|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
pzebra
Joined: 12 May 2009
|
 Posted: Fri May 02, 2014 2:15 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Mix1 wrote: |
| pzebra wrote: |
| Mix1 wrote: |
| schwa wrote: |
| I wonder what percentage of pet rescuers are vegetarian, & if not where & why they draw the line between killing some animals & not others. |
Everyone draws lines in different places regarding what they are willing to do, and it's rarely that consistent. Therefore, anyone can feel sympathy and decide to rescue an animal regardless of what they ate that day.
It's not like someone sees a lost dog and says:
"Hmm, I should help that dog, but .... uh oh! I'm not vegetarian! I eat meat. Meat is from animals. I don't wanna be inconsistent in any way! I guess I shouldn't help that dog after all. Sorry Fido, good luck with your broken leg."
That's a bit too extremist for most, wouldn't you agree?
There's consistency... and there's just ridiculousness. |
Consistency is if you care enough about the abuse if household animals, you should think about the abuse of all animals go through for human taste and traditions.
Would it be better if you saved a dog and continue eating hundreds of animals a year instead of just eating hundreds of animals a year and letting a dog die? Marginally yes. Still the act of eating meat is evil whether one or a million. |
I was vegan for ten years, which is probably longer than you'll stick to it once you find a new issue to prattle on about.
Rescuing an animal and eating meat are separate issues. No reason to badger people about it and try to tell them they are being inconsistent. That kind of extreme attitude really turns people off from the whole vegetarian thing, doing the opposite of what you might hope to do. I'm all for people eating less meat if that's what they want to do, but I'm done with the extremist route.
Not to mention, your logic isn't even correct: It would be WORSE to save the dog because he'll be eating a lifetime worth of dog food made from OTHER ANIMALS. So if YOU want to be consistent, just say you are against saving animals in the first place. Hope you don't have any pets or you might have to put them down to be consistent.
You might want to stop paying taxes too, as your tax dollars go to subsidizing the factory farms that kill animals for meat.
Might want to stop driving too, as your tires have animal products in them, as do a heck of a lot of other products you might be using.
And you should think about all the animals that died to make the farm fields that were made to grow your veggies. Yup, the bunnies, mice, birds, moles, foxes, prairie dogs, etc. that got plowed to make your fields. Maybe free range, grass fed beef is the way to go if you want to reduce killing animals properly. |
You were vegan? You argument sounds very similar to ignorant meat eaters. I say ignorant because not every meat eater is. I don't give a damn about what you think I should do or how I should convey myself.
I'm just talking about saving an animal. As far as taking care of animals, I don't have any. If I did, I would give my cat or dog a vegan diet. Cats and dogs are natural hunters. If they need meat they can and would get it by themselves. Not from me.
And lastly, stop with the distraction and "See you're not perfect, so f that. I'll do much worse" bs argument. Everyday on this earth, as humans, we do the most harm of any species. You know if humans just died off this earth today, everything on earth would benefit. If just bees or ants died off, everything would die off. That's how insignificant and destructive we are as a species.
My point is we should do the most to do the least harm. Just to entertain your asinine points. A huge majority of agriculture is used for farm feed. If everyone in the world could eat a western diet, we would need 3-5 earths. According the recent UN report, the pollution from animal farming exceeds all transportation pollution COMBINED. Lastly, world hunger could end tomorrow with one small caveat, if everyone went vegan.
All your other points are ridiculous, unless you're willing to offer up the next "I won't drive anything with wheels cause it has animal product" event that we could both attend. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
schwa
Joined: 18 Jan 2003
Location: Yap
|
| Posted: Fri May 02, 2014 3:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
I was admitttedly just stirring the pot with my comment, which I still feel is worth raising. Animal huggers vs animal eaters, if you're both: give it a thought. Somebody had to kill that critter on your plate. Would you be willing to slice its throat & skin it?
Humane meat-packing? Doesnt happen, its a gross industry. If you seriously care about animals, you dont need to eat them.
I am not hardcore about this. If you want to enjoy your meat at the same dinner table as me, go for it. I have no issue with that. I am not an evangelistic vegetarian & I eat fish. I've found a personal comfort level.
But I still see a contradiction. People who proclaim to love animals but feel a need to chow down on them without second thought. I guess thats what I dont get. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
denverdeath
Joined: 21 May 2005
Location: Boo-sahn
|
| Posted: Fri May 02, 2014 5:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| schwa wrote: |
I was admitttedly just stirring the pot with my comment, which I still feel is worth raising. Animal huggers vs animal eaters, if you're both: give it a thought. Somebody had to kill that critter on your plate. Would you be willing to slice its throat & skin it?
Humane meat-packing? Doesnt happen, its a gross industry. If you seriously care about animals, you dont need to eat them.
I am not hardcore about this. If you want to enjoy your meat at the same dinner table as me, go for it. I have no issue with that. I am not an evangelistic vegetarian & I eat fish. I've found a personal comfort level.
But I still see a contradiction. People who proclaim to love animals but feel a need to chow down on them without second thought. I guess thats what I dont get. |
Yes, I probably would slice its throat if my family and I were hankering for some gogi. Not our pets, mind you. That's a bit of a difference too. Guess that's where the Koreans call the "edible" dogs as "sh1tdogs", you know? That's where the "culture" I mentioned earlier comes into play.
And, pzebra, although I kinda see you as a stubborn trainwreck, I agree with some of your sentiments. Regarding the cat thing, I raise indoor cats, so I think your argument there is a bit moot. I know, I know, you are gonna tell me I shouldn't keep em in captivity as they're not happy, and blah, blah, blah. I fetched these two kittens from a nearby parking lot. Their three siblings were run over by cars. I'm glad I rescued them. And, yes, I'll continue to eat fish, chicken and eggs, beef, pork, and some other things you may not like. So be it. I respect your decision to not eat animals. You don't have to respect mine, but that's your choice.
I will requote what you said earlier, "Still the act of eating meat is evil whether one or a million." So, yes, you did call me evil. So be it, St. Pzebra. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
drydell
Joined: 01 Oct 2009
|
| Posted: Fri May 02, 2014 7:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
What people like pzebra don't realise- yet- is their attitude and arguments will win over exactly zero people and will actually turn people off and therefore harm their own cause.. Take it from me as a 25 year strict vege ..
