HOME | DD
poderiu — WTF
Published: 2011-01-07 02:31:21 +0000 UTC; Views: 1164; Favourites: 15; Downloads: 16
Redirect to original
Description
CREDITS FOR THE UNKNOWN AUTHORRelated content
Comments: 99
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Whoever made this is really smart. I really want to know...
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
This Piece of Art said more than thousand words to me ( I am Vegan ) and i am sure it would be make thousand of People Vegan if it was a Campagne or a fund-raising! I don't know why but it would make me Vegan if i had seen it before, i swear so!
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
Yes, it´s a great image, very eficient. Have no idea who is the author. Agree with you, it would be a good image on a vegan campaign.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It would be great to know the author, then i would thank and gratulating him for this piece! It's the best Anti-Milk Picture i've seen yet...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
unfortunetelly, I have no idea who is the author. Sure it is a great piece!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I agree actually but you're gonna have to come up with an argument for why it's feminist before I can accept it
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Patriarchal notions of virility, masculinity, manhood are associated to meat eating. Animals are, like the eco-feminist Carol J Adams refers, "absent referents", so it happens that imagery proliferation of animals that intend to encourage animals eating do have some characteristics: it just happens that animals are feminized and sexualized and women are animalized and usually is potrayed in advertising as someone who serves the meat (household tasks) to men. Just like women, animals are also objectified and their cultural miss-representations enables their opression because meat eaters to see the as food, not as living sentient animals. So, in one hand they are potrayed with false representations, on the other hand meat industry hides the suffering (i.e. female animals exits as sexual slaves, cows produce milk 3x then the biologicaly can, chickens in battery cages, etc.)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
personally I agree, and I am a vegan. But I'm not sure how convicing this is as an argument for accepting this, I reckon most people in the group will be really confused by it. If you put something like this in the actual artist's comments I may accept it
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
We have 2 things in commun: both are vegans and feminists.
I do not want to convince you in to put this specific image in DA Feminists group. If you do not want to, just don´t put it. If the other members get confused they can expose me their questions and I will answer them, for sure. But the thing you do must recognize is that gender descrimination and species descrimination are a reality. I do know that many feminists do not recognize ecofeminist reivindications but it is time the wide feminism(s) accept them, for a better world.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
of course I recognise it's a reality, it's just that the relationship between them to me is pretty tenuous and for others is gonna take a lot of explanation.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I leave you a link of a very bright ecofeminist, her name is Carol J.Adams, she is the author of the book "The Sexual Politics of Meat and The Pornography of Meat" - "drew fame in feminist-vegan-theory circles when she linked “species” oppression to gender oppression. She argues that the objectification of women and animals follow similar patterns: both the fairer sex and the four-legged set are sexualized, dehumanized and finally abused". It´s a good author and maybe your group could know her.
[link]
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
cheers I've been meaning to read that for a while.
I just want to point out that I agree with you and I think there is a link, I just don't think that link was explained by your deviation, this is why I did not choose to accept it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
The milk that causes problems, like the ones you have listed, are caused from the CHEMICALS people have put into it.
Homogenized milk is terrible for you. But raw milk has benefits. There is an enormous difference between the two.
I think maybe you should also do some research.
Like I said, I'm not saying that you are wrong in your way of life. I'm just telling you that there are many ways around things that I think you should really look into.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I am speaking about the milk massively produced, the pasteurized. And the chemicals are addicted by the people, for sure, that work in the big industries, not by the consumers.
Raw milk? It has some benifits, yes, for the people who are not alergic to lactose. Even for people who are not alergic to milk it presents some problems: raw milk is frequently contaminated with salmonellae, it has bacteria and viruses that are antibiotic resistant. There is a interisting study here: [link]
One can get the benefits you talk about in vegetables.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Of course it is correct that most people should NOT consume milk, don't flat out remove it from your diet unless you know for a fact it does cause problems for you.
I for one, cannot drink pasteurized milk, but I can drink raw milk.
Hell because of the chemicals in milk I can't even eat and enjoy ice cream to the extent that even frozen yogurt causes me problems occasionally.
But there is something about raw milk that can be useful.
I gotta say, there is so much fear in bacteria that people try to clean themselves out with antibiotics and the like when, if we eat the right things, our immune systems build and we can fight off those things without medicine.
So if you are eating correctly, salmonella should not affect you.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Actually raw milk is really good for you.
Besides if a dairy cow doesn't have a calf to drink the milk then someone needs to release the milk from the utter. Otherwise the poor cow becomes so bloated that it can't move. Those utters can hold a lot of milk...but it's not exactly comfortable for the cow.
I think as long as you get raw milk from a place where you can see how the cows are treated you should be fine.
Just don't buy factory products
Don't get me wrong, I don't see anything wrong with how you view the world. I just want you to be careful not to get too wrapped up in what media tells you.
Good luck
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
the only problem with that theory is that cows will not produce milk unless they have a calf. so dairy cows are impregnated, and then the calves are separated from their mothers.
i agree we should take responsibility for where our milk [or meat, etc] comes from.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Not at all farms though.
In fact there is a dairy farm a couple hours away from where I live where my family gets their cheese and milk. The calves are not separated, but the cows are producing extra milk.
You can watch the people milking the cows once a day. They keep everything very sanitary and the cows are extremely healthy.
It's a very happy environment.
We also buy local meat. It's nice to know that the meat we get was from one healthy cow/pig/chicken and not 1,000 unhealthy animals from a dirty, unkempt factory.
We also have our own chickens for eggs
See, what I don't support are the business men. The business men who keep animals locked up in small places for the entirety of their lives instead of letting them roam in an adequate space. The animals that are abused and slaughtered in ways that would be considered torture for a human.
It's disgusting. I think as long as the animal is kept happy while it lives, and is killed in a humane fashion (when it needs to be killed)...then it's a lot better.
