- This topic has 17 voices and 64 replies.
-
Posts
-
wow, this thread got blown out of proportion a bit.By no means did I imply that I'd like to tell people how to live their lives. The idea was about the conversations/arguments with vegans and how to respond adequately, shutting their mouth in best-case scenario. (I don't really believe this is possible.) All this, having in mind, that most arguments vegans make are usually just plain stupid, as I already gave an example with the "vegans synthesize their own protein" comment.
wow, this thread got blown out of proportion a bit.By no means did I imply that I'd like to tell people how to live their lives. The idea was about the conversations/arguments with vegans and how to respond adequately, shutting their mouth in best-case scenario. (I don't really believe this is possible.) All this, having in mind, that most arguments vegans make are usually just plain stupid, as I already gave an example with the "vegans synthesize their own protein" comment.
For basically when THEY bring up the subject. I don't know anybody anyone else but I keep my diet and exercise to myself. But people bring it up.
From my experience it is the other way round. A good friend is vegan and as soon as people start to know he doesn't eat meat they either start throwing retarded arguments at him or they feel threatened and start making stupid excuses why they eat meat.(He doesn't give a shit about what other people eat)
I think there are douchebags in every dietary protocol. I think people need to realize that diet is inly one part of the equation when it comes to health/performance. AND no matter you do, you are gonna die someday like everyone else. Hell, someone who smokes, drinks, and eats like total shit may outlive you by 10 years.
And if I might add, vegans for the most case are vegans as an ideology- to not harm or kill other animals. I also dare say that if that is your primary concern-that veganism is a logical way to go about it.Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2
I agree. As long as they don't start trying to convince me with dietary arguments I have nothing against that. I just let them know that I have very little consideration for most human beings and animals rank even lower on my list of things I wish I protect.What I dislike about the meat industry is the quality of the meat is reduced because of all those questionable practices. I don't think this makes me one of those crazies who like torturing animals or something, but I also would have no issue snapping a chicken's neck with my bare hands to feed myself if I needed to.
And if I might add, vegans for the most case are vegans as an ideology- to not harm or kill other animals. I also dare say that if that is your primary concern-that veganism is a logical way to go about it.Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2
You are probably correct but ...If causing the least deaths was most important would it not make more sense to spend each year eating a grass fed cow? That would be one death.Hundreds of animals are killed (to feed one person) as a by product of agriculture such as rabbits, mice, insects and where I live - kangaroos. Not to mention the environmental damage mass agriculture has caused leading dwindling populations for many animals. This argument surely has some holes but avoiding death and harm is impossible - even if you grow your own plants which many vegans don't.
Most agriculture exists to feed the animals in the meat factories. And meat production extremely inefficient, so it's still a worse opinion.Americans tend to forget that, but there are over 7 billion humans living on this planet. There is no way all these people can eat grasfed meat.There are 2 options:- People from North America and Europe keep their high living standard and eat meat. Consequence: People in many other parts of the world suffer.- Many people are going vegan. (Not likely to happen)Be happy that you were born in a country where you have a choice. 😉
What I dislike about the meat industry is the quality of the meat is reduced because of all those questionable practices. I don't think this makes me one of those crazies who like torturing animals or something, but I also would have no issue snapping a chicken's neck with my bare hands to feed myself if I needed to.
Yea modern society has separated the person from how their food is produced. If you talk to anyone who raised livestock for a living they have a completely different attitude towards raising/slaughtering animals. While not the most pleasant experience, they realize killing for food is a means to an end. I don't think there would be as many "animal lovers" (by that I mean PETA types) if they grew up raising animals or hunted for their own food.
all true . excluding the “raising crops kills more animals than killing animals” argument. basic biology question: say you were on a desert island, and you had a ton of corn seeds and a cow. how would you survive the longest? feed the cow? get her bigger and get her milk? the answer is of course to eat all the seeds yourself. cows fuel much more than their biomass accumulation and milk production. for each corn calorie consumed by a cow, you get 0.1 calories from meat or milk. ( this is oc course a very rough estimate)Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2
all true . excluding the "raising crops kills more animals than killing animals" argument. basic biology question: say you were on a desert island, and you had a ton of corn seeds and a cow. how would you survive the longest? feed the cow? get her bigger and get her milk? the answer is of course to eat all the seeds yourself. cows fuel much more than their biomass accumulation and milk production. for each corn calorie consumed by a cow, you get 0.1 calories from meat or milk. ( this is oc course a very rough estimate)Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2
You're answering a separate question, there. Since access to food and survival are not pressing in modern society absent abnormal situations, the question is "which one is better form an ethical standpoint: the one that kills more lives, or the one that kills less?" Being stranded on a desert island is disanalogous.
all true . excluding the "raising crops kills more animals than killing animals" argument. basic biology question: say you were on a desert island, and you had a ton of corn seeds and a cow. how would you survive the longest? feed the cow? get her bigger and get her milk? the answer is of course to eat all the seeds yourself. cows fuel much more than their biomass accumulation and milk production. for each corn calorie consumed by a cow, you get 0.1 calories from meat or milk. ( this is oc course a very rough estimate)Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2
Your example is faulty because you are assuming all the energy in corn comes from a seed. That is not true, plants get most of their energy from sunlight.
my example might be not analogeous but is not wrong. saying that feeding animals grains and such, and then consuming them in the stead of grains is efficient as, or more than ,eating grains (energetically) is wrong. that is all i am saying. with this inefficiency comes a larger environmental impact, which causes more animals to die. I am just stating that for those of us that do eat meat (me included) using half logic to justify our meat consumption morally is just good ammo for those who go against it. If you think that killing animals for consumption is morally ok (as I do) , then this is where the moral argument ends.Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.