Just be a cool nice healthy fit person - preferably a bit inconsistent (leave consistency for the philosophy undergraduates and fundamentalists)- and you will see so many people become influenced by you and even follow your path if you are not trying to lecture them....
Vegetarians and critical omnivores who demand 'consistency' are as bad as each other... Screw that.. Just try and do what you are able to moving in the right direction.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pzebra
Joined: 12 May 2009
|
| Posted: Fri May 02, 2014 3:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| denverdeath wrote: |
| schwa wrote: |
I was admitttedly just stirring the pot with my comment, which I still feel is worth raising. Animal huggers vs animal eaters, if you're both: give it a thought. Somebody had to kill that critter on your plate. Would you be willing to slice its throat & skin it?
Humane meat-packing? Doesnt happen, its a gross industry. If you seriously care about animals, you dont need to eat them.
I am not hardcore about this. If you want to enjoy your meat at the same dinner table as me, go for it. I have no issue with that. I am not an evangelistic vegetarian & I eat fish. I've found a personal comfort level.
But I still see a contradiction. People who proclaim to love animals but feel a need to chow down on them without second thought. I guess thats what I dont get. |
Yes, I probably would slice its throat if my family and I were hankering for some gogi. Not our pets, mind you. That's a bit of a difference too. Guess that's where the Koreans call the "edible" dogs as "sh1tdogs", you know? That's where the "culture" I mentioned earlier comes into play.
And, pzebra, although I kinda see you as a stubborn trainwreck, I agree with some of your sentiments. Regarding the cat thing, I raise indoor cats, so I think your argument there is a bit moot. I know, I know, you are gonna tell me I shouldn't keep em in captivity as they're not happy, and blah, blah, blah. I fetched these two kittens from a nearby parking lot. Their three siblings were run over by cars. I'm glad I rescued them. And, yes, I'll continue to eat fish, chicken and eggs, beef, pork, and some other things you may not like. So be it. I respect your decision to not eat animals. You don't have to respect mine, but that's your choice.
I will requote what you said earlier, "Still the act of eating meat is evil whether one or a million." So, yes, you did call me evil. So be it, St. Pzebra. |
If you can't see the difference between doing an evil act and being evil, then that's too bad. I actually don't think that most meat eaters are evil, just blissfully ignorant to the facts. But whatever difference in vocabulary.
Though you may think cats are helpless and need your undivided attention, they actually aren't domesticated. They are natural killers. If you want to baby your cats, they're your responsibility. Let's hope they have someone to baby them their entire lives otherwise they're screw no?
I never said anyone must stop eating animals (dogs included ^_^). I was speaking to the facts and the inconsistency of protesting dog food while having a steak.
And drydell, you meant it won't win over you. I'm pretty sure there's a lot of projection going on here. People who say "turns people off, blah blah" are usually the ones in denial. They have an addict's mentality. Rational people become extremely irrational when speaking about eating meat and animal products. My words are for the open minded.
If anybody here want's to meet in person, I'll treat you guys to a vegan lunch. I'm sure we could understand each other better in person instead of this terrible medium. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tatertot
Joined: 21 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Fri May 02, 2014 9:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pzebra wrote: |
| denverdeath wrote: |
| schwa wrote: |
I was admitttedly just stirring the pot with my comment, which I still feel is worth raising. Animal huggers vs animal eaters, if you're both: give it a thought. Somebody had to kill that critter on your plate. Would you be willing to slice its throat & skin it?
Humane meat-packing? Doesnt happen, its a gross industry. If you seriously care about animals, you dont need to eat them.
I am not hardcore about this. If you want to enjoy your meat at the same dinner table as me, go for it. I have no issue with that. I am not an evangelistic vegetarian & I eat fish. I've found a personal comfort level.
But I still see a contradiction. People who proclaim to love animals but feel a need to chow down on them without second thought. I guess thats what I dont get. |
Yes, I probably would slice its throat if my family and I were hankering for some gogi. Not our pets, mind you. That's a bit of a difference too. Guess that's where the Koreans call the "edible" dogs as "sh1tdogs", you know? That's where the "culture" I mentioned earlier comes into play.
And, pzebra, although I kinda see you as a stubborn trainwreck, I agree with some of your sentiments. Regarding the cat thing, I raise indoor cats, so I think your argument there is a bit moot. I know, I know, you are gonna tell me I shouldn't keep em in captivity as they're not happy, and blah, blah, blah. I fetched these two kittens from a nearby parking lot. Their three siblings were run over by cars. I'm glad I rescued them. And, yes, I'll continue to eat fish, chicken and eggs, beef, pork, and some other things you may not like. So be it. I respect your decision to not eat animals. You don't have to respect mine, but that's your choice.
I will requote what you said earlier, "Still the act of eating meat is evil whether one or a million." So, yes, you did call me evil. So be it, St. Pzebra. |
If you can't see the difference between doing an evil act and being evil, then that's too bad. I actually don't think that most meat eaters are evil, just blissfully ignorant to the facts. But whatever difference in vocabulary.
Though you may think cats are helpless and need your undivided attention, they actually aren't domesticated. They are natural killers. If you want to baby your cats, they're your responsibility. Let's hope they have someone to baby them their entire lives otherwise they're screw no?
I never said anyone must stop eating animals (dogs included ^_^). I was speaking to the facts and the inconsistency of protesting dog food while having a steak.
And drydell, you meant it won't win over you. I'm pretty sure there's a lot of projection going on here. People who say "turns people off, blah blah" are usually the ones in denial. They have an addict's mentality. Rational people become extremely irrational when speaking about eating meat and animal products. My words are for the open minded.
If anybody here want's to meet in person, I'll treat you guys to a vegan lunch. I'm sure we could understand each other better in person instead of this terrible medium. |
While you claim to be speaking to the open-minded, you yourself are clearly not open-minded. Now, there's nothing wrong with that. It is okay to have beliefs, and feel strongly about them (thus, being closed-minded). However, neither you nor the people who oppose what you are saying are going to change anybody else's opinion on this matter.
Truly, Internet forums are just people talking at each other, not to each other. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pzebra
Joined: 12 May 2009
|
| Posted: Sat May 03, 2014 2:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| tatertot wrote: |
| pzebra wrote: |
| denverdeath wrote: |
| schwa wrote: |
I was admitttedly just stirring the pot with my comment, which I still feel is worth raising. Animal huggers vs animal eaters, if you're both: give it a thought. Somebody had to kill that critter on your plate. Would you be willing to slice its throat & skin it?