It's places like those factories that causes a lot of problems. And the sad thing is, the government really doesn't do much about it
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I do not base my oponions in media. In fact if we are honest about it, the media supports animal consumption products like milk, doesn´t support ethical points of view. Why? because media serves corporation interests, and corporations that uses animals are very powerful, as you may know.
Raw milk isn´t necessarily good, in fact proves to raise health problems and you can see on the internet many testimonies of people who had problems provoked by raw milk. There is a intense and interesting study here by someone who is not vegan: [link]
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Media serves only itself.
If a story can be made from it, they use it. Not even everything they say is true.
And government regulations on food are not trustworthy either...though that is a different matter entirely.
I don't have cable so I don't know what exactly is in the media right now about food.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Do you come from the paleo-cave?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Sure it is. But it´s a factual image.
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
.... Carrots are another species of biological entity than human.
If we eat 'em or juice 'em to drink 'em, we're still eating/drinking another species.
Yes. There is cause to better the living conditions of domesticated animals, 'specially in the states, but domesticating animals in and of itself, as well as using their products, is not illogical nor cruel in and of itself either.
And what do you think will become of domesticated species if we have zero reason to keep them anymore?
If no-one ate beef or drank milk, do you think that all the cows would be allowed to roam free?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Comparing vegetables like carrots to sentient animals like humans, dogs, cows, pigs, chickens, etc., is realy a strange comparison, with out any sense. Cows, pigs, birds, dogs, humans, etc., are sentient because they have a "thing" called central nervous system which provides them the hability to feel pain, pleasure, to have social relations with others, etc. Animal humans and animal non humans they have many, many things in common. I advise you to look for the words "central nervous system" and "sentient" on google and you will learn some things.
"Domestic animals"? For you a dog or a cat are domestic and they should be protected, but for people in some reagions of Asia cats and dogs are "very tasty". And in India cows are sacred and no body eats them. This means that eating certain kind of animals is a result of cultural practices, and what you eat and feel towards animals is a product of socialization.
Do you think cows "roam free"? You prove don´t have any idea what is happening to cows in the intense meat production. Bad for you, bad for the cow, bad for enviornement, but good for Business! For animal exporation ingorance is a bless.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Research shows that plants probably feel something "like" pain. What the process involved in it is not fully understood, but it's likely that plants feel.
They do react to a number of stimuli such as scents, heat, light, touch, etc, etc.
Plants give off chemicals that send signals from one plant to another.
I did not say that cats or dogs "should be protected". Making this a straw-man argument.
Telling me that people in foreign countries eat cats and dogs does not cause me moral outrage or surprise me. It's clearly an argument from emotion and they don't do anything for me.
The worship of Cattle in India, historically, comes from their life-giving quality in form of milk. So using that practice to argue against drinking milk is a little funny in and of itself.
I do not think cows "roam free" I asked you whether you believed that if no one would ever use a product made from cattle that cattle would suddenly be allowed to roam free.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It’s completely absurd to argue against veganism with a ‘plants feel pain’ argument. I don´t think you know the meaning of being sentient and having a central nervous system and you didn´t bother is searching in google what this terms means.
Comparing a tomato with you or a cow is completely ludicrous. Comparing you or me with a cow is adequade because all of us definitely feel pain or fear (we are sentient due to our phisiologial constitution).
I point you that animal eating varies from country to country to ilustrate the fact that is the culture and economy the main referents that determines what people eat. In other words, you don´t eat dog or cat, daulphins or whales because your culture don´t permits you to eat them. You and your values are a product of your culture. Like gender, feeding is determined is patriarchal societies.
Is clearly understandable that the only "emotions" you feel are towards you taste when you eat animals, nothing more. And when you eat them you don´t care less about their suffering, about enviornement, sustainability, and world hunger. That is understandable because, after all, no one has access to meat production and its consequences.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
More straw-men. Really? Just cause I'm not doing things or seeing things your way does not mean I'm immoral or stupid. It means I disagree with you.
There's a significant difference there.
I am not arguing against veganism. I fully support vegans and vegetarians that make the educated choice based on facts first and foremost, but I can also respect those that based their own beliefs and preferences, to forgo eating meat. What I find offensive is the misrepresentation of fact and the pushing of the idea that anyone "other" than vegans/vegetarians are totally and completely immoral or complete idiots.
Just cause someone disagrees doesn't make them worse people, it means they disagree. Without knowing them, knowing their reasons, knowing the facts of their life, etcetera, you are not in a position to judge them as individuals.
It is not a comparison. I am not saying the two are the same, I am saying that the two have things in common and that arguing that something is bad on the basis of X may be faulty as X exists also in what is argued for.
I did not bother to google for central nervous system as I am already familiar with it, what with it being a common thread in much of my education and studies for sake of fun. One of the things I've been fascinated with and have studied for sake of fun (in the "I wonder how this works kind of way") is the topic of pain. The process of nerves and brain in pain responses in most critters, us included, is fascinating, but what I also find fascinating is that there's measurable responses in things that lack the central nervous system.
Pain is a way for the body to tell you it's taking damage. Your reaction is thus to avoid what is causing you damage or pain. The same can be seen with plants, so it's only logical to assume they feel some measure of pain of some sort.
Actually, my culture does permit me to eat whale.
There's a couple logical fallacies in that part of your reply, 'specifically the sort where you're asserting facts in regard to the person disagreeing with you that which you do not have the information/evidence to back up.
I come from a culture where animals are given a certain measure of freedom and care and have been seen as valuable parts of the fabric of society. In my language, there are a lot of references to values and strengths that refer to animals in that context.
When the scientific world asserted that they had proven that cows have emotions and problem solving thinking, we shrugged and said "yeah, I know" cause we'd all seen it.
