mostly contained "Yeah I don't get it". Which is ignorance. And blind because people like their views and ignore evidence to the contrary.

Speaking for those who have no voice tends to stem from the arguement "I'll stop eating pigs when they stand up and tell me to stop eating them". And even if it didn't stem from that how is that Snobby?

And do you KNOW that vegans use products made from animals? It is possible to cut out animal products you know.

The person didn't direct it at anyone in particular, both views of where it is directed are equally valid.

You raise a valid point, the whole post was fairly snobby, not just that one point.

And yes, and I do know that. Most vegans are just as ignorant as the people they whine about.

CrystalShadow:

Mmm. The plant issue is a tricky one. Because it betrays the fact that vegans essentially seem to be anthropocentric.

Who says a plant doesn't feel pain? On what grounds can this be asserted other than an inference based on biology and the nature of how human beings feel pain.

To be honest, can you even say breaking a rock into pieces to build a house doesn't hurt the rock?

Pretty much everything we eat was raised for that sole purpose.

Animals just happen to be cuter, and easier to understand because we are animals ourselves.

That doesn't mean plants, (or indeed inanimate objects) don't suffer as a result of what we do to them. Merely that if they do, we are less capable of recognising the suffering.

Still... I thought this through myself and came to the conclusion that being vegetarian or vegan for those reasons was problematic, and, honestly, a little egocentric.

I don't like causing suffering, but the fact remains that me being alive comes at the expense of other living and non-living things. There's no way around this, and presuming the suffering of animals is more important than that of anything else doesn't make sense to me.
That's not to say nothing can be done at all, just that I think vegetarianism doesn't really solve much in that regard.

Oh come now, with that logic there is no point in doing anything at all. That's a ridiculous extrapolation and can be done in reverse, to suggest that if living causes suffering then why be compassionate to anything? Why have a dog, cat or family? Why not eat them?

Vegan_Doodler:
Ok the righteous think was out of order, apologies, and I already knew what the responce would be because its the same every time, 'if we didn't do time they would die' but like I said it is still fucked up and not a good reason to continue doing it.

To start with, stopping would essentially be genocide, but let's ignore that for now.
Domesticated animals are highly successful creatures, from an evolutionary standpoint.
In a sense, they're parasitic, having humanity secure their survival for them.
They're also leading far better lives than wild animals. Objectively better.
They live longer, never have to starve, don't have to fear predators, get medical care, and die far more painlessly than they would in the wild.
I won't pretend it's all roses and rainbows. I mean, we do murder them for food.
Considering what nature has in store for them, they're still better off as our 'prey'.
In the wild, they're driven by hunger and fear.
In the wild, they die from predators that starts eating them before they die, diseases that make them starve to death because they grow too weak to find enough food, an easily treatable infection is a death sentence, etc.
Nature is far more cruel than humans ever were.

Eamar:
[quote="Vegan_Doodler" post="18.378132.14775775"][quote="Eamar" post="18.378132.14775731"]EDIT: Furthermore, if they ever perfect the ability to "grow" meat from stem cells such that it has the same nutritional value, flavour and texture as "real" meat, and were able to do so at a reasonable price, I'd fully support switching to that.

I was thinking of this earlier, I don't see why scientists don't put more effort into this, the mp3 is small enough guys lets start on the important stuff.

Jessy_Fran:
Yeah, I hate vegans!!!

How dare they stand up for those who have no voice?

Animals not having a voice is one of the reasons I don't care. You lending them your voice doesn't change that, it just (potentially) makes you annoying.

How dare they value thousands of innocent lives over their mere taste buds?

I value a Animals life. It's not like I get to have their meat for free.

How dare they strive to make the world a better, more cruelty-free place for all?

A nice notion. Maybe people would consider those types less insane if they were to worry about their own species before protecting cows.

How dare they challenge my blind, ignorant habits with logical thinking?

And it breaks down entirely right here. Why should anybody give even the slightest fuck what you think after that? I'm not ignorant, I am a omnivore and I have the diet of a omnivore. If anyone is being ignorant, it's you, you are afterall the one refusing what is normal for your species. Sure, you are being willfully ignorant, but ignorant all the same.

How dare they live a lifestyle of compassion and love?

You come across as neither compassionate nor loving. Now, you might mean that you are compassionate in regards to animals, but I'm going to be honest with you, I really don't care what someone thinks if they put a cow before their own species.