Humane meat-packing? Doesnt happen, its a gross industry. If you seriously care about animals, you dont need to eat them.
I am not hardcore about this. If you want to enjoy your meat at the same dinner table as me, go for it. I have no issue with that. I am not an evangelistic vegetarian & I eat fish. I've found a personal comfort level.
But I still see a contradiction. People who proclaim to love animals but feel a need to chow down on them without second thought. I guess thats what I dont get. |
Yes, I probably would slice its throat if my family and I were hankering for some gogi. Not our pets, mind you. That's a bit of a difference too. Guess that's where the Koreans call the "edible" dogs as "sh1tdogs", you know? That's where the "culture" I mentioned earlier comes into play.
And, pzebra, although I kinda see you as a stubborn trainwreck, I agree with some of your sentiments. Regarding the cat thing, I raise indoor cats, so I think your argument there is a bit moot. I know, I know, you are gonna tell me I shouldn't keep em in captivity as they're not happy, and blah, blah, blah. I fetched these two kittens from a nearby parking lot. Their three siblings were run over by cars. I'm glad I rescued them. And, yes, I'll continue to eat fish, chicken and eggs, beef, pork, and some other things you may not like. So be it. I respect your decision to not eat animals. You don't have to respect mine, but that's your choice.
I will requote what you said earlier, "Still the act of eating meat is evil whether one or a million." So, yes, you did call me evil. So be it, St. Pzebra. |
If you can't see the difference between doing an evil act and being evil, then that's too bad. I actually don't think that most meat eaters are evil, just blissfully ignorant to the facts. But whatever difference in vocabulary.
Though you may think cats are helpless and need your undivided attention, they actually aren't domesticated. They are natural killers. If you want to baby your cats, they're your responsibility. Let's hope they have someone to baby them their entire lives otherwise they're screw no?
I never said anyone must stop eating animals (dogs included ^_^). I was speaking to the facts and the inconsistency of protesting dog food while having a steak.
And drydell, you meant it won't win over you. I'm pretty sure there's a lot of projection going on here. People who say "turns people off, blah blah" are usually the ones in denial. They have an addict's mentality. Rational people become extremely irrational when speaking about eating meat and animal products. My words are for the open minded.
If anybody here want's to meet in person, I'll treat you guys to a vegan lunch. I'm sure we could understand each other better in person instead of this terrible medium. |
While you claim to be speaking to the open-minded, you yourself are clearly not open-minded. Now, there's nothing wrong with that. It is okay to have beliefs, and feel strongly about them (thus, being closed-minded). However, neither you nor the people who oppose what you are saying are going to change anybody else's opinion on this matter.
Truly, Internet forums are just people talking at each other, not to each other. |
Don't confuse being closed-minded with being logical and based on proven evidence. If you said the earth is flat and I said the earth is spherical, I will never be "open-minded" to the earth being flat unless you can prove to me with logic and proven evidence that it is.
My statements are rooted in those requirement. Since forums are not good for this debate, don't you want to have this talk over a delicious vegan lunch or dinner on my dime? This is a genuine honest offer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mix1
Joined: 08 May 2007
|
| Posted: Sat May 03, 2014 7:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pzebra wrote: |
| Mix1 wrote: |
| pzebra wrote: |
| Mix1 wrote: |
| schwa wrote: |
| I wonder what percentage of pet rescuers are vegetarian, & if not where & why they draw the line between killing some animals & not others. |
Everyone draws lines in different places regarding what they are willing to do, and it's rarely that consistent. Therefore, anyone can feel sympathy and decide to rescue an animal regardless of what they ate that day.
It's not like someone sees a lost dog and says:
"Hmm, I should help that dog, but .... uh oh! I'm not vegetarian! I eat meat. Meat is from animals. I don't wanna be inconsistent in any way! I guess I shouldn't help that dog after all. Sorry Fido, good luck with your broken leg."
That's a bit too extremist for most, wouldn't you agree?
There's consistency... and there's just ridiculousness. |
Consistency is if you care enough about the abuse if household animals, you should think about the abuse of all animals go through for human taste and traditions.
Would it be better if you saved a dog and continue eating hundreds of animals a year instead of just eating hundreds of animals a year and letting a dog die? Marginally yes. Still the act of eating meat is evil whether one or a million. |
I was vegan for ten years, which is probably longer than you'll stick to it once you find a new issue to prattle on about.
Rescuing an animal and eating meat are separate issues. No reason to badger people about it and try to tell them they are being inconsistent. That kind of extreme attitude really turns people off from the whole vegetarian thing, doing the opposite of what you might hope to do. I'm all for people eating less meat if that's what they want to do, but I'm done with the extremist route.
Not to mention, your logic isn't even correct: It would be WORSE to save the dog because he'll be eating a lifetime worth of dog food made from OTHER ANIMALS. So if YOU want to be consistent, just say you are against saving animals in the first place. Hope you don't have any pets or you might have to put them down to be consistent.
You might want to stop paying taxes too, as your tax dollars go to subsidizing the factory farms that kill animals for meat.
Might want to stop driving too, as your tires have animal products in them, as do a heck of a lot of other products you might be using.
And you should think about all the animals that died to make the farm fields that were made to grow your veggies. Yup, the bunnies, mice, birds, moles, foxes, prairie dogs, etc. that got plowed to make your fields. Maybe free range, grass fed beef is the way to go if you want to reduce killing animals properly. |
You were vegan? You argument sounds very similar to ignorant meat eaters. I say ignorant because not every meat eater is. I don't give a damn about what you think I should do or how I should convey myself.
I'm just talking about saving an animal. As far as taking care of animals, I don't have any. If I did, I would give my cat or dog a vegan diet. Cats and dogs are natural hunters. If they need meat they can and would get it by themselves. Not from me.
|
Yeah, it's probably best you don't own any animals.
Animals don't like angry people, plus you'd probably be a terrible owner. Wouldn't even feed them decent food and maybe you'd lecture them on their meat eating habits too.
"You want meat, Fido? Then go out into the streets and get it yourself! I'm not buying you decent food, because then I'd feel guilty about supporting factory farming, so deal with it!"
| Quote: |
And lastly, stop with the distraction and "See you're not perfect, so f that. I'll do much worse" bs argument. Everyday on this earth, as humans, we do the most harm of any species. You know if humans just died off this earth today, everything on earth would benefit. If just bees or ants died off, everything would die off. That's how insignificant and destructive we are as a species.