My values are initially set up by my cultural background, yes, the same is true for everyone, but as I've grown I've taken the time to read, absorb information, and create my own values.
Just cause I don't agree with you doesn't mean that my ideas or beliefs are mine own.
The last part of your comment is just straw-men on ad-hominem on straw-men.
You have not asked me how I feel nor why, you do not know me, nor do you have any access to any writing I have done on the subject before, nor are you psychic, so you have no reason, no evidence for the assertion that the only emotion I feel is towards taste and no more.
I happen to care quite a bit about the suffering of animals. Which is why I feel no small measure of pride in my nation and it's strict laws regarding the matter.
There are no factory farms in Iceland.
Our lambs get to roam the hills with their flock for the whole summer, playing and eating on wild herbs, watched over and kept as safe as relatively possible. They get to have a "free" life before they become food. When it comes time for slaughter, they are gathered up, transported, and killed, in as humane a way as we know possible.
Our cattle gets to roam around pretty free too, though the bulls are largely kept away from the cows, who in most cases get to come home on their own clock to be milked (new, danish systems make this possible). They are in charge of their own schedule.
Both are kept indoors during winter, in heat, away from the bitter snowstorms, and both cheer on the telly when let out in spring.
When I eat an animal, I do so, knowing that it's an animal, knowing it's life, knowing it's death, and knowing it's nature.
I don't eat in excessive amounts, I eat with respect.
I do care about the environment (enough to spell it right at least) and the assertion that I don't is a straw-man. I don't own a car, I walk everywhere or take a bio-diesel bus when it's too far to walk. I live in a country where the heat is geo-thermal and I am thankful for it. I live in a country where the electricity is hydro, and I still use it sparingly. I do not waste food. I don't drink bottled water, and what bottles I drink out of I recycle. I re-use and re-cycle quite a bit. The idea that you "have" to be vegan to be environmentally conscious is arrogant at best.
I do care about sustainability, and I do care about world hunger.
We produce enough food, as a planet, to feed everyone as is. Do you know how much food goes to waste in the U.S. alone? How much fruit and veg gets buried in landfills? How many tons of bread end up buried?
By the by. You still haven't answered the question.
What do you think will happen to the world's cattle if the whole world decides to go vegan?
Meat alone is not ruining this planet.
Animal products can be produced without the factory farm.
Moderation is something most folk aren't good at keeping to.
Oh, and on the patriarchy.
The Nordic, viking-era, society had women as the head of the household. The men were travelling merchants and warriors, the women held the power at home. They decided what animals to raise and use.
Christianity comes along and puts men in charge for a while, but by that time the standard was set, by women.
And pushing the whole idea that Iceland's patriarchal today would be a bit of a tough sale, seeing as a)Iceland had the world's first female president, and b)the most powerful person in the country, our prime ministe, today is a woman (and the only newspapers that cared about her gender or sexuality were foreign).
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Once again you use the ludicrous plants argument to avoid the fact that non-human animals resemble to much on humans: humans and non-humans animals we are sentients, if you want to avoid this scientific fact, well is just your choice.
"I happen to care quite a bit about the suffering of animals" you say, you must care about some animals, but others you just continue to eat them. Descrimitanting species is called speciesism. Once again, animals feel just like you and me, we all are sentient. Plants aren´t.
Your question: "What do you think will happen to the world's cattle if the whole world decides to go vegan?"
Anwser: There will be enough food for everybody, and starvation would end, or at least would be drasticaly diminished. Meat production is just not sustainable. Why? Animals fed on grain need more water than grain crops. The world is feeding animals instead of feeding people, and we are also spending lots of resources with farming animals. The result is that producing animal-based food is typically much less efficient than the harvesting of grains, vegetables, legumes, seeds and fruits for direct human consumption.
Lets point some other facts:
1. Humans do not need to eat meat, drink milk or to use other animal products. In fact, scientific studies show that vegans do have a better health then meat eaters. (If you need some sources of studies I will send them for sure)
2. It it also a fact that there are many health problems related to meat consumption and other animal products. (If you need some sources I will send them for sure)
3. There are environmental effects of meat production. The production and consumption of meat and other animal products is associated with the "clearing of rainforests, resource depletion, air and water pollution, land and economic inefficiency, species extinction, and other environmental harms."
3.1. According to a 2006 report of the United NAtions, livestock industry is one of the largest contributors to "environmental degradation worldwide, and modern practices of raising animals for food contributes on a "massive scale" to air and water pollution, land degradation, climate change, and loss of biodiversity". The study concluds that "the livestock sector emerges as one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global." This study estimats that meat industry contributes to "18% of all emissions of greenhouse gasses." However some reserchers claim the percentage of meat producing impacts on environment is about 51%.
Patriarchy is other subject. If you, has a woman, believe men and women have the same rights, well that is just your perception. Reality even in the most developed countries shows that women still is discriminated in many societal sectors.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I am not avoiding the commonality. I'm explaining, yet again, why I brought it up.
If the issue is "pain", then my point is valid.
If the issue is sentience, then we should debate that point.
If the issue is both, then my point is still valid.
Yes, I care about the suffering of animals and yes I'll continue to eat them. Because here they are raised in one of the most humane environments you could ask for and killed in as painful a manner as possible. They get to live and then they die without 'suffering'.
Prolonged existence in inhumane conditions would produce suffering than a non-painful death.
Eating of the flesh when the animal is dead does not cause the dead animal any suffering.
Speciesism is the practice of assigning different values or rights to different beings on the grounds of their species. I have not shown anything to denote speciesism, in fact, there are many cases where I feel that human beings should be treated more like animals and vice versa. I have made a point to express that I believe that our livestock should be treated better, with more respect, and so on. I shall also take this occasion, since you've brought it up, to explain what I mean by "humans should be treated more like animals".