Seriously guys, what a loads of idiots!!1!

Idiots? I don't know, I'm sure some of them are, but I'd rather not generalize them as a whole. Are you a Idiot? Not sure about that either, you are certainly passionate, I just disagree with you and I also disagree with this idea that you have some kind of moral high-ground. We can talk about it when the first cow speaks up.

That said, I try not t eat much meat and dairy. Not because of animals, because I really just don't care. I watch it for myself, balanced diet and all that jazz. I will however be eating meat later today.

Daystar Clarion:
Indeed :D

I haven't read SoA in a long time either, not really a huge fan of hers anymore either, but I loved Daystar Clarion ever since I read about it.

Awesome sword is awesome :D

Yeah the sword was great, especially when it was something so innocuous at the start before anyone realised what it was. Rhapsody was cool, as were the two guys who travelled with her, Achmed and Whatshisface. But Ash, I never warmed to him. I thought he was a ponce when we first met him and nothing changed my mind about him. I wonder if there are any more books out in that series, been a long, long time since I looked. It wasn't my favourite series by any stretch but wasn't bad by any stretch. Interesting characters and setting with the whole musical thing going on.

FelixG:

Actually I think the blind and ignorant was aimed at the first half the the thread which mostly contained "Yeah I don't get it". Which is ignorance. And blind because people like their views and ignore evidence to the contrary.

Speaking for those who have no voice tends to stem from the arguement "I'll stop eating pigs when they stand up and tell me to stop eating them". And even if it didn't stem from that how is that Snobby?

And do you KNOW that vegans use products made from animals? It is possible to cut out animal products you know.

The person didn't direct it at anyone in particular, both views of where it is directed are equally valid.

You raise a valid point, the whole post was fairly snobby, not just that one point.

And yes, and I do know that. Most vegans are just as ignorant as the people they whine about.[/quote]

Actually... Sorry mate but I know this person, and the amount of effort they go to educate themselves means they have cut out animal products, things tested on animals, clothing and.... pretty much anything it is possible to?
Also, I did the civil thing, and ASKED where it was directed. It was directed at the first half of the thread. So.... Mine is valid (Or at least correct) and yours isn't.

"Most vegans are ignorant" is not the same as all are, so it's quite the assumption you are throwing around there. Do you know most vegans? Or is this just vegans you happen to have met? Anecdotal evidence?

Vegan_Doodler:

Eamar:
[quote="Vegan_Doodler" post="18.378132.14775775"][quote="Eamar" post="18.378132.14775731"]EDIT: Furthermore, if they ever perfect the ability to "grow" meat from stem cells such that it has the same nutritional value, flavour and texture as "real" meat, and were able to do so at a reasonable price, I'd fully support switching to that.

I was thinking of this earlier, I don't see why scientists don't put more effort into this, the mp3 is small enough guys lets start on the important stuff.

Actually, they are working on it. This news report is from February of this year: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16972761 . The problem is that the process is massively expensive at the moment.

KingsGambit:

Daystar Clarion:
Indeed :D

I haven't read SoA in a long time either, not really a huge fan of hers anymore either, but I loved Daystar Clarion ever since I read about it.

Awesome sword is awesome :D

Yeah the sword was great, especially when it was something so innocuous at the start before anyone realised what it was. Rhapsody was cool, as were the two guys who travelled with her, Achmed and Whatshisface. But Ash, I never warmed to him. I thought he was a ponce when we first met him and nothing changed my mind about him. I wonder if there are any more books out in that series, been a long, long time since I looked. It wasn't my favourite series by any stretch but wasn't bad by any stretch. Interesting characters and setting with the whole musical thing going on.

The series started off really well, but all the characters were just too perfect, especially Rhapsody, dear lord did she turn into the biggest Mary Sue in the universe.

Jammy2003:

Yes, but our stomach is much longer than a pure carnivores, so I was just putting that we are purely neither. Also, as we live in a society of convenience where everything is produced and so easy to obtain.

When did I say we were carnivores? Seeing as we don't have teeth like a tiger and fruit/vegetables were the core diet of our great ancestors we can be neither of two extremes. We do need meat but sometimes we eat too much, often the wrong type of meat.

the arguement we NEED to eat meat instead of the large quantities of veg to keep up calories is a bit of a fail.

Not really, the most common problems for a vegan is malnutrition especially in the young. The advice for vegans is to eat more rather than to eat less in order to get the recommended daily allowance of minerals and vitamins.