My point is we should do the most to do the least harm. Just to entertain your asinine points. A huge majority of agriculture is used for farm feed. If everyone in the world could eat a western diet, we would need 3-5 earths. According the recent UN report, the pollution from animal farming exceeds all transportation pollution COMBINED. Lastly, world hunger could end tomorrow with one small caveat, if everyone went vegan.
All your other points are ridiculous, unless you're willing to offer up the next "I won't drive anything with wheels cause it has animal product" event that we could both attend. |
 Grrrrr....
I know it makes you feel better to use words like "ridiculous", "ignorant" and "asinine" with people who don't eat the same thing you do or agree with you.
The militant vegan thing is more about judging others and making themselves feel superior than actually making the world a better place. I used to argue the same points you are spewing, while you were probably still eating McDonald's and KFC.
Let's see, you've read "Diet for a New America" and other vegan books, and now feel it's your duty to lecture everyone on how stupid they are and how much evil they are committing daily. You feel they don't go as far as you do on your spectrum so they are basically ignorant scum. You put yourself on a pedestal as behaving better than everyone else, and you know the best way to live for everyone.
You hate most of humanity who aren't in the vegan club, because they cause so much harm, yet speak of ending world hunger, which will lead to MORE people around, who will certainly be wanting to eat meat, because that's one of the main natural foods humans eat. So you'll be hating on them pretty quick too.
There are a LOT of enemies for you in this world, aren't there? Starting with non-vegan people who are trying to rescue animals. They're such ignorant hypocrites aren't they? Meanwhile, you drank soy milk instead of cow milk today! You're so much better than them! Congratulations!
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pzebra
Joined: 12 May 2009
|
| Posted: Sun May 04, 2014 12:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mix1 wrote: |
| pzebra wrote: |
| Mix1 wrote: |
| pzebra wrote: |
| Mix1 wrote: |
| schwa wrote: |
| I wonder what percentage of pet rescuers are vegetarian, & if not where & why they draw the line between killing some animals & not others. |
Everyone draws lines in different places regarding what they are willing to do, and it's rarely that consistent. Therefore, anyone can feel sympathy and decide to rescue an animal regardless of what they ate that day.
It's not like someone sees a lost dog and says:
"Hmm, I should help that dog, but .... uh oh! I'm not vegetarian! I eat meat. Meat is from animals. I don't wanna be inconsistent in any way! I guess I shouldn't help that dog after all. Sorry Fido, good luck with your broken leg."
That's a bit too extremist for most, wouldn't you agree?
There's consistency... and there's just ridiculousness. |
Consistency is if you care enough about the abuse if household animals, you should think about the abuse of all animals go through for human taste and traditions.
Would it be better if you saved a dog and continue eating hundreds of animals a year instead of just eating hundreds of animals a year and letting a dog die? Marginally yes. Still the act of eating meat is evil whether one or a million. |
I was vegan for ten years, which is probably longer than you'll stick to it once you find a new issue to prattle on about.
Rescuing an animal and eating meat are separate issues. No reason to badger people about it and try to tell them they are being inconsistent. That kind of extreme attitude really turns people off from the whole vegetarian thing, doing the opposite of what you might hope to do. I'm all for people eating less meat if that's what they want to do, but I'm done with the extremist route.
Not to mention, your logic isn't even correct: It would be WORSE to save the dog because he'll be eating a lifetime worth of dog food made from OTHER ANIMALS. So if YOU want to be consistent, just say you are against saving animals in the first place. Hope you don't have any pets or you might have to put them down to be consistent.
You might want to stop paying taxes too, as your tax dollars go to subsidizing the factory farms that kill animals for meat.
Might want to stop driving too, as your tires have animal products in them, as do a heck of a lot of other products you might be using.
And you should think about all the animals that died to make the farm fields that were made to grow your veggies. Yup, the bunnies, mice, birds, moles, foxes, prairie dogs, etc. that got plowed to make your fields. Maybe free range, grass fed beef is the way to go if you want to reduce killing animals properly. |
You were vegan? You argument sounds very similar to ignorant meat eaters. I say ignorant because not every meat eater is. I don't give a damn about what you think I should do or how I should convey myself.
I'm just talking about saving an animal. As far as taking care of animals, I don't have any. If I did, I would give my cat or dog a vegan diet. Cats and dogs are natural hunters. If they need meat they can and would get it by themselves. Not from me.
|
Yeah, it's probably best you don't own any animals.
Animals don't like angry people, plus you'd probably be a terrible owner. Wouldn't even feed them decent food and maybe you'd lecture them on their meat eating habits too.
"You want meat, Fido? Then go out into the streets and get it yourself! I'm not buying you decent food, because then I'd feel guilty about supporting factory farming, so deal with it!"
| Quote: |
And lastly, stop with the distraction and "See you're not perfect, so f that. I'll do much worse" bs argument. Everyday on this earth, as humans, we do the most harm of any species. You know if humans just died off this earth today, everything on earth would benefit. If just bees or ants died off, everything would die off. That's how insignificant and destructive we are as a species.
My point is we should do the most to do the least harm. Just to entertain your asinine points. A huge majority of agriculture is used for farm feed. If everyone in the world could eat a western diet, we would need 3-5 earths. According the recent UN report, the pollution from animal farming exceeds all transportation pollution COMBINED. Lastly, world hunger could end tomorrow with one small caveat, if everyone went vegan.
All your other points are ridiculous, unless you're willing to offer up the next "I won't drive anything with wheels cause it has animal product" event that we could both attend. |
Grrrrr....
I know it makes you feel better to use words like "ridiculous", "ignorant" and "asinine" with people who don't eat the same thing you do or agree with you.
The militant vegan thing is more about judging others and making themselves feel superior than actually making the world a better place. I used to argue the same points you are spewing, while you were probably still eating McDonald's and KFC.
Let's see, you've read "Diet for a New America" and other vegan books, and now feel it's your duty to lecture everyone on how stupid they are and how much evil they are committing daily. You feel they don't go as far as you do on your spectrum so they are basically ignorant scum. You put yourself on a pedestal as behaving better than everyone else, and you know the best way to live for everyone.
