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
No, you broght faith-divers that are not important issues.
Of course you don´t eat corps by necessity you eat them because you have a taste to please.
You don´t have (once again) to dodge to the facts, I will help you with the meaning with the word "speciesism" and paste its meaning according to the dictionary: speciesism - "discrimination in favor of one species, usually the human species, over another, esp. in the exploitation or mistreatment of animals by humans. A belief of humans that all other species of animals are inferior and may therefore be used for human benefit without regard to the suffering inflicted"
So, you as a animal eater fit perfectly in this category, so you are speciest.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I don't think you know what "fait-divers" means.
It refers to short, sensationalist, news stories.
You keep referring to important issues.
Which important issue have I dodged?
Which issue have you brought up that I have not replied to?
Now, which of my questions have you answered?
Which of my arguments have you addressed with logic and reason?
I am not "dodging the fact".
Here's the explanation of the term I was referring to;
"Speciesism is the assigning of different values or rights to beings on the basis of their species membership. The term was created by British psychologist Richard D. Ryder in 1973 to denote a prejudice against non-humans based on physical differences that are given moral value however, it can also refer to misanthropy, a hatred of all humans because they are human."
The explanation you cited, especially this part; "A belief of humans that all other species of animals are inferior and may therefore be used for human benefit without regard to the suffering inflicted" reflects the same.
I'll point out the key words; "belief" and "therefor"
It's not enough to eat the meat of a dead animal to qualify as speciesist, by the very definition of the term you cited.
Eating meat in and of itself is not speciesism.
Believing that one species is worth less than another, or has fewer rights than another, is speciesism.
Now, where have I expressed that any species is worth less, or has fewer rights, than any other?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You are speciesist because you contribue to the opression and suffering of the animals you eat. You give money to services that imply animal suffering which proves you do not have any moral consideration towards the animals you eat. You see them as food, not as beings that have the desire to live freely.
You are speciesist because you value the life of your cat and you also value a dead pig instead of a living one. You are speciesist because you belive that the fate of living sentient animals (pigs, cows, chickens, etc.) is to become meat for your own enjoyment. You are speciesist because you love the filet or steack that used to belong to a body of a cow whoose days were numbered since that day she was born. You are speciesist because you think you have the right to have satisfaction over the suffering of bovines.
Vegans are not speciesists because they give more value to a living cow than dead, and that allows me to feel a human not speciesist. Vegans care about life, meat eaters like you care about taste. "The biggest difference between speciesists and anti-speciesists, then, are their cost/benefit analysis charts."
- This are some reasons you are speciesist.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
So you think it's impossible to see a being as "potential food" and as a living, sentient being with it's own desires?
What is it you call suffering exactly?
The lamb on my plate was born in safety, with room to move, and then got to roam the mountainsides, playing in freedom, before it was killed in a pain-free manner. Has this lamb suffered?
Did I say I value a pig more as dead than as alive?
Did I say that meat is their "fate"?
Does enjoying a meal equal enjoying suffering?
One of the arguments FOR veganism is the environmental argument.
How do you think they'll reduce methane emissions from cattle? Not by setting them free or eating something else, no.
In order to bring those methane emissions down, we need to stop allowing as many calves to be born, and we have to reduce the number of cattle overall. Meaning, we have to kill a huge number of cows, bulls and calves.
By arguing the environmental point, you are reducing living beings to pollutants, specifically those beings produced for food purposes.
I do care about animals, and I care about life.
Actually, I care about "LIFE" not "time". I don't think that the hours of life are as important as the quality of life. I see imprisonment, prolonged pain, and such things as pure suffering.
This is why I want to see the factory farm destroyed and laws set to protect the animals of every world from inhumane treatment. Every animal, including human.
Secondly, I don't view humans as better, worth more, or having more "Innate" rights than any other animal. I've explained this before.
To be speciesist, I have to see one species as better, and another as lesser. If I don't, then I'm not.
You've failed to actually read anything I've said and you've failed to bring up any evidence that I'm speciesist.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Someone killed him for you, someone interrupted his/her life, someone made him/her suffer for money which you or someone has payed, but still you are not a speciesist. You concebe the lamb as food, but still you are not a speciesist. You do not see cats, dogs or humans has food, but you see lamb as food but of course you are not a speciesist.