Ever known someone who had a beloved pet which had to be put down due to contracting a mortal illness which would have otherwise led the pet to a slow and excruciating death? Well, I'm one of these people. I had a cat. I didn't see her as a possession, but more as a house-mate. She became ill and stopped eating and got diarrhea. A visit to the vets revealed that her liver had failed suddenly and without known cause. The options we had were a) to have her put to sleep, or b) take her home and watch her slowly starve to death as well as go insane with the toxicity that comes with starvation. The "humane" thing to do was to put her to sleep.
We often keep people alive, human beings, in conditions that are deplorable, where every moment is a struggle, where every day is excruciating physical and/or emotional pain/stress. If these weren't "human beings" we'd say that the humane thing would be to let them go, but since these are "human beings" we are so attached to the idea of their value that we'll keep them alive far beyond their own desires for life.
In other words, we often afford "humane" treatment to animals, but not to our own.
Your answer is not to the question asked. I asked "What do you think will happen to the world's cattle if the whole world decides to go vegan?"
It doesn't address that question at all.
1. If you look at the median then yes, vegans "tend" to have better health than meat-eating humans. But the median does not tell the whole story and since the studies available are either strictly american or strictly British in origin, they do not address people from other countries where the dietary overflow is not as great.
In other words, comparing an average american vegan to an average american burger-junkie is not a fair comparison.
2. Inuits.
The people of the far north, who live on a diet that is almost 100% animal products and have one of the lowest occurrence of heart disease and cancer in all of the world.
If "meat" is always, and without fail, "bad for you", then explain that.
3. Again.
Moderation.
The factory farm is a problem.
Excess is a problem.
and Patriarchy;
You brought it up.
I did not say that I believe that all men and all women in all countries have all the same rights. I explained how your suggestion that meat-eating is created by patriarchy is false, at the very least in my society.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The issue is not controversial, in fact is very simple. You, me, cows, pigs, dogs, etc... we feel pain, pleasure, we have conscienceness of lost, etc. Flowers don´t. If you are a mother and you loose your child a cow will feel exactely the pain you feel when her child is taken away in order to her to produce milk for humans. Coparing flowers or vegetables to animals including us it just doesn´t make any sense.
You say you care about the suffering of animals but still you continue to eat them? Something is wrong here. If you care about animals you don´t eat their death bodies, and you do not contribute to a business that continues to opress and killing them, thats simple. You can say you love animals, but your actions show the opposite. And yes, you are speciest because you eat animals and contribute to their suffering. Not only your pet "has feelings", other animals also have them.
I will not answer to your question because is not relevant. In the real world, ours, meat industry hs specific impacts and I shere you some of them.
1. Do you know the studies I talk to you about? How do you know the study samples are comparing "american vegan with a burger junkie"? Where did you see that? What I told you was simply that meat eaters present paterns, health problems such as: obesity, heart disease, cancers of the lung, esophagus, liver, and colon, coronary heart disease and diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, high blood pressure... On the other hand, vegan diets are helthier.
2. I don´t have to explain that meat is allways bad for someone because I never say that. I said was you just do not to eat meat to survive and you only do it because you like it -is a question of taste. You are just justifying your taste for meat, nothing more. And I am just justifying that meat has negative imapacts and justifying that being vegan is in fact better, for people, for the world, for animals and for enviornment.
Do not worry. You have the same symptoms I had when I was a meat eater 10 years ago. In fact meat eaters do present patterns of justyfing their taste, and you just fit very well in the pattern.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ignoring the facts does not make them go away.
Misrepresenting the facts does not change them.
You can argue that plants don't have a damage response that shows similar patterns as physical pain responses all you like, but that won't remove the scientific work that show it.
Secondly, no two human beings experience the exact same emotion the exact same way, due to the fact that no two human beings are exactly the same. Our brains are full of minute differences. There are overarching and substantial similarities, yes, but there are still differences.
A cow, who does not have the same basic brain structure as a human being, will possibly feel a similar emotion in reaction to similar stimuli, but it can not feel "exactly" the same emotion. It does not have the exact same societal background. It does not have the exact same brain. It does not have the exact same capacity for thought. It does not have the exact same emotions.
Exactly what suffering can an animal feel that is already dead?
Exactly what suffering are you objecting to?
Meat I eat comes from an animal that has had a safer and more "free" life than most of their wild cousins.
And the speciesist comment yet again. Did you actually read what I wrote?
It was not about the pet and it's emotions, nor about my emotional ties to said pet.
You're arguing against something that has not been said.
The question IS relevant.
It addresses the impact of your alternative on things other than human beings. On the things we currently eat.
If there's no reason to raise and keep cattle, do you believe Anyone will raise and keep cattle?
If no one consumes dairy, do you believe any dairy-cow breeds will continue to exist?
1. Most studies on the health differences between vegans and non-vegans are american based and compare the "average" to the "average". The average american meat eater eats more than the recommended daily dose of a number of things, including meat. The average vegan doesn't consume nearly as much sugar, salt, etcetera, and also gets much more exercise than the average meat-eater.
The issue is more than likely a matter of excesses, more than a matter of "meat v.s. vegan".
2. You wrote, just above this response, "meat eaters present paterns, health problems such as: obesity, heart disease, cancers of the lung, esophagus, liver, and colon, coronary heart disease and diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, high blood pressure" and then you want to argue that you're Not saying that eating meat is "always bad for you".
You are arguing that eating meat causes, directly or indirectly, these above conditions. And yet, Inuits have one of the lowest instances of cancers, diabetes, heart conditions, etcetera, in the whole world, and they eat a nearly 100% meat diet.
Do you not see the inconsistency?
And I do not worry.
These are not symptoms of "liking meat".
Here's the joke. I was a vegan for almost five years.