You hate most of humanity who aren't in the vegan club, because they cause so much harm, yet speak of ending world hunger, which will lead to MORE people around, who will certainly be wanting to eat meat, because that's one of the main natural foods humans eat. So you'll be hating on them pretty quick too.
There are a LOT of enemies for you in this world, aren't there? Starting with non-vegan people who are trying to rescue animals. They're such ignorant hypocrites aren't they? Meanwhile, you drank soy milk instead of cow milk today! You're so much better than them! Congratulations!
|
Man I guess we won't go out on my treat. Sorta was looking forward to it.
Yes I judge. All people judge. People judge murderers, rapists, pedofiles, alcoholic, etc and yes some vegans judge ignorant meat eaters (again not all are ignorant). You can't morally justify what you do and just continue with your "I do what I want" response.
Are you serious? You're AGAINST ending world hunger? I had so much hope that you weren't a troll. I'm truly disappointed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun May 04, 2014 1:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| schwa wrote: |
| I was admitttedly just stirring the pot with my comment, which I still feel is worth raising. Animal huggers vs animal eaters, if you're both: give it a thought. Somebody had to kill that critter on your plate. Would you be willing to slice its throat & skin it? |
It seems to me there is a fundamental problem with this approach. Most of us take advantage of municipal garbage disposal services, but we would not be willing to be garbage men. Many people take advantage of the services of a proctologist, but few would care to be a proctologist. The overwhelming majority of people who buy food at a restaurant would probably prefer not to work at a restaurant. The list goes on and on: if it's immoral to utilize any good or service which we personally would not care to produce ourselves, then it would seem everyone is a hypocrite. I don't think that's the case though.
| schwa wrote: |
| But I still see a contradiction. People who proclaim to love animals but feel a need to chow down on them without second thought. I guess thats what I dont get. |
Here's the thing: the alternative to meat consumption isn't peaceful coexistence, it's the near extinction of most domesticated species. Animals are not cheap to raise even in factory conditions; in more comfortable conditions, they become quite expensive. Humans will not pay for it without some kind of return benefit, at least not on any sizable scale. Which of the following three options is best for domesticated cows:
1) Factory farming ending in death and consumption.
2) Compassionate farming with a real effort made to care for the animal's interests for a reasonable period of time, eventually ending in death and consumption.
3) Nonexistence.
As I see it, it's option #2, while the logical conclusion of broadly-adopted veganism is option #3. I know that vegetarians and vegans are simply trying to do what they think is best, though, so I don't want to seem as if I'm mocking them; they've clearly at least given the issue some serious thought, and that's valuable. That said, extreme vegans -- and I'm not saying you are one, but they do exist -- seem to turn compassion into a vice; it stops truly being about the animal's well being and becomes instead about keeping one's own hands clean. You get organizations like PETA screaming about the immorality of honey consumption while simultaneously killing living, breathing dogs and cats so that they can afford to use their budget on advertising. It seems unreasonable to me.
I'm willing to pay more for meat if that money is used to raise the animals more humanely. I would be willing to support legislation which ensured domesticated animals a certain quality of life and required farms to be observed to see that those standards were met. I think that's genuinely the most compassionate option available to us, the option that best combines the interests of humans and the interests of domesticated animals into a harmonious whole.
All that said, the current state of animal farming does bother me. I've spent a lot of time thinking about it. I don't like how it's handled, but I also realize that my abstaining from eating meat will not make a single creature's life better, so such a lifestyle change would feel more like a vanity project than the pursuit of ethical excellence to me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mix1
Joined: 08 May 2007
|
| Posted: Sun May 04, 2014 6:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| pzebra wrote: |
| Mix1 wrote: |
| pzebra wrote: |
| Mix1 wrote: |
| pzebra wrote: |
| Mix1 wrote: |
| schwa wrote: |
| I wonder what percentage of pet rescuers are vegetarian, & if not where & why they draw the line between killing some animals & not others. |
Everyone draws lines in different places regarding what they are willing to do, and it's rarely that consistent. Therefore, anyone can feel sympathy and decide to rescue an animal regardless of what they ate that day.
It's not like someone sees a lost dog and says:
"Hmm, I should help that dog, but .... uh oh! I'm not vegetarian! I eat meat. Meat is from animals. I don't wanna be inconsistent in any way! I guess I shouldn't help that dog after all. Sorry Fido, good luck with your broken leg."
That's a bit too extremist for most, wouldn't you agree?
There's consistency... and there's just ridiculousness. |
Consistency is if you care enough about the abuse if household animals, you should think about the abuse of all animals go through for human taste and traditions.
Would it be better if you saved a dog and continue eating hundreds of animals a year instead of just eating hundreds of animals a year and letting a dog die? Marginally yes. Still the act of eating meat is evil whether one or a million. |
I was vegan for ten years, which is probably longer than you'll stick to it once you find a new issue to prattle on about.
Rescuing an animal and eating meat are separate issues. No reason to badger people about it and try to tell them they are being inconsistent. That kind of extreme attitude really turns people off from the whole vegetarian thing, doing the opposite of what you might hope to do. I'm all for people eating less meat if that's what they want to do, but I'm done with the extremist route.
Not to mention, your logic isn't even correct: It would be WORSE to save the dog because he'll be eating a lifetime worth of dog food made from OTHER ANIMALS. So if YOU want to be consistent, just say you are against saving animals in the first place. Hope you don't have any pets or you might have to put them down to be consistent.
You might want to stop paying taxes too, as your tax dollars go to subsidizing the factory farms that kill animals for meat.
Might want to stop driving too, as your tires have animal products in them, as do a heck of a lot of other products you might be using.
And you should think about all the animals that died to make the farm fields that were made to grow your veggies. Yup, the bunnies, mice, birds, moles, foxes, prairie dogs, etc. that got plowed to make your fields. Maybe free range, grass fed beef is the way to go if you want to reduce killing animals properly. |
You were vegan? You argument sounds very similar to ignorant meat eaters. I say ignorant because not every meat eater is. I don't give a damn about what you think I should do or how I should convey myself.
I'm just talking about saving an animal. As far as taking care of animals, I don't have any. If I did, I would give my cat or dog a vegan diet. Cats and dogs are natural hunters. If they need meat they can and would get it by themselves. Not from me.
|
Yeah, it's probably best you don't own any animals.
Animals don't like angry people, plus you'd probably be a terrible owner. Wouldn't even feed them decent food and maybe you'd lecture them on their meat eating habits too.