If were are going to use the "eat well plate" for reference


Then that's well of a quarter off the plate in which they need to compensate for which contains quite a bit of fat,minerals and vitamins. I suppose you don't need it but life without it isn't easy.

Denamic:

Nature is far more cruel than humans ever were.

But Humans are still cruel. We may be less cruel to animals than nature is, but we are far crueller to them than we are to fellow humans.

Denamic:

Vegan_Doodler:
Ok the righteous think was out of order, apologies, and I already knew what the responce would be because its the same every time, 'if we didn't do time they would die' but like I said it is still fucked up and not a good reason to continue doing it.

To start with, stopping would essentially be genocide, but let's ignore that for now.
Domesticated animals are highly successful creatures, from an evolutionary standpoint.
In a sense, they're parasitic, having humanity secure their survival for them.
They're also leading far better lives than wild animals. Objectively better.
They live longer, never have to starve, don't have to fear predators, get medical care, and die far more painlessly than they would in the wild.
I won't pretend it's all roses and rainbows. I mean, we do murder them for food.
Considering what nature has in store for them, they're still better off as our 'prey'.
In the wild, they're driven by hunger and fear.
In the wild, they die from predators that starts eating them before they die, diseases that make them starve to death because they grow too weak to find enough food, an easily treatable infection is a death sentence, etc.
Nature is far more cruel than humans ever were.

I completely disagree with the last line even if it is just semantics because nature isn't a thing that's going out of its way just to trip hikers down mountains.
Genocide is an active thing, allowing something to die naturally is passive and there for no blame.
Apart from that I half agree with you and I though I was the only one that noticed that pets where esentialy highly evolved parasites, (that's right felix! get a job!) but I do have to say that my quwarle is with the fact that they are being kept in the first place, if they are supposed to be dead at this point then we should let them bow out with not stick around because their useful.

Vegan_Doodler:
I was thinking of this earlier, I don't see why scientists don't put more effort into this, the mp3 is small enough guys lets start on the important stuff.

Industrial pork (raised on hefty amounts of steroids and antibiotics with other chemicals, subject to immobility and lack of light):
If I don't know who raised my animal, I don't eat it.

Free range pork:
Leave plenty of room to run around, gets shelter from the elements when necessary. Augment diet if need be. Treat for disease if sick.

Vat grown meat:
Hefty amounts of expensive machinery, specialized nutrient solutions and other chemicals. Not to mention the electricity required to keep it all running.

I know it's like recycling paper, that it would be a matter of time before the process would be inexpensive, but there's still a matter of knowing where your food came from, which is a significant concern of mine.

mad825:

When did I say we were carnivores? Seeing as we don't have teeth like a tiger and fruit/vegetables were the core diet of our great ancestors we can be neither of two extremes. We do need meat but sometimes we eat too much, often the wrong type of meat.

the arguement we NEED to eat meat instead of the large quantities of veg to keep up calories is a bit of a fail.

Not really, the most common problems for a vegan is malnutrition especially in the young. The advice for vegans is to eat more rather than to eat less in order to get the recommended daily allowance of minerals and vitamins.

If were are going to use the "eat well plate" for reference


Then that's well of a quarter off the plate in which they need to compensate for which contains quite a bit of fat,minerals and vitamins. I suppose you don't need it but life without it isn't easy.

I never said you did, you pointed out ours was shorter than herbivores, I pointed out ours was longer than carnivores. I never said we were herbivores.

Malnutrition can be a problem, but not if you actually research things. Of course you have to eat a larger quantity of veg compared to meat, but it takes less to produce.

Can't see the image, my internet is playing up but I'm gonna guess its a plate with portion sizes? It's a strange concept that's pretty new to humanity... Life should be easy for us for some reason? Why? Ease leads to laziness and greed, which is where half the problems I see these days stem from.

Jammy2003:

The person didn't direct it at anyone in particular, both views of where it is directed are equally valid.

You raise a valid point, the whole post was fairly snobby, not just that one point.

And yes, and I do know that. Most vegans are just as ignorant as the people they whine about.

Actually... Sorry mate but I know this person, and the amount of effort they go to educate themselves means they have cut out animal products, things tested on animals, clothing and.... pretty much anything it is possible to?
Also, I did the civil thing, and ASKED where it was directed. It was directed at the first half of the thread. So.... Mine is valid (Or at least correct) and yours isn't.