Then I went and looked at the facts.
After going back to an omnivorous diet, complete with a small amount of meat, my health improved quite a bit.
I have reasons for my dietary choices as I'm sure you have reasons for yours. I'm not arguing against your choices in any shape way or form. You should eat what you want to eat. What I'm arguing against is the presumption that everyone who makes a different choice than you do is automatically stupid, immoral, lying, 'symptomatic', or 'wrong'.
There's more than one way to live. Your way may not be 'right' for everyone and your way isn't necessarily 'more right' than someone else's.
Ever heard of something called 'confirmation bias'?
It means that you notice what fits your theory, not what doesn't fit your theory.
You've gotten thing after thing after thing wrong about me, and yet you say I 'fit the pattern'. The thing is, you've made a whole host of assumptions about me, based on nothing other than the fact that I don't agree with you on every aspect of something you care about. You haven't acknowledged those parts we agree on, nor have you been remotely willing to acknowledge some of my direct statements. These are signs of heavy confirmation bias.
If you're unwilling to read what I've written and just want to stand fast to your assumptions then this conversation will never go anywhere.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I agree with you in one thing, running away from facts doesn´t change them. Summerizing our conversation I presented facts based on scientific studies from people and organizations like United Nations that aren´t necessarily vegan. I didn´t made up theese facts:
Fact 1. Humans do not need to kill animals in order to survive and have helthier life. Humans can have access to all nutrients they need in vegetables, cereals, fruits, etc.
Fact 2. There are severe desieses associated to meat and animal products that humans consume. The studies I mention had samples of the most developed countries that accounnt millions of people, not the 100,000 of the Inuits that do not have a corporated meat production like in the other globalized countries.
Fact 3. Animals are sentiend just like humans are. A cow tends to avoid pain if she feels threatend, she runs away to avoid pain, if her child is taken she will cry. Animals who suffer daily in factory farms present phycological symptomns of trauma, strange behaviours and they are documented. They perceive enviornment, and yes they have social relations. And they also react diferently to menaces just like humans do. If you cut your cat he will scream, cry, try to go away, right? The same happens to other animals that you eat or even to us. A tomato does not have conscienceness. No, it is not the cognitive thought that animal humans have and animal non humans do not have that makes them sentient. The cognitive though is our BONUS but it doesn´t gives the hability to feel more pain then a animal.
Fact 4.Massive production of meat (not talking about local and small productions) have a huge negative impacts on enviornment.
Fact 5. Massive production of meat is not sustainable due to the bad usage of resourses (water, soil, water, vegetables and cerials). And industrial meat production needs to be reduce for 70%.
This are facts that you and any corps eater can´t dispute. You made your point wich was try to biase this facts and the specific words they evoque, just to defend you cause: the taste for corps.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
1. I did not dispute this fact.
The thing is, not eating meat is not healthier by default because a person who does not eat any meat needs to consume a wide range of veg to get the full required dose of a number of nutrients. Many vegans have to take supplements to get their daily dose as they live in regions which don't produce everything they need in fresh form.
2. The sample size of the studies does not count "millions" even if the population of the nations in which the studies are held count millions. The average dietary study has a sample size of one to ten thousand people.
Secondly, if you believe the difference lies in the "corporate" meat production then the health problem's the method, not the meat.
3. First it was "exactly the same" in reference to emotion, now it's "they feel pain too".
I have never refuted the fact that animals feel pain, nor have I ever avoided that fact. I pointed out that the problem there is the "factory" farm and that the production of meat in my country does not work like that. This seems to make no difference to you what so ever.
4 and 5 address the same problem.
Excess.
Nothing's good in excess.
I've never argued that the current model is the best model, or even a good model, in America. I more than support those vegan friends that I have that chose veganism to refuse to support the factory farm system.
Yes, the current system sucks, production needs to be reduced (which means a large number of animals have to be put down), and rules requiring humane treatment of animals even if raised for food purposes need to be in place.
This is not something I've argued against.
Again, you put not only words in my mouth, but thoughts in my head.
That is what is called "straw-man".
It means you are arguing against things that I have not said as if I have said them.
It's a logic fallacy, bad rhetoric, and generally considered bad debate tactics.
My cause is not to defend my taste for meat (or corpse as you call it, though you can't seem to spell it right). I have repeatedly stated my cause, what it is I am arguing against. You've willfully chosen to ignore it, repeatedly, and instead put up straw men to argue against.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
FACT 1. “It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes.… An evidence-based review showed that vegetarian diets can be nutritionally adequate in pregnancy and result in positive maternal and infant health outcomes. The results of an evidencebased review showed that a vegetarian diet is associated with a lower risk of death from ischemic heart disease. Vegetarians also appear to have lower low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, lower blood pressure, and lower rates of hypertension and type 2 diabetes than nonvegetarians. Furthermore, vegetarians tend to have a lower body mass index and lower overall cancer rates.”
“Position of the American Dietetic Association: Vegetarian Diets,”
Journal of the American Dietetic Association, July 2009.
FACT 2. There are severe desieses associated to meat and animal products that humans consume. "Dr. Fuhrman’s position on the consumption of animal products is pretty clear, meat and diary dairy products leads to disease like heart disease and cancer. Even “healthy” choices like fish and chicken put you at risk. Take a look at this section from Eat to Live:
There is a relationship between animal protein and heart disease. For example, plasma apolioprotein B is positively associated with animal-protein intake and inversely associated (lowered) with vegetable-protein intake (e.g., legumes and greens). Apolioprotein B levels correlate strongly with coronary heart disease.1 Unknown to many is that animal proteins have a significant effect on raising cholesterol levels as well, while plant protein lowers it.2
Scientific studies provide evidence that many animal protein’s effect on blood cholesterol may be significant. This is one of the reasons those switching to a low fat-diet do no experience the cholesterol lowering they expect unless they also remove the low-fat animal products as well. Surprising to most people is that yes, even low-fat dairy and skinless white-meat chicken raise cholesterol. I see this regularly in my practice. Many individuals do not see the dramatic drop in cholesterol levels unless they go all the way by cutting all animal proteins from their diet.