"You want meat, Fido? Then go out into the streets and get it yourself! I'm not buying you decent food, because then I'd feel guilty about supporting factory farming, so deal with it!"
| Quote: |
And lastly, stop with the distraction and "See you're not perfect, so f that. I'll do much worse" bs argument. Everyday on this earth, as humans, we do the most harm of any species. You know if humans just died off this earth today, everything on earth would benefit. If just bees or ants died off, everything would die off. That's how insignificant and destructive we are as a species.
My point is we should do the most to do the least harm. Just to entertain your asinine points. A huge majority of agriculture is used for farm feed. If everyone in the world could eat a western diet, we would need 3-5 earths. According the recent UN report, the pollution from animal farming exceeds all transportation pollution COMBINED. Lastly, world hunger could end tomorrow with one small caveat, if everyone went vegan.
All your other points are ridiculous, unless you're willing to offer up the next "I won't drive anything with wheels cause it has animal product" event that we could both attend. |
Grrrrr....
I know it makes you feel better to use words like "ridiculous", "ignorant" and "asinine" with people who don't eat the same thing you do or agree with you.
The militant vegan thing is more about judging others and making themselves feel superior than actually making the world a better place. I used to argue the same points you are spewing, while you were probably still eating McDonald's and KFC.
Let's see, you've read "Diet for a New America" and other vegan books, and now feel it's your duty to lecture everyone on how stupid they are and how much evil they are committing daily. You feel they don't go as far as you do on your spectrum so they are basically ignorant scum. You put yourself on a pedestal as behaving better than everyone else, and you know the best way to live for everyone.
You hate most of humanity who aren't in the vegan club, because they cause so much harm, yet speak of ending world hunger, which will lead to MORE people around, who will certainly be wanting to eat meat, because that's one of the main natural foods humans eat. So you'll be hating on them pretty quick too.
There are a LOT of enemies for you in this world, aren't there? Starting with non-vegan people who are trying to rescue animals. They're such ignorant hypocrites aren't they? Meanwhile, you drank soy milk instead of cow milk today! You're so much better than them! Congratulations!
|
Man I guess we won't go out on my treat. Sorta was looking forward to it.
Yes I judge. All people judge. People judge murderers, rapists, pedofiles, alcoholic, etc and yes some vegans judge ignorant meat eaters (again not all are ignorant). You can't morally justify what you do and just continue with your "I do what I want" response.
Are you serious? You're AGAINST ending world hunger? I had so much hope that you weren't a troll. I'm truly disappointed. |
Oops, good try. I never took any stance on that. Learn to read better.
Maybe you need more protein to help stabilize your brain and mood.
Yes, everyone judges. So let's put you on the stand now since you started it.
Other than spit and snarl and call others "ignorant", can you morally justify everything you do? You've put yourself on a pedestal of being better than others by way of what you don't eat. Yay, nobody really gives a toss.
Also, per the "I do what I want" response, I never went into detail about what I eat or don't eat, but in any case I don't really care too much what an angry extremist thinks of my lifestyle, even if they knew what my lifestyle was. Interesting how someone can be vegan for 10 years and still receive plenty of hate/scorn from someone still in the vegan club. Disgusting.
Don't worry, the extremism wears off and you'll be back to Big Macs soon enough and have to find a new issue to help you take your anger out on people.
I think my main point is that it's ridiculous calling meat eating "evil" and even more ridiculous for lambasting non-vegans who help animals. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
geldedgoat
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun May 04, 2014 1:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Most of us take advantage of municipal garbage disposal services, but we would not be willing to be garbage men. Many people take advantage of the services of a proctologist, but few would care to be a proctologist. The overwhelming majority of people who buy food at a restaurant would probably prefer not to work at a restaurant. The list goes on and on: if it's immoral to utilize any good or service which we personally would not care to produce ourselves, then it would seem everyone is a hypocrite. |
I believe the idea is that the process of raising beef cattle and other animals for slaughter would seem morally distasteful, not simply unpleasant or inconvenient. Besides, for the examples you've given, most people already perform small-scale analogues: dumping trash into a receptacle and transporting it to another location (carrying trash to the curb) and preparing and serving food (cooking for family). Proctology's a bit trickier being a profession that requires medical training, but I believe most parents would be willing to wipe their own babies' butts and and administer an enema. What would be a scaled-down version of the cattle industry that could reasonably compare to ramming cattle with trucks and shocking them with a cattle prod to corral them, castrating bull calves without anesthesia or antiseptic, notching ears or branding without anesthesia, and shipping them long distances in cramped quarters without protection from either the elements or each other? And then there's the process of the actual slaughter itself. Fishing and gutting the catch might be similar were it not for the differences in the nervous systems of the animals that prevent the fish from experiencing any pain (that, and the rest of the popular method of the long, drawn-out, torturous process of raising beef cattle).
| Quote: |
| Here's the thing: the alternative to meat consumption isn't peaceful coexistence, it's the near extinction of most domesticated species. |
This is simply untrue. I work with several people who raise a variety of chickens for their eggs and as pets, and care for them until they die of natural causes or until putting them down seems the only humane option. We've had several people come into our vet clinic who keep swine as pets, from little pot-bellied pigs to animals that could double as the next Arkansas Razorbacks mascot. As for cattle, well there's the entire country of India, not to mention a fair number of dairy farms here in the US that avoid methods that favor efficiency over concern for the animal and don't slaughter their herd at a certain age.
These situations obviously wouldn't appease the more extreme vegans, but they're a silly lot anyway. Honey bees as slave laborers? I don't know how they manage to reconcile such an outlook with vegetable farming that relies on them and other animals as pollinators.
| Quote: |
| I don't like how it's handled, but I also realize that my abstaining from eating meat will not make a single creature's life better, so such a lifestyle change would feel more like a vanity project than the pursuit of ethical excellence to me. |
Entire industries have changed as a direct result of the growing number of vegetarians and vegans, from vegetarian-themed restaurants to places like Whole Foods (yes, they cater to more than just vegetarians and vegans, but their stock is largely geared to these types) to, like I referenced before, dairy farms that have converted themselves to more humane outfits. Individuals refusing to support factory farms clearly has had an impact, and the innovation in vegetarian- and vegan-friendly alternatives is making conversion to the lifestyle even easier, which will incentivize even further expansions.