"Most vegans are ignorant" is not the same as all are, so it's quite the assumption you are throwing around there. Do you know most vegans? Or is this just vegans you happen to have met? Anecdotal evidence?

(Man ya butchered that quote, I fixed it for ya though!)

So they dont live in any place or ride in a car made in the last decade or so? Hm interesting, and do you know exactly how many things have been tested on animals? Most modern science and medicine is based on animal testing so...your friend will have a short but apparently blissfully ignorant morally superior life!

And its strange, I looked back through the posts, I didnt see you ask or get answered as to what portion the post was referring to... If you could like me to that I would be happy to be informed!

And now for your viewing pleasure. A vegan xenomorph!

image

This community greatly disappoints me with the general attitude of insulting and mocking others of whom we simply disagree with. The issue isn't even a civil rights matter. If someone was here calling homosexuals idiots or unnatural all hell would break loose. But it's acceptable to condemn and laugh at other groups? I wasn't aware vegans has brutally murdered so many people's mothers.

randomrob:

Denamic:

Nature is far more cruel than humans ever were.

But Humans are still cruel. We may be less cruel to animals than nature is, but we are far crueller to them than we are to fellow humans.

Cruelty is an entirely human concept.

No Cow has ever died thinking 'Well, that bipedal thing with the bolt-gun was fucking mean to me!'

I hate to simplify what is, for me, quite a complex series of issues crossing Morals, Nature, Mans ability to overcome nature, the fact that man is the only truly sentient and intelligent animal in nature, and a whole host of other things, but what this whole thing really boils down to for me is:

The Cheetah does not care what the Springbok feels when it dies.

The fact that we even moderately consider the 'feelings' of our prey is an anomaly. One which I share in - I don't like unnecessary cruelty to animals, and as with most westerners, I value certain animals above others - I may disapprove of a farmer of Battery-cage hens, but I'd happily set fucking fire to a cunt who mistreats his dog. Even more so if it's an awesome dog like a Border Collie, Schaeferhund or a Husky.

Once again though, on a sheer intellectual, 'lets look at this through the cold eyes of logic' way of things - The fact that we herd and domesticate our prey does not change the fact that this is all it is - Prey. It's a commodity.

The Cheetah, will never, ever care what the Springbok feels when it dies. The Springbok will never, ever consider that it's a cruel world which put it in the same area as something that wants to (and has the capability) to chase it down and eat it. It certainly won't consider it's life to have been better than a Cow that lived it's entire life in a field, before getting a bolt through it's head.

Only humans can draw distinctions between the two. Ultimately they're the same thing.

We're just better at it than the Cheetah.

You could say the same thing about sports, religion or relationships. All of those things aren't really necessary, but people enjoy them anyway. I don't have a problem with what people choose to do as long as it does not effect me, and they don't try to rub it in my face.

Honestly, you can't tell someone their beliefs are wrong without sounding incredibly arrogant.

Stu35:

randomrob:

Denamic:

Nature is far more cruel than humans ever were.

But Humans are still cruel. We may be less cruel to animals than nature is, but we are far crueller to them than we are to fellow humans.

Cruelty is an entirely human concept.

No Cow has ever died thinking 'Well, that bipedal thing with the bolt-gun was fucking mean to me!'

I hate to simplify what is, for me, quite a complex series of issues crossing Morals, Nature, Mans ability to overcome nature, the fact that man is the only truly sentient and intelligent animal in nature, and a whole host of other things, but what this whole thing really boils down to for me is:

The Cheetah does not care what the Springbok feels when it dies.

The fact that we even moderately consider the 'feelings' of our prey is an anomaly. One which I share in - I don't like unnecessary cruelty to animals, and as with most westerners, I value certain animals above others - I may disapprove of a farmer of Battery-cage hens, but I'd happily set fucking fire to a cunt who mistreats his dog.

Once again though, on a sheer intellectual, 'lets look at this through the cold eyes of logic' way of things - The fact that we herd and domesticate our prey does not change the fact that this is all it is - Prey. It's a commodity.

The Cheetah, will never, ever care what the Springbok feels when it dies. The Springbok will never, ever consider that it's a cruel world which put it in the same area as something that wants to (and has the capability) to chase it down and eat it. It certainly won't consider it's life to have been better than a Cow that lived it's entire life in a field, before getting a bolt through it's head.

Only humans can draw distinctions between the two. Ultimately they're the same thing.