According to Dr. Fuhrman white meats are no savior either:
Red met is not the only problem. The consumption of chicken and fish is also linked to colon cancer. A large recent study examined the eating habits of 32,000 adults for six years and then watched the incidence of cancer for these subjects over the next six years. Those who avoided red meat but at white meat regularly had a more than 300 percent increase in colon cancer incidence.3 The same study showed that eating beans, peas, or lentils, at least twice a week was associated with a 50 percent lower risk than never eating these foods.
Chicken has about the same amount of cholesterol as beef, and the production of those potent cancer-causing compounds called heterocyclic amines (HCAs) are even more concentrated in grilled chicken than in beef.4 Another recent study from New Zealand that investigated heterocyclic amines in meat, fish, and chicken found the greatest contributor of HCAs to cancer risk was chicken.5 Likewise, studies indicated that chicken is almost as dangerous as red meat for the heart. Regarding cholesterol, there is no advantage to eating lean white instead of lean red meat.6
The correlation between disease and consumption of animal products seems very clear. Even newer research warns of heighten stomach cancer risk associated with eating processed meats, like sausage, smoked ham, and bacon. Reuters reports:
A review of 15 studies showed the risk of developing stomach cancer rose by 15 to 38 percent if consumption of processed meats increased by 30 grams (1 ounce) per day, the Karolinska Institute said in a statement.
These foods possess cancer-causing additives outside of meat’s normal cancer-causing agents:
The institute said processed meats were often salted or smoked, or had nitrates added to them, in order to extend their shelf-life which could be connected to the increased risk of stomach cancer, the fourth most common type of cancer."
FACT 3. "The basis of animal rights is the recognition that animals are sentient beings. This means they are capable of being aware of sensations and emotions, of feeling pain and suffering, and of experiencing a state of well being. ARAs believe that our own behaviour towards animals should be guided by this recognition of their sentience." The most basic way of experiencing the world is through feeling or sensation. 'Sentience' is defined as the ability to have perceptions and sensations. A 'sentient animal' is an animal that is aware of his/her surroundings and of what happens to him/her and is capable of feeling pain and pleasure, at the least. The current scientific consensus is that all vertebrate animals, at least, are capable of feeling pain and experiencing distress. (For this reason anti-cruelty laws exist in many countries.)
But many of the animals we interact with turn out to have more complex mental and emotional lives than people have understood in the past, and new scientific research is constantly revealing new evidence of animals' cognitive abilities and their emotions.
Sentient animals have preferences and intentions
It turns out that some animals can both remember and anticipate events and some can foresee their future needs and plan ahead. They can maintain complex social relationships in their groups. Some animals can understand what another animal is going to do, and attempt to deceive that animal in order to gain an advantage. Some animals can enjoy learning a new skill. Some animals react to other animals in ways resembling human empathy. On the negative side, animals can experience the unpleasant emotions of pain, fear, frustration and probably boredom as well. They can be reduced to a state resembling human depression by chronic stress or confinement in a cage.
All these abilities listed above have been documented in scientific research. Of course these abilities vary between different species. And of course we cannot assume that if an animal behaves in ways that look familiar to us, the animal has the same mental experiences as a human would have in similar circumstances. In the current state of knowledge it is impossible to prove beyond doubt what an animal is feeling, or perhaps thinking. But it is equally important not to underestimate animals' feelings and the sophistication of their mental processes, because this may well affect how we behave towards animals.
Importantly, several of the abilities that have in past been thought to be uniquely human ' for example, the use of tools, the ability to plan ahead, the ability to empathise with another or to deceive another, the transmission of skills in ways that can be classified as 'culture', behaviour that can be classified as 'morality' ' are now known to exist to some extent among non-human animals too. From the point of view of evolutionary biology, it makes sense that humans should share many of our emotional and cognitive abilities with some of the other animal species.
Throughout history people have known that animals do very 'clever' and impressive things ' such as a bird building an intricate nest or a mother animal teaching her young. Folk stories all over the word attribute intelligence and cunning to animals.
But for much of the 20th century scientists believed that all animal behaviour could be explained either as innate behaviour patterns in response to internal or external stimuli or as conditioned learning in response to stimuli.
Emotion or problem-solving on the part of the animal were not considered necessary to explain its behaviour and it was considered impossible to study these aspects at all. What is exciting about the present time is that scientists are once again interested in studying animals' emotions and mental processes and that huge progress in understanding animals is being made.
The facts and theories of animal sentience are still hotly debated among scientists and philosophers. But most people have over history assumed that many animals feel pain, hunger, thirst, heat, cold, fear, anger and other basic emotions, because we have everyday evidence that they do.
Why use a whip or stick on a horse unless it feels unpleasant enough to make the horse move faster? If a dog, horse or cow is limping, most people would naturally assume that the animal is in pain. Most people would also assume that the pain is distressing to the animal and, if they could, they would try to do something to alleviate it.
However, throughout history humans have also treated animals in ways that caused great suffering to the animals, whether intentionally or unintentionally.
Today there is increasing concern about the welfare of animals, whether these are wild animals or those used by people for food, work, companionship, entertainment, sport or scientific research.
In March 2005, CIWF hosted an international conference on animal sentience in London. Dr Jane Goodall DBE gave the keynote address suggesting that the burden of proof should not be on those trying to prove the sentience of animals, but rather on those seeking to disprove it. A free DVD showing highlights from Compassion in World Farming's major international conference is now available to order online.