Maybe the lamb you ate should thank you for such consideration!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Again.
What qualifies as suffering?
I did not say I did not see cats, dogs, or humans as food.
And I do notice how you've completely ignored the incongruence I called you on.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The animals you pay to be killed and that you eat, they do not suffer. On the contrary, they feel trilled to see their short lifes having an end in orther to travel dissecated as corps to your plate. They feel trilled to become food, just for you.
One of theese days, I am sure you will understand, I will kill your cat and have him/her for dinner. I promisse your cat wont suffer.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You haven't defined suffering.
Your sarcasm doesn't suffice to hide the fact.
Appealing to emotion doesn't hide that either.
And you still haven't acknowledged your self-contradiction, nor addressed it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
One of the facts is that the animals you pay to be butchered they have the interest in living. The other fact is that you are corps-eater that thinks with the stomach.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I think with my brain, that would be why I've been replying with logic, reason, explanations for my stance, as well as questions, most for sake of clarification as to your own personal beliefs, but the occasional rhetorical one asked in frustration.
It's not like I've been going around making assertions about you and your motives and failing to provide evidence for my assertions as well as failing to address what you've asserted.
You on the other hand have resulted repeatedly (and here again) to ad-hominem and straw men.
If you're willing to debate using logic and reason, let me know, but if you're not, I'll just reply pointing out what logic-errors you're using.
In this case you've;
a) ignored the question
b) argued from emotion
c) made an unverifiable claim
d) straw-man
e) ad-hominem
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
There are huge differences between us. One of them is what we eat. YOu pay for someone to harm animals in order for you to eat their corps, I don´t harm any animals or pay for any service or product that harms them. The proofs are based on theese 2 facts, they are simple and logic.
Logic and reason? I gave you lots of facts based on scientific studies.Till now you haven´t gave me any scientific study that proves your need to pay for people to kill animals for you to eat. And I´m also still waiting for you to explain me why you are not a speciesist.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ad-hominem
non-sequitor
I have you explanations on speciesism.
You have still not defined suffering.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
what is the point in defining suffering? Both of us can go to the dictionary and paste its meaning. The question is: you suffer, I suffer, people suffer, animals suffer: all of us we suffer in different, individual ways.
If tomorrow someone kills you or your cat wouldn´t you or he/she suffer? I think you would. If someone kills a frind, would´t he/she, the family and friends suffer? I think they do.
Why don´t you eat your cat?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The point is that you flip flop on what it is that is wrong, or objectionable.
First it's this and then it's that.
And when it's addressed you find something else to object to.
I don't eat my cat because;
a) I enjoy her company and would miss it.
b) She's 10 years old and would not make a good meal.
c) Cats are predatory animals, their meat is tougher.
d) She'd claw my eyes out.
It's about personal preference.
But now you're finding new reasons to object.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
you do not eat your cat because you:
a) "enjoy her company and you miss her". - So when you are emotionaly atached to an animal this animal should live. When you are are not atached to an animal you just don´t care and if it is eateble, you just do it. So animals are "things" if you do not love them.
b)at least she is 10 years old. The animals somone kils for you are killed during ther youth in orther to corps eaters like you don´t complain and could have good "meals".
c) cats are predatory but that is not the reason you don´t eat them. You don´t eat them because you are a product of your culture and you only eat what your culture allows you to eat. In some regions of Asia cats are killed for corps eaters like you.
d)I am sure you would never make the dirty job of stealing a life from an sentient being. You just live that dirty job to others.
c)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
a) I didn't say "should". I said that was my "personal" reason.
Also, you didn't ask about animals, you asked about my cat.
In other words; straw-man, straw-man, non-sequitor & ad-hominem.
b) Straw-man.
Already adressed.
c) Straw-man.
Non-sequitor.
I actually might try cat sometime, if I find one humanely raised and humanely killed, but I don't expect it to be "good".
d) Straw-man.
Another Straw-man.
Here's a tip. If you want to assert something about another person, make sure you have the knowledge to back it up. So far you've gotten a lot of things wrong and this one you got wrong too.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
you might try cat sometime if you find "one humanely raised and humanely killed" - all corps you eat are humanely killed because they are "produced" by humans. Maybe you should you the word "ethical", and of course you just can fit it because deep inside you know you do not need to pay for someone to kill animals for you - that is just not ethical.