We're just better at it than the Cheetah.

Indeed.

Humans don't enslave animals because animals have no concept of slavery.

If this very second, every cow, sheep and pig were freed, you know what they would do?

The same thing they do everyday.

Secret world leader (shhh):
I think we're animals and we have a place on the food chain that must be adhered to, it's our duty as humans to keep the lower species in check.

Like we need to eat them to do that, these days.

Vegan_Doodler:
I completely disagree with the last line even if it is just semantics because nature isn't a thing that's going out of its way just to trip hikers down mountains.

Actually it is.
It's not 'going out of its way', as it's not conscious.
But gravity happens to be a pretty important part of nature.
Well, technically, nature is everything.
The universe is nature, and by extension, we are nature as much as any tree.
But I digress; let's pretend 'nature' is that greenish place with trees in it.

Genocide is an active thing, allowing something to die naturally is passive and there for no blame.

Inaction carries blame as well.
If you see someone drowning in a river, that in this scenario you can easily save, opting to not save that person is your decision.
Your decision is what killed that person; your role being passive or not is of little consequence.
If I decide to release my dogs in the middle of a forest, they'll die.
It being 'natural' doesn't detract from the fact that I'm responsible for it.

Apart from that I half agree with you and I though I was the only one that noticed that pets where esentialy highly evolved parasites, (that's right felix! get a job!) but I do have to say that my quwarle is with the fact that they are being kept in the first place, if they are supposed to be dead at this point then we should let them bow out with not stick around because their useful.

This stance that 'nature' is some sort of higher power that we have to obey is something that doesn't sit well with me.
Physical laws of nature I can abide by, mystical tree spirits, or whatever, deciding what species shall live or die, not so much.

FelixG:

Jammy2003:

Actually... Sorry mate but I know this person, and the amount of effort they go to educate themselves means they have cut out animal products, things tested on animals, clothing and.... pretty much anything it is possible to?
Also, I did the civil thing, and ASKED where it was directed. It was directed at the first half of the thread. So.... Mine is valid (Or at least correct) and yours isn't.

"Most vegans are ignorant" is not the same as all are, so it's quite the assumption you are throwing around there. Do you know most vegans? Or is this just vegans you happen to have met? Anecdotal evidence?

(Man ya butchered that quote, I fixed it for ya though!)

So they dont live in any place or ride in a car made in the last decade or so? Hm interesting, and do you know exactly how many things have been tested on animals? Most modern science and medicine is based on animal testing so...your friend will have a short but apparently blissfully ignorant morally superior life!

And its strange, I looked back through the posts, I didnt see you ask or get answered as to what portion the post was referring to... If you could like me to that I would be happy to be informed!

And now for your viewing pleasure. A vegan xenomorph!

image

(Yeah, I noticed once i posted it but i never got used to the system enough to know how to fix it)

I just want to ask, so its better to do NOTHING than to do what you can? You're right, most stuff recently is at least based on things that were tested on animals. But surely it's better to at least do the best you can isn't it?

Somethings in society are practically IMPOSSIBLE to avoid, some things aren't. As a matter of fact, she lives in a house substantially older than 10 years old, and doesn't own a car. But one day she might not, and that'll be a decision that'll be made then. The point is to make a CONSCIOUS decision.

And in regards to animal testing in medicine, its actually pretty ineffective if you look at the success crossover from animal trials to human trials. It's been suggested by professionals in the field that it has set back medical development a large number of years.

As to that, you can't see it, because they didn't post it to me. I go to uni with the person, and asked them outside of this forum. I can always get them to log on and confirm if you'd like?

Clearing the Eye:
This community greatly disappoints me with the general attitude of insulting and mocking others of whom we simply disagree with. The issue isn't even a civil rights matter. If someone was here calling homosexuals idiots or unnatural all hell would break loose. But it's acceptable to condemn and laugh at other groups? I wasn't aware vegans has brutally murdered so many people's mothers.

I seem to remember hearing about this kind of speech once, I think it was called level headed logic, I tip my hat to you sir.

Stu35:

randomrob:

Denamic:

Nature is far more cruel than humans ever were.

But Humans are still cruel. We may be less cruel to animals than nature is, but we are far crueller to them than we are to fellow humans.

Cruelty is an entirely human concept.

No Cow has ever died thinking 'Well, that bipedal thing with the bolt-gun was fucking mean to me!'