In the future, Compassion in World Farming plans to develop a set of animal sentience web pages that will aim to provide:
Updates on current scientific research on animal sentience, based on findings in disciplines ranging from animal behaviour to neurobiology
Guest articles on science, ethics and law relating to animal sentience
Applied Animal Behaviour Science 100:1-2, Oct 2006. Special issue: sentience in animals. - Selection of scientific papers from Compassion in World Farming's conference, From Darwin to Dawkins: The science and implications of animal sentience, March 2005.
J D'Silva and J Turner (eds), 2006. Animals, ethics and trade. Earthscan. Further papers from Compassion in World Farming's conference, From Darwin to Dawkins: The science and implications of animal sentience, March 2005. Foremost international experts examine the philosophical, legal, policy and practical implications of our current knowledge of animal sentience.
M Bekoff (ed), Jun 2007. Encyclopedia of human-animal relationships. Greenwood Press
F D McMillan, 2005 (ed). Mental health and well-being in animals. Blackwell Publishing
J Webster, 2005. Animal welfare: limping towards Eden. Blackwell Publishing
T Grandin and C Johnson, 2005. Animals in Translation: Using the Mysteries of Autism to Decode Animal Behavior. Scribner
M Bekoff (ed), 2004. Encyclopedia of Animal Behavior. Greenwood Press
N G Gregory, 2004. Physiology and behaviour of animal suffering. Blackwell Science
F B M de Waal and P L Tyack, 2003. Animal social complexity: intelligence, culture, and individualized societies. Harvard University Press
S M Wise, 2002/3. Drawing the line: science and the case for animal rights. Perseus Publishing
D R Griffin, 2001. Animal minds: beyond cognition to consciousness. University of Chicago Press
L J Keeling and H W Gonyou (eds), 2001. Social behaviour in farm animals. CABI Publishing
M Hauser, 2000. Wild minds: what animals really think. Henry Holt and Company
C Moss, 2000. Elephant memories: thirteen years in the life of an elephant family. University of Chicago Press.
M S Dawkins, 1998. Through our eyes only? The search for animal consciousness. Oxford University Press
A Manning and M S Dawkins, 1998. An introduction to animal behaviour. Cambridge University Press
F Fraser and D M Broom, 1997. Farm animal behaviour and welfare. CABI Publishing"
FACTS 4 and 5.Massive production of meat have a huge negative impacts on enviornment. "A new report from FAO says livestock production is one of the major causes of the world's most pressing environmental problems, including global warming, land degradation, air and water pollution, and loss of biodiversity. Using a methodology that considers the entire commodity chain, it estimates that livestock are responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, a bigger share than that of transport. However, the report says, the livestock sector's potential contribution to solving environmental problems is equally large, and major improvements could be achieved at reasonable cost.
Based on the most recent data available, Livestock's long shadow takes into account the livestock sector's direct impacts, plus the environmental effects of related land use changes and production of the feed crops animals consume. It finds that expanding population and incomes worldwide, along with changing food preferences, are stimulating a rapid increase in demand for meat, milk and eggs, while globalization is boosting trade in both inputs and outputs.
In the process, the livestock sector is undergoing a complex process of technical and geographical change. Production is shifting from the countryside to urban and peri-urban areas, and towards sources of animal feed, whether feed crop areas or transport and trade hubs where feed is distributed. There is also a shift in species, with accelerating growth in production of pigs and poultry (mostly in industrial units) and a slow-down in that of cattle, sheep and goats, which are often raised extensively. Today, an estimated 80 percent of growth in the livestock sector comes from industrial production systems. Owing to those shifts, the report says, livestock are entering into direct competition for scarce land, water and other natural resources.
Deforestation, greenhouse gases. The livestock sector is by far the single largest anthropogenic user of land. Grazing occupies 26 percent of the Earth's terrestrial surface, while feed crop production requires about a third of all arable land. Expansion of grazing land for livestock is a key factor in deforestation, especially in Latin America: some 70 percent of previously forested land in the Amazon is used as pasture, and feed crops cover a large part of the reminder. About 70 percent of all grazing land in dry areas is considered degraded, mostly because of overgrazing, compaction and erosion attributable to livestock activity.
At the same time, the livestock sector has assumed an often unrecognized role in global warming. Using a methodology that considered the entire commodity chain (see box below), FAO estimated that livestock are responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, a bigger share than that of transport. It accounts for nine percent of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions, most of it due to expansion of pastures and arable land for feed crops. It generates even bigger shares of emissions of other gases with greater potential to warm the atmosphere: as much as 37 percent of anthropogenic methane, mostly from enteric fermentation by ruminants, and 65 percent of anthropogenic nitrous oxide, mostly from manure.
Livestock production also impacts heavily the world's water supply, accounting for more than 8 percent of global human water use, mainly for the irrigation of feed crops. Evidence suggests it is the largest sectoral source of water pollutants, principally animal wastes, antibiotics, hormones, chemicals from tanneries, fertilizers and pesticides used for feed crops, and sediments from eroded pastures. While global figures are unavailable, it is estimated that in the USA livestock and feed crop agriculture are responsible for 37 percent of pesticide use, 50 percent of antibiotic use, and a third of the nitrogen and phosphorus loads in freshwater resources. The sector also generates almost two-thirds of anthropogenic ammonia, which contributes significantly to acid rain and acidification of ecosystems.
The sheer quantity of animals being raised for human consumption also poses a threat of the Earth's biodiversity. Livestock account for about 20 percent of the total terrestrial animal biomass, and the land area they now occupy was once habitat for wildlife. In 306 of the 825 terrestrial eco-regions identified by the Worldwide Fund for Nature, livestock are identified as "a current threat", while 23 of Conservation International's 35 "global hotspots for biodiversity" - characterized by serious levels of habitat loss - are affected by livestock production.