You use the word "good", it reenfoces you eat animals because of the taste, not by necessity.
A tip? I give one to you: If you want to have a serious conversation stop projecting to the others your lack of knowledge. I was the one you gave you scientific facts with the sources, you were the one who just gave me opinions and run away from the specific and main issues. In this such big discussion there isn´ t a link or a scientific fact you gave me. All you say comes from your twisted perception and selfishness about animals and about the fact you are speciesist. You just can´t prove to the others and to yourself that eating corps is a necessity and that is ethical. You are just not serious. After so much talk you just don´t get the issues/scientific facts that I adressed to you, and still you accuse me to be the one who has not the knowladge?
For me, this conversation is over, I don´t like talking to someone who constantly dodges the main issues in order to justify their choices. In this case you have a choice not to eat meat or to drink milk because you just don´t need to do it. I choose not to be a speciesist because I have scientific facts that support me. You just because you are selfish and speciesist supported by a speciesist, twisted and ilogical culture that serves the human greed and protects people like you. You have wrong cultural practices with prejudices and people like me have scientific facts. Deal with it
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
This actually happened to someone.
They cow kicked in him the head and he never survived...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ah the things you can learn from "1,000 Ways to Die" XD
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
No it doesn´t make any sense to drink milk from another species, after ammamentation.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
People have been drinking milk way before television commercials existed, dude.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
And so it means it is a logical thing to do, to drink milk from another species?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No, but you're incorrect to blame "commercials" when cheese and dairy has been a staple of food for thousands of years before advertising existed.
It's not "logical" no, but is it "logical" to eat any kind of food? Is bread "logical?"
Milk is high in fat and protein. For any mammalian diet, that's a logical thing to want to eat.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
So as long it exists thousands of years before that means is correct a logical. Genitalia mutilation of woman children exists in some regions of Africa since thousands of years before, and so that is ethic and logical?
All baby mammals have milk from the mother ate the first months of age, that is logical. What is not logical is that a baby pig has milk of a cow, or a baby canguru has milk of a femmale dog. The only specie that has milk after birth during adult ages and from another species are Humans. That is not logical and is not ethical.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You're comparing eating cheese to female genital mutilation?
I'm saying you can't blame "the media" for it, dude. You can't, because people have been eating it since before the media existed.
And because something is "not logical" it's unethical now too? Ethics and logic are often on OPPOSITE sides, man. And it's PERFECTLY LOGICAL for humans to eat milk. It's easy enough to raise cows, they're easy to raise and the milk has health benefits. Your cow eats grass, which is free, and in return you get a high fat, high protein foodstuff that can feed your family. It's a pretty good system. You can even store the milk for a long time as cheese.
If it wasn't "logical" then people wouldn't have picked it up so early. It's very practical.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Well actually cows take up land that could be for deer and other wild species , and they are losing land and food ,to farms. Most things that people picked up early were not very logical.....
( just saying <: L)And i don't really think it was picked up to early...?I'll have to ask someone.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I am comparing unethical situations.
Do you think the milk you drink comes from a cow from the land country? The animal products (meat, milk, etc.) has raise 90% since the 1960´s. It´s an intense prodcuction. And no, cows do not eat grass in the massive animal production. Your conception about raising cows is biased, you should go check it out how are cows raised in meat production.
No, milk as no benifits for human health, and I can give you an example: men from the west do have prostate problems due to drinkink of milk that come from cows. 75% of men that have prostate problems they do have it due to the cow milk drinking. On the other hand, in many reagions of Asia the prostate problems almost don´t existe because cow milk is not a part of their culture. I could give you much more examples that milk raises problems for human health. Or you can just check them out.
And the milk you drink is not "pure", for instance you drink hormones that the cows take in order to produce 3 times more milk.
You only drink milk because your culture tells you to do it. Proteins? IS easy to get them in vegetables and their are more healthy.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm talking about the millions of people who live in poverty right now who raise cows for a living.
In Africa, cows play a huge role in rural economy. If you take the dairy away from these people, THEY WILL DIE.