And that's without addressing the broader problem of "I'm just a drop in the ocean." Do you think voting to be a vanity project as well?
| Mix1 wrote: |
| Maybe free range, grass fed beef is the way to go if you want to reduce killing animals properly. |
Most vegetarians and vegans I've met set a similar metric for themselves, that of reducing animal death, and it's always baffled me. Why focus on the deaths? And of just animals? No diet that encourages real health, not even that of the ridiculous fruititarians, avoids death to any significant degree. Vegetarians kill plants and fruititarianism adopted on a mass scale would necessitate the death of billions of humans. Reducing suffering, though, seems a much more reasonable goal. That allows us to avoid harm to those things which can experience pain and distress, like birds and mammals, and instead rely on those that cannot, such as plants, most invertebrates, and fish. Also humanely kept dairy cows and egg-laying chickens. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun May 04, 2014 3:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| Fishing and gutting the catch might be similar were it not for the differences in the nervous systems of the animals that prevent the fish from experiencing any pain (that, and the rest of the popular method of the long, drawn-out, torturous process of raising beef cattle). |
This suggests fish can feel pain. I've gutted a fish and cooked it for myself. I imagine a lot of us have. I was under the impression that it felt pain at the time, regardless of what the truth of the matter might actually be. Perhaps that's why I don't see the clear line here. I also think that to the extent that many people would not be comfortable gutting their own fish or butchering their own animals, it has more to do with urbanized life and lack of exposure than any genuinely moral thought.
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Here's the thing: the alternative to meat consumption isn't peaceful coexistence, it's the near extinction of most domesticated species. |
This is simply untrue. I work with several people who raise a variety of chickens for their eggs ... |
Strict vegans can't eat eggs though, and while a vegetarian can, they are no more able than a meat eater to promote good conditions for the chickens. But in maximal fairness, yes, I suppose I should have either said "the alternative to consuming animal products" instead of "the alternative to meat eating" in that sentence. Some animals are useful independent of direct consumption. What one is going to do with all the bulls and roosters that are born alongside the milk cows and hens is another question.
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| ... and as pets, and care for them until they die of natural causes or until putting them down seems the only humane option. |
I did say near extinction, mind you. Most people are not going to raise chickens for fun, to say nothing of cows.
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| As for cattle, well there's the entire country of India, not to mention a fair number of dairy farms here in the US that avoid methods that favor efficiency over concern for the animal and don't slaughter their herd at a certain age. |
But meat and animal products are still consumed in India. I'm not arguing in favor of factory farming here, simply in favor of the consumption of meat and animal products. I thought I made that reasonably clear at the end of my post. I did outright say, "I'm willing to pay more for meat if that money is used to raise the animals more humanely. I would be willing to support legislation which ensured domesticated animals a certain quality of life and required farms to be observed to see that those standards were met. I think that's genuinely the most compassionate option available to us, the option that best combines the interests of humans and the interests of domesticated animals into a harmonious whole."
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| Quote: |
| I don't like how it's handled, but I also realize that my abstaining from eating meat will not make a single creature's life better, so such a lifestyle change would feel more like a vanity project than the pursuit of ethical excellence to me. |
Entire industries have changed as a direct result of the growing number of vegetarians and vegans, from vegetarian-themed restaurants to places like Whole Foods (yes, they cater to more than just vegetarians and vegans, but their stock is largely geared to these types) to, like I referenced before, dairy farms that have converted themselves to more humane outfits. Individuals refusing to support factory farms clearly has had an impact, and the innovation in vegetarian- and vegan-friendly alternatives is making conversion to the lifestyle even easier, which will incentivize even further expansions. |
"Refusing to support factory farms," can have an impact, but that's not the same as, "Abstaining from eating meat." "Vegetarian and vegan friendly alternatives" do not lead to more humane conditions for beef cows, because vegetarians and vegans do not eat beef cows. Likewise, vegan buying preferences do not lead to better conditions for any animal, because they do not buy animal products. Widespread veganism = no animal products = far fewer domestic animals of the type whose lives were previously predicated upon providing those animal products seems like a very logical chain to me. Dairy farms reform in response to the demands of milk consumers. Egg outfits reform in response to the demands of egg consumers. Meat outfits reform in response to the demands of meat consumers. If you just outright stop consuming one of those things (meat in the case of vegetarians, all of them in the case of vegans), your buying practices aren't responsible for such industries transitioning into more compassionate methods. You might be responsible for a tiny number of otherwise existing animals not being born due to less demand, but that brings us back to my argument that veganism leads to result #3 rather than #2. Vegetarians who still consume milk, egg, and so forth are still positioned to have a beneficial effect on milk cows and chickens with their buying practices, though, so that's a fair enough point. It was only extreme veganism which I suggested took compassion to the level of a vice.
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| And that's without addressing the broader problem of "I'm just a drop in the ocean." Do you think voting to be a vanity project as well? |
It can be to some extent, especially in a system like that of the United States. But let's not derail the thread with that argument.
Last edited by Fox on Sun May 04, 2014 4:36 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
geldedgoat
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun May 04, 2014 4:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| This suggests fish can feel pain. I've gutted a fish and cooked it for myself. I imagine a lot of us have. I was under the impression that it felt pain at the time, regardless of what the truth of the matter might actually be. Perhaps that's why I don't see the clear line here. I also think that to the extent that many people would not be comfortable gutting their own fish or butchering their own animals, it has more to do with urbanized life and lack of exposure than any genuinely moral thought. |
Fish cannot experience mechanical or thermal pain much less process any pain as suffering, as further investigation of that and other research would show you. Unless this is critical to your argument (and it appears that it isn't), I suggest we avoid throwing links at one another.
I said the situation might be similar in what I thought was an obviously dishonest jest, given my parenthetical comment at the end. Do we really need to compare the moral disturbances elicited between watching a cow bleat and bleed to death as it struggles to stand and watching a fish silently flop about, something it essentially does its entire life?
| Quote: |
| Strict vegans can't eat [...] |
I noticed you repeat this line of reasoning a few times. Why, when discussing the issue of eating meat, should we bother parsing the differences between a vegan, a vegetarian, or another other non-meat-eating-arian so long as they all abstain from eating meat? There's an entire spectrum of diets based on some kind of moral objection to eating meat, and it would seem more than reasonable to treat them all as one group of non-meat-eaters for the purposes of this discussion.