I hate to simplify what is, for me, quite a complex series of issues crossing Morals, Nature, Mans ability to overcome nature, the fact that man is the only truly sentient and intelligent animal in nature, and a whole host of other things, but what this whole thing really boils down to for me is:

The Cheetah does not care what the Springbok feels when it dies.

The fact that we even moderately consider the 'feelings' of our prey is an anomaly. One which I share in - I don't like unnecessary cruelty to animals, and as with most westerners, I value certain animals above others - I may disapprove of a farmer of Battery-cage hens, but I'd happily set fucking fire to a cunt who mistreats his dog.

Once again though, on a sheer intellectual, 'lets look at this through the cold eyes of logic' way of things - The fact that we herd and domesticate our prey does not change the fact that this is all it is - Prey. It's a commodity.

The Cheetah, will never, ever care what the Springbok feels when it dies. The Springbok will never, ever consider that it's a cruel world which put it in the same area as something that wants to (and has the capability) to chase it down and eat it. It certainly won't consider it's life to have been better than a Cow that lived it's entire life in a field, before getting a bolt through it's head.

Only humans can draw distinctions between the two. Ultimately they're the same thing.

We're just better at it than the Cheetah.

This pretty much sums up my own perspective, far better than I would have put it.

It won't end the argument as the whole vegan thing is like a pool of gasoline in a forest fire in the internet but it is by far the best way to express my own perspective.

Clearing the Eye:
This community greatly disappoints me with the general attitude of insulting and mocking others of whom we simply disagree with. The issue isn't even a civil rights matter. If someone was here calling homosexuals idiots or unnatural all hell would break loose. But it's acceptable to condemn and laugh at other groups? I wasn't aware vegans has brutally murdered so many people's mothers.

Agreed. Not wishing to generalise, since there are plenty of people on here who are perfectly reasonable, but there really is a tendency to judge other groups horribly. And the levels of generalisation that go on are ridiculous. It's particularly ironic given how we all feel about people doing the same to gamers as a group...

That said, there have been reasonable and unreasonable people on both sides of this particular argument. Don't let the vegans get off scot free.

Jammy2003:

(Yeah, I noticed once i posted it but i never got used to the system enough to know how to fix it)

I just want to ask, so its better to do NOTHING than to do what you can? You're right, most stuff recently is at least based on things that were tested on animals. But surely it's better to at least do the best you can isn't it?

Somethings in society are practically IMPOSSIBLE to avoid, some things aren't. As a matter of fact, she lives in a house substantially older than 10 years old, and doesn't own a car. But one day she might not, and that'll be a decision that'll be made then. The point is to make a CONSCIOUS decision.

And in regards to animal testing in medicine, its actually pretty ineffective if you look at the success crossover from animal trials to human trials. It's been suggested by professionals in the field that it has set back medical development a large number of years.

As to that, you can't see it, because they didn't post it to me. I go to uni with the person, and asked them outside of this forum. I can always get them to log on and confirm if you'd like?

(The quick and easy way to fix it is quote the person again, cut the new quote out of the reply box, click edit on your post then paste it over the damaged section. ^.^)

Exactly, thus people who say they use no animal products are hypocrites because they cannot help but do it. That is the problem with using absolutes, they tend to make an ass out of you.

http://discovermagazine.com/2001/aug/featcow

That article details how widespread the simple bovine has invaded every aspect of our lives.

According to the authors of the British inquiry, "it has been said, and not altogether facetiously, that the only industry in which some part of the cow is not used is concrete production." But if the concrete is loaded onto a truck with rubber tires and driven down a paved road, or if the production company's annual report is printed on glossy paper, or if the company office uses plywood in its construction, then cow parts are involved. The paper is probably coated with a gelatinous chemical ultimately derived from tallow. The tires and the pavement are manufactured, in part, with bovine fatty acids, and the plywood is bound together with adhesive made partly of cow blood.

That part particularly made me smile.

The point was, there have been things made within the last ten years that have been made to vegan standards, if you are dealing with things older than that (but not before WW2) then you are using animal products.

Though using animals for testing may set us back a bit, but a lot of procedures use drugs and medicines made from animal parts. Though sadly the CDC wont let people test straight away on human subjects, so the animals are the best we got. Could be an interesting use for some of the less useful members of society though! Imagine all those lifers in prisons put to good use! but I am getting off topic...