Milk does, in fact, have benefits for human health. It's got proteins, and fats, and calcium. Cheese isn't going to kill you.
As for your assumptions on where my milk comes from? I actually got to meet the cows I get most of my dairy from. They live outside and eat grass. I got to bottlefeed the calves.
👍: 0 ⏩: 3
Did you know that dairy actually absorbs calcium from the body? I did a study on it in a nutrition course I took. So do alcohol and caffeine, on that note. The only reason people tell you to drink milk for calcium is because the majority of most people's diets revolve around animal bi-products. The best sources of calcium actually comes from legumes and beans, tofu, sesame seeds and dark leafy greens like kale, spinach, broccoli, romaine lettuce, etc. A cup of broccoli actually contains as much calcium as a cup of milk.
Many green vegetables have calcium-absorption rates of over 50 percent, compared with about 32 percent for milk. Additionally since animal protein induces calcium excretion in the urine, the calcium retention from vegetables is higher. All green vegetables are high in calcium.
Given the concentrated calcium dose in green vegetables and the health risks associated with diary products, veggies are a great tool for protecting yourself against bone debilitating diseases like osteoporosis.
Also, consider this; Human beings are the ONLY creatures that ingest milk after infancy, from another animal, no less. Some of the biggest and strongest animals on earth, like elephants and rhinos, horses, live on a strictly vegan diet. Not only is it unnatural, there is evidence of the link between high-saturated-fat foods (dairy fat) and cancer, there is a body of scientific literature linking the consumption of cow's milk to many other diseases.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Now i remember, most milk you get these days is from large factories were the cows hardly move and are feed really strange things (like chemicals) Organic milk comes from the farms...matbe you whent to an organic one?(sorry,I'm not trying to be annoying)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Not so much an organic one as just a rural one. I'm sure they don't meet the requirements for "organic."
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
oh ok. i dont think they sell things from rural farms in stores do they? i thought it was mostly factories..... (what does rural mean ...)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Rural means "out in the countryside." This specific farm is run by friends of mine, they do sell some to stores but mostly they sell it at farmer's markets.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
well <: L Alot of people buy things from other places instead of farmer's markets .. so they might come from factories -that aren't that healthy for the cows. So i guess it just depends were you buy it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
What millions of people who live in poverty raise cows for a living??? What countries? Who told you that?
In Africa cows play a huge role in rural economy? Which countries of Africa are you talking about? People die without milk of cow? Walt Disney told you that?
Proteins and calcium one can get them in vegetables.
According to many prominent medical doctors are now saying dairy consumption is a contributing factor in nearly two dozen diseases of children and adult: "can lead to iron deficiency anemia, allergies, diarrhea, heart disease, colic, cramps, gastrointestinal bleeding, sinusitis, skin rashes, acne, increased frequency of colds and flus, arthritis, diabetes, ear infections, osteoporosis, asthma, autoimmune diseases, and more, possibly even lung cancer, multiple sclerosis and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.
source: [link]
Milk and meat industry is a BIG INDUSTRY
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I DARE you to look a Masai herdsman in the eye and tell him to trade his cattle for vegetables. You think these subsistence herdsmen can get what they need from a veggie garden? Same goes for the many, MANY people living in semi poverty in Asia, most notably India, where cows are a huge part of their culture and market.
There's more to life than just the "west' you know.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Is because the west consumers of mass meat production that there is starvation in the world. There is enough vegetables and cerials for all the world, even for Masai, but one of the problems is that this big corporations are feeding animals in order for the richest countries could have their daily steak.
That is precisely there is more life than in the west that we should become vegetarians and boycott meat corporations.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That's preposterous.
The Masai have been raising their cattle the same way for many many hundreds of years. They simply CANNOT sustain large scale farming the same way we can in modernized nations.
The failing is mostly within the unstable government of the African nations. Not because some giant company is "hoarding the vegetables." There's MORE THAN ENOUGH feed out there for cattle AND humans, agriculture in the west produces A LOT of overflow.
Nobody is keeping the veggies from the Masai to have steak. 
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Throughout human history, grain has been the fundamental basis of human nutrition and civilization. Countless civilizations have fallen simply because the production of grain did not meet the basic nutritional needs of their people. We live in a global economy where grain is traded and shipped internationally across the globe. We live in a one-world grain economy. This world grain economy is basically a giant auction house where consumers bid with their dollars how world grain production will be used. Some bid for grain to feed livestock, others bid for grain to feed themselves.