Also, in my responses to both you and Mix1, you can probably guess my opinion of the logical consistency of many vegan positions. Mock away at the "milk is rape" crowd, and I'll happily join in.
| Quote: |
| I did say near extinction, mind you. |
In your list of what I believe to be false choices, you said 'nonexistence,' and your near extinction comments are a clear implication of impending complete extinction. Seeing as how dairy cows and chickens will always have a practical use in addition to however many will adopt the role of pet, extinction isn't very plausible. As for pigs, if an animal as hideous as the pug can not only survive but inspire other monstrous crosses like the puggle, I don't think we have to worry about swine genes disappearing either (pet pigs are actually a regular commodity at farmer flea markets). Fewer of all of these, yes, but extinction is not a genuine concern to be thrown against renouncing meat.
| Quote: |
| But meat and animal products are still consumed in India. |
Your argument was that domesticated cows would face nonexistence if not consumed for meat, making India the perfect counterexample, no?
| Quote: |
| Dairy farms reform in response to the demands of milk consumers. Egg outfits reform in response to the demands of egg consumers. Meat outfits reform in response to the demands of meat consumers. |
Producers respond to the demands of consumers. If a large enough group of consumers cease to eat meat, this will have (and has had) an impact on meat producers, in the form of more humane reforms to prevent the loss of more customers (as per my Whole Foods example, see their meat grading scale), rising prices that encourage other meat eaters to indulge themselves less, or complete production shifts because of increased demand for other products, such as the conversion of a cattleman from beef to dairy (something I've personally seen here). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun May 04, 2014 5:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| geldedgoat wrote: |
Fish cannot experience mechanical or thermal pain much less process any pain as suffering, as further investigation of that and other research would show you. Unless this is critical to your argument (and it appears that it isn't), I suggest we avoid throwing links at one another. |
Well, I simply don't know the answer. I'm happy to put it aside.
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Strict vegans can't eat [...] |
I noticed you repeat this line of reasoning a few times. Why, when discussing the issue of eating meat, should we bother parsing the differences between a vegan, a vegetarian, or another other non-meat-eating-arian so long as they all abstain from eating meat? |
I think there is value in parsing between vegans and vegetarians for a reason you yourself brought up: one can consume other animal products, the other cannot. A vegetarian can still be a purchaser of eggs, milk, and the like, and their ethical buying decisions in that regard can incentivize industrial change. A vegan simply abstaining from those purchases means the industry will simply disregard them. In other words, I'm trying to be open-minded to the pro-vegetarian position by allowing for the distinction.
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| Quote: |
| I did say near extinction, mind you. |
In your list of what I believe to be false choices, you said 'nonexistence,' |
When I said, "nonexistence," I had in mind the nonexistence of each animal which would never be born due to lower demand. I can see now why you'd say that would be a false choice for certain female animals (or perhaps female and male sheep) and it's a fair point; I was too focused on the vegan extreme when I said it. But what of male cows and chickens? I don't blame you for missing that since I edited it evidently while you were posting, but male cows cannot produce milk, male chickens lay no eggs, and only a few of either are needed for breeding. What are we to do with them if they are not consumed? I guess you could add "#4: all bulls and roosters become pets," but that seems impossible to me from a practical perspective. In the past male cows were at least useful for labor.
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| ... and your near extinction comments are a clear implication of impending complete extinction. Seeing as how dairy cows and chickens will always have a practical use in addition to however many will adopt the role of pet, extinction isn't very plausible. |
Will always have a practical use to consumers of milk or eggs, which brings us back again to the distinction and why I think it's an important one.
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| As for pigs, if an animal as hideous as the pug can not only survive but inspire other monstrous crosses like the puggle, I don't think we have to worry about swine genes disappearing either (pet pigs are actually a regular commodity at farmer flea markets). Fewer of all of these, yes, but extinction is not a genuine concern to be thrown against renouncing meat. |
I think domestic pigs would fare extremely poorly. Pot-bellied pigs are passable pets, but huge hungry sows? I really don't think many would make the cut.
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| But meat and animal products are still consumed in India. |
Your argument was that domesticated cows would face nonexistence if not consumed for meat, making India the perfect counterexample, no? |
India produced 3.643 million metric tons of beef in 2012, of which 1.963 million metric tons was consumed domestically and 1.680 million metric tons was exported. India ranks 5th in the world in beef production, 7th in domestic consumption and 1st in exporting.[7] Most of the exported beef is buffalo meat.[6] Since buffalo meat is not consumed to the extent to which it has the potential, it is surplus for export unlike goat, sheep or poultry meat, which is consumed by all Indian non-vegetarians.[8] Most beef sourced within India is likely to be from an animal that is a dozen or even 15 years old, compared to three to four years or younger in the United States. However, some beef suppliers in India secretly sell slightly younger stock.[9]
It seems to me that many, many Indian cows are consumed for meat. Historically Indians have often kept around cows that they would not necessarily consume, but those cows filled other useful roles (milk for females, labor for males), so that makes sense enough, just as I've assented to your point about the current usefulness of milk cows, so long as we're willing to consume the milk. Unfortunately though male cow labor is of little and decreasing value today in our society.
I see India as proof that a more humane animal-farming industry is possible. Even they struggle with it though, despite having not just ethical concerns but religion and tradition on their side.
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| Dairy farms reform in response to the demands of milk consumers. Egg outfits reform in response to the demands of egg consumers. Meat outfits reform in response to the demands of meat consumers. |
Producers respond to the demands of consumers. If a large enough group of consumers cease to eat meat, this will have (and has had) an impact on meat producers, in the form of more humane reforms to prevent the loss of more customers (as per my Whole Foods example, see their meat grading scale), rising prices that encourage other meat eaters to indulge themselves less, or complete production shifts because of increased demand for other products, such as the conversion of a cattleman from beef to dairy (something I've personally seen here). |
A vegetarian might be able to incentivize the transition of a farmer from beef to dairy, but a strict vegan will incentivize him to transition from dairy to what, corn? And "rising prices which encourage other meat eaters to indulge themselves less," doesn't mean better conditions for animals, it means fewer animals (a point I've been trying to make), and in fact, those higher prices mean that paying even more in order to see that those fewer animals live well will be a greater burden, which is not the best way to incentivize it. But serious question: what does that dairy farmer do with male cows? Of course a few for breeding are useful, but the rest? And when dairy cows get old, does he sell them to be slaughtered? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