Ahh I see, no need to have that little ball of fury and anger come back, I will take your word for it! :P

EDIT: I is sad, no mention of the vegan xenomorph :(

Vegan_Doodler:

Clearing the Eye:
This community greatly disappoints me with the general attitude of insulting and mocking others of whom we simply disagree with. The issue isn't even a civil rights matter. If someone was here calling homosexuals idiots or unnatural all hell would break loose. But it's acceptable to condemn and laugh at other groups? I wasn't aware vegans has brutally murdered so many people's mothers.

I seem to remember hearing about this kind of speech once, I think it was called level headed logic, I tip my hat to you sir.

I know why some omnivores attack vegans but it's still rather pathetic; veganism infers they are cruel and in some ways inferior, so they feel the subconscious need to one-up the vegan and assert themselves as correct. This is why the general tone of their messages is conceit--what better way to look better than someone than make your opponent look foolish and silly. It's similar in some ways to how bullies with low self-esteem and a poor sense of self worth attack seemingly weaker peers to appear better.

If someone is professing their beliefs and being a preaching annoyance, yeah, feel free to tell them where to go. But to come into a thread and attack strangers and insult an entire belief unprovoked because you don't like it? Are we that immature and pathetic?

I look down on assholes more than I do someone with a belief I disagree with.

Denamic:

Vegan_Doodler:
I completely disagree with the last line even if it is just semantics because nature isn't a thing that's going out of its way just to trip hikers down mountains.

Actually it is.
It's not 'going out of its way', as it's not conscious.
But gravity happens to be a pretty important part of nature.
Well, technically, nature is everything.
The universe is nature, and by extension, we are nature as much as any tree.
But I digress; let's pretend 'nature' is that greenish place with trees in it.[/quote]

Genocide is an active thing, allowing something to die naturally is passive and there for no blame.

[/quote]Inaction carries blame as well.
If you see someone drowning in a river, that in this scenario you can easily save, opting to not save that person is your decision.
Your decision is what killed that person; your role being passive or not is of little consequence.
If I decide to release my dogs in the middle of a forest, they'll die.
It being 'natural' doesn't detract from the fact that I'm responsible for it.[/quote]
Well according to your above point it would be natures fault. I guess this is where we disagree, I do think there is a collective responsibly but to me it would be that person (or animal) who ultimately decided their fate. Want to live, great, now fight for it.

Apart from that I half agree with you and I though I was the only one that noticed that pets where esentialy highly evolved parasites, (that's right felix! get a job!) but I do have to say that my quwarle is with the fact that they are being kept in the first place, if they are supposed to be dead at this point then we should let them bow out with not stick around because their useful.

This stance that 'nature' is some sort of higher power that we have to obey is something that doesn't sit well with me.
Physical laws of nature I can abide by, mystical tree spirits, or whatever, deciding what species shall live or die, not so much.[/quote]

I didn't mean that nature is some sort of spirit, I'm pretty sure that my first sentence is evident of that. What I meant is the laws of nature, survival of the fittest, don't take the bears pick-a-nick basket.

Eamar:

Clearing the Eye:
This community greatly disappoints me with the general attitude of insulting and mocking others of whom we simply disagree with. The issue isn't even a civil rights matter. If someone was here calling homosexuals idiots or unnatural all hell would break loose. But it's acceptable to condemn and laugh at other groups? I wasn't aware vegans has brutally murdered so many people's mothers.

Agreed. Not wishing to generalise, since there are plenty of people on here who are perfectly reasonable, but there really is a tendency to judge other groups horribly. And the levels of generalisation that go on are ridiculous. It's particularly ironic given how we all feel about people doing the same to gamers as a group...

That said, there have been reasonable and unreasonable people on both sides of this particular argument. Don't let the vegans get off scot free.

Mmm. Both sides have their hooting blowhards. One just happens to have a larger base of subscribers, so it's harder to ignore the idiots, lol..

Vegan_Doodler:

FelixG:

Jessy_Fran:
Yeah, I hate vegans!!!

How dare they stand up for those who have no voice?
How dare they value thousands of innocent lives over their mere taste buds?
How dare they strive to make the world a better, more cruelty-free place for all?
How dare they challenge my blind, ignorant habits with logical thinking?
How dare they live a lifestyle of compassion and love?

Seriously guys, what a loads of idiots!!1!

And right on queue one of those ones that gives vegans a bad name.

Bravo!

Why? she's making a valid point, and I completely get the frustration, just look at this forum, the general consensus is that vegans are arrogant, snobby, hypocrites.