From a simple market view of the economy: If the global demand is larger then global supply than some bidders will not get grain. If the global supply is greater then the global demand than (by definition) there will be enough for everyone’s needs. The large scale use or waste of grain in one part of the world can directly cause shortages in another part of the world.
There is an inadequate distribution kept global grain from certain markets. Now, global demand for grain has increased the cost to the point where it is simply no longer available to some of the poorer people and places who have access to the world grain market, but are simply being outbid for the limited resources. We are now seeing an actual global shortage of grain. If you do a simple search on-line for “grain shortage” you will see countless articles and studies about the fact that there is simply not enough grain to meet the current global demand.
According to the World Health Organization, there are 780 million malnourished people (those who can not get the minimum 2150 calories of food needed daily) and every 2 ½ seconds another child dies of starvation: 4,000 children per day DEAD from starvation. 1.4 million per year. To maximize relief efforts, International humanitarian organizations allocate 1 cup of grain per child per day to be just the bare minimum enough to prevent death from starvation, but there simply is not enough grain produced on the globe to meet market demands for livestock production and to also feed these children.
It would take 205 million pounds of grain to save the lives of the 1.4 million who would otherwise starve to death this year. While there may be many factors that contribute to this, the global grain shortage is a very major factor and will only make this problem significantly worse as the crisis continues. An incredibly high amount of the world’s grain is used to feed cattle to raise beef. 66-70% of the vegetable protein (grains and legumes) grown in the US and the world, respectively, is fed to livestock.
Keep in mind, it takes 16 pounds of grain to raise one pound of edible beef. Yet, one pound of whole grain (brown rice or whole corn or wheat) has roughly the same number of calories per pound (about 1500) as ground beef. We have to put 24,000 calories of grain into a cow to get 1500 calories worth of beef in return: a 93.8% net loss of calories. If 16 pounds of grain are used to grow 1 pound of beef, then every “quarter-pound” burger that a person eats from a fast food restaurant takes four pounds of grain off of the world market.
In other words, we take 6,000 calories of grain off of the world market to get 375
calories of beef in our quarter pounder. At 2.5 cups (servings) per pound, those four pounds of grain that have been removed from the market by a ONE single quarter pound fast food burger could have fed a starving child for 10 days, or prevented 10 children from starving to death TODAY.
The average American eats about 65 pounds of beef per year, which takes over 1,000 pounds of grain to raise. That means that Americans use 275 billion pounds of grain to raise the beef that they consume, yet less than 1/10th of 1 percent of that grain (204 million pounds) could feed the 1.4 million children who will otherwise starve to death in the next year. (Strangely, many of the top life-threatening illnesses faced by Americans are worsened by an over consumption of meat and animal products; heart attack, stroke, diabetes, obesity)
By ONE person choosing to feed himself on vegetable protein instead of beef, enough grain can be freed up on the world market to feed 2.8 (of the 4,000 children slated to die each from starvation) each day EVERY DAY and benefit his own health in the process. The truth is that world produces enough grain to meet the nutritional requirements of every person on the planet, but it is the diversion of the MAJORITY (66%) of our global grain supply to feed livestock who strip 93.8%( 15/16th) calories out of the food compared to what they give, THAT REMOVES 61.9% OF THE TOTAL FOOD CALORIES FROM OUR GLOBAL FOOD SUPPLY and converts it to manure!
All this so that Americans can have their fill of hamburgers and hot dogs. When we hear on the news about the global grain shortage or the toll of lethal poverty, we can not turn away. We need to ask “What are my actions that contribute to this? What can I do to be part of the solution and not part of the problem?” The answer can be very simple.
2008 – from Tom Spontelli
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Do commercials even really advertise milk anymore? I haven't really seen any...
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Of course they do: milk, botter, icecreams, iogurts, cheese, etc.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Milk products yes, but not milk.
I take it English is your second language?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
In europe milk is also advertise, of course.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I see magazine ads for milk a lot, but not so much on TV. I see cheese commercials from California Dairy a lot though.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
<= Prev |