Two demands. FAO says "the future of the livestock-environment interface will be shaped by how we resolve the balance of two demands: for animal food products on one side and for environmental services on the other". Since the natural resource base is finite, the huge expansion of the livestock sector required to meet expanding demand must be accomplished while substantially reducing its environmental impact.
Greater efficiency in use of resources will be "the key to retracting livestock's long shadow". Although a host of effective technical options - for resource management, crop and livestock production, and post harvest reduction of losses - are available (see box below), current prices of land, water and feed resources used for livestock production do not reflect true scarcities, creating distortions that provide no incentive for efficient resource use. "This leads to the overuse of the resources and to major inefficiencies in the production process," FAO says. "Future policies to protect the environment will therefore have to introduce adequate market pricing for the main inputs."
Fact 5. Massive production of meat is not sustainable:
A UN report entitled ‘Assessing the Environmental Impacts of Consumption and Production’, released Wednesday, states that eating less meat and dairy is necessary to avoid catastrophic effects of climate change, global hunger and energy shortages.
From an article in the Guardian:
As the global population surges towards a predicted 9.1 billion people by 2050, western tastes for diets rich in meat and dairy products are unsustainable, says the report from United Nations Environment Programme’s (UNEP) international panel of sustainable resource management.
There’s been a bit of a back and forth regarding how much the meat and dairy industries contribute to climate change. Back in March a study was presented to the American Chemical Society by Dr. Frank Mitloehner, which claimed that environmentalists have exaggerated the greenhouse gas emissions of meat and dairy production.
Right wing media like Fox News and the Daily Mail jumped all over this, claiming this proved that eating less meat has no impact climate. More responsible reports in the Telegraph and on BBC News simply pointed out that Mitloehner discovered a fault in the comparative analysis between emissions from livestock and transportation used in a UN report entitled ‘Livestock’s Long Shadow’ – a point which the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization conceded. Basically, the UN used a ‘confusing analogy’, but the bulk of the UN report was not discredited.
The new UN report states that economic growth needs to be ‘decoupled’ from the energy and agricultural industries due to the environmental impacts connected to increases in income. Population growth, combined with rising income and increased consumption creates more competition for dwindling resources and an unsustainable burden on the environment.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Lots of copypasta, some which I've already expressed an agreement with, some which you've flippflopped on already.
Zero acknowledgement of what I've actually said.
Why are you continuing to argue points I've told you, over and over and over, that I agree with?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Copy/paste of facts. Maybe you would want to dispute the fact that animals (and not vegetables) are not sentient? Maybe you would show me a scientific study that shows that a carrot feels pain, fear, joy and is sentient? Maybe you also would like to prove with scientific studies that eating meat is essential for human health. During all our converation you have given to me 0 scientific facts that justifie your legitimacy of eating corps.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You have to be kidding me.
I never said that vegetables were sentient.
I never said they felt emotion.
I never said meat eating was 'essential' to human health.
I have repeatedly presented scientific facts, which you have never addressed.
Also, how about you actually answer my questions, just once?
Why do you keep arguing points I don't disagree with you on?
Why do you keep arguing against things I have not said?
Seriously.
Are you simply not reading anything I say? Or what?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Your questions are fait-divers, they are not relevant. And your "scientific facts" do not prove the need for humans to eat animals, and this is the main issue and you haven´t prove because you just can´t do it. And people like you get pissed because everything they say to vegan people only serves to justifie their taste for some animals and the fact they do discriminate species by contributing to their suffering and killing of some animals - and that is called speciesism, whether you like it or not.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You've repeatedly failed to address my actual statements throughout this discussion and that makes it seem as if you are not actually interested in discussing anything. So far, you haven't actually addressed anything that I've said, all you've done is talked in circles, sometimes even flip-flopping or contradicting yourself and repeatedly arguing against straw-men.
You've repeatedly challenged me to refute statements I've repeatedly told you I agree with.
Why? Are you unable to reply to what I've written, or are you just unwilling to actually read what I've written?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You are projecting your characteristics in this conversation. I told you the questions you raise are faith-divers.
You are the one who can not prove the main issue in this discussion: "the need for hummans to eat meat".
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
And again, I never asserted that humans 'need' to eat meat.
You want to talk about that? Fine.
No, humans do not 'need' to eat meat.
End of discussion.
I was never debating that point. Not from the first comment.
It has never been the 'main issue' in 'this' discussion as it's never been an 'issue'.
It's not something we fundamentally disagree on.
If I'm projecting, then why are you still arguing against something I have never said?
The reason I ask this, over and over, is not to distract you from our debate or from your beliefs but to point out that what I'm objecting to and what your arguing against are two different things. You go on and on about the same thing, over and over, that I've already stated I agree with you on.
It's preposterous.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
This is and allways has been the main issue: do humans need, or not, to consume animal products (i.e. milk) and if animals need to suffer like they do and become death bodys that go to human graveyards (their bodies). If you agree with all 5 reasons and still continue to eat animal corpses then you must also agree you are speciest.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
This has never been the issue of our discussion.
I "must" not agree with anything.
You fail to take into account the full meaning of the word speciesist and you completely ignore what I said on the subject earlier.
If you're ever willing to actually debate anything, using logic and reason instead of straw-men and derailing, let me know.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Still dodging from the main issues, hum? So, are you going to tell the reason(s) you eat animals by necessity? Are you going to tell why are you are not speciest?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"main issues?" Which ones?
The ones I brought up?
The ones we were never discussing?
Or the ones I've already adressed?
I never said that it was by necessity.
Are you unable to read or just unwilling?
Do you know the meaning of the word speciesist?
I have never suggested that I view any animal of lesser or greater value nor that I believe they should have lesser or greater rights due on the basis of their species.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
| Next =>