Sadly that's generally because they are, just look at Jessy Fran's post, she calls us meat-eaters "blind" and "ignorant" and implies we lack logical thinking, compassion and love. That sure she's like she think's above us to me.

Jessy_Fran:
Yeah, I hate vegans!!!

How dare they stand up for those who have no voice?
How dare they value thousands of innocent lives over their mere taste buds?
How dare they strive to make the world a better, more cruelty-free place for all?
How dare they challenge my blind, ignorant habits with logical thinking?
How dare they live a lifestyle of compassion and love?

Seriously guys, what a loads of idiots!!1!

Whilie i respect the opinion and choices of vegetarians/vegans...

Clearing the Eye:

Eamar:

Clearing the Eye:
This community greatly disappoints me with the general attitude of insulting and mocking others of whom we simply disagree with. The issue isn't even a civil rights matter. If someone was here calling homosexuals idiots or unnatural all hell would break loose. But it's acceptable to condemn and laugh at other groups? I wasn't aware vegans has brutally murdered so many people's mothers.

Agreed. Not wishing to generalise, since there are plenty of people on here who are perfectly reasonable, but there really is a tendency to judge other groups horribly. And the levels of generalisation that go on are ridiculous. It's particularly ironic given how we all feel about people doing the same to gamers as a group...

That said, there have been reasonable and unreasonable people on both sides of this particular argument. Don't let the vegans get off scot free.

Mmm. Both sides have their hooting blowhards. One just happens to have a larger base of subscribers, so it's harder to ignore the idiots, lol..

Oh that's definitely true, I was just pointing out that some of the vegans in this thread have been just as guilty of generalising and mocking people who don't agree with them as the meat-eaters.

It's an inherently human thing to dismiss people who don't agree with you, I guess. And to hate it when others do the same to you.

FelixG:

(The quick and easy way to fix it is quote the person again, cut the new quote out of the reply box, click edit on your post then paste it over the damaged section. ^.^)

Exactly, thus people who say they use no animal products are hypocrites because they cannot help but do it. That is the problem with using absolutes, they tend to make an ass out of you.

http://discovermagazine.com/2001/aug/featcow

That article details how widespread the simple bovine has invaded every aspect of our lives.

According to the authors of the British inquiry, "it has been said, and not altogether facetiously, that the only industry in which some part of the cow is not used is concrete production." But if the concrete is loaded onto a truck with rubber tires and driven down a paved road, or if the production company's annual report is printed on glossy paper, or if the company office uses plywood in its construction, then cow parts are involved. The paper is probably coated with a gelatinous chemical ultimately derived from tallow. The tires and the pavement are manufactured, in part, with bovine fatty acids, and the plywood is bound together with adhesive made partly of cow blood.

That part particularly made me smile.

The point was, there have been things made within the last ten years that have been made to vegan standards, if you are dealing with things older than that (but not before WW2) then you are using animal products.

Though using animals for testing may set us back a bit, but a lot of procedures use drugs and medicines made from animal parts. Though sadly the CDC wont let people test straight away on human subjects, so the animals are the best we got. Could be an interesting use for some of the less useful members of society though! Imagine all those lifers in prisons put to good use! but I am getting off topic...

Ahh I see, no need to have that little ball of fury and anger come back, I will take your word for it! :P

EDIT: I is sad, no mention of the vegan xenomorph :(

I get that, but aren't you basically arguing semantics at that point? The industry is not going to just die overnight, and the products could be produced by other means if we had the will to find a way.

Besides, if we are to look at the use of absolutes then I would say the anti-vegan crowd on here is doing a far greater job of generalising things on the whole. (A generalisation in itself I know ;)) We can only argue in generals though, not on a completely case by case basis though, as there are just too many people nowadays to do so.

So while, personally, I believe we have far too many people on this planet and a good cull could solve most of the worlds problems, that's another point entirely. (Though I feel from the prisoners point you may share some of those sentiments...)

The point I'm trying to make is, while talking in absolutes isn't nessicarily correct, isn't making a positive impact with your actions and not being completely correct in your assertions better than doing nothing, or worse having a negative impact by arguing against it, and being precise and correct? I always aim to leave things in the same or better state than I found them, and if more people lived by that it would be a better thing I feel.

(Vegan Xenomorph was pretty awesome actually :P Aubergine head and peppers in the chest, it's interesting!)

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked