HOME | DD
Pupaveg — Humane slaughter
by-nc-nd
#animal #cruelty #deviantart #humane #meat #murder #oxymoron #stamp #stamps #stop #vega #vegetarian #pupaveg
Published: 2018-06-01 15:19:14 +0000 UTC; Views: 1718; Favourites: 26; Downloads: 1
Redirect to original
Description
"HUMANE SLAUGHTER"
The words 'humane' and 'slaughter' put together, are what is known in the English language as an oxymoron, i.e. 2 words that contradict each other when put together. To use the term 'humane slaughter' is as nonsensical as to say 'humane rape', 'humane slavery', or 'humane holocaust'—regarding the latter point, some synonyms for 'slaughter' in the dictionary are 'bloodbath', 'massacre', and 'holocaust'... given that it does not make sense to use the term humane for any of those 3 words, neither can it make sense to say it for the word those synonyms derive from.
Ask yourself this question: is there a nice way to kill someone who doesn't want to die? Given that animals want to live, and value their lives as we value ours, there is no nice way to kill them.
In any case, anyone looking at the methods we use to kill farmed animals can see for themselves that it's not 'humane'. Whether the animal is stunned with a bolt gun or prongs , or whether it's by gas chamber , or whether they are killed via the Halal/Schechita method , these are not exactly methods we would use to euthanise even someone who did want to die.
Related content
Comments: 40
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
no such thing as "humane slaughter"
its just a label to make people feel better about themselves and not consider where exactly that steak or strip of bacon came from
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
Remind me again how exactly is it when we would just euthanize them when they reach late into adulthood?
Okay, I know that made nearly zero sense, but at least it's a whole lot better than doing this to them while they're ALIVE.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The point is that we don't need to kill them, which makes it senseless violence, no matter when or how you do it.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
I think you're confusing the phrase "senseless violence" with you are an idiot. What actually constitutes as senseless violence is making a bloody dirty mess and throwing weapons haphazardly towards your intended target or everything and everyone else. Euthanasia is clean and cutting up the corpse after is controlled, compared to what you think, or rather, falsely believe.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
I didn't call anyone an idiot. If you think that killing animals when we don't have to makes one an idiot, it's your call to stop doing it. Anyway, what happens in slaughterhouses is not "euthanasia". When an animal is suffering horribly, and you can see that their quality of life is reduced to zero, and a medical professional tells you that there is no hope of recovery and that every moment is a misery, then it makes total sense to have that animal put to death under anesthetic and with a lethal injection. By comparison, taking a completely healthy animal at a few months old and killing them because you feel like eating their dead body, makes no sense at all if you claim to have any consideration for animals. There is no comparison to be made here. Put yourself in this position - you are suffering horribly and you know you will never survive. Would you consider taking death? Maybe. But if you're living your life in your youth, would you consider it as even remotely comparable to just being murdered because someone felt like it? No.
👍: 2 ⏩: 1
"If you think that killing animals when we don't have to makes one an idiot, it's your call to stop doing it."
Unfortunately, we have to, because meat's the only source of 15+ grams of protein, depending on what it is. We've been eating meat ever since we learned how to walk, how to hunt. Not one person who kills and eats animals is a sadist. They don't want to, but they have to to get their bigger source of protein. Doesn't mean they have to like it.
"By comparison, taking a completely healthy animal at a few months old and killing them because you feel like eating their dead body, makes no sense at all if you claim to have any consideration for animals."
Where, exactly, did I say that I would kill baby animals just because I feel like it? Hell, almost nobody kills animals just because they feel like it; they need meat. In drastic cases, in the wild, rodent mothers eat their own young so that they wouldn't get detected by predators and whatnot. It's basic instinct. It's also basic instinct for us humans to eat meat because it's an evolutionary trait (not that I would force people like you to eat meat; actually, as for as I'm concerned, you're pretty much forcing people to go with veganism).
And besides, there is no hypocrisy whatsoever in eating meat and loving animals. If you seriously think so, then you're just an idiot who thinks you're better than all of us just because you're vegan.
"Put yourself in this position - you are suffering horribly and you know you will never survive. Would you consider taking death? Maybe. But if you're living your life in your youth, would you consider it as even remotely comparable to just being murdered because someone felt like it? No."
Or, here's a better idea: imagine yourself as a meat-lover and explain the health benefits of meat and support free-range farms instead of factory farms and encourage everyone to do the same. Actually, no, forget it, it would probably be futile because you would be the same either way: holier-than-thou attitude, sees everything in black and white, resorting to false dichotomy and always stating that you're right even when you're wrong, and above all, have zero respect for people's food choices. The only difference is you would be calling all vegans weak pussy-footing hippies.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
Protein
This nutrient is extremely easy to come across. If you are eating the correct RDA of total calories each day, then it is virtually impossible to be short of protein. Deficiency of protein is incredibly rare in modern society, and basically only affects people who are starving for whatever reason. It's not a concern for those who are eating a normal amount. The world health organization recommends between 5-10% of your daily calories to come from protein. So many common plant-based foods are in excess of that, many fall within that range, and only a few things like fruit fall slightly beneath. This really is not a concern for anybody.
"We've been doing it for a long time"
Humans have done a lot of violent things for a long time. That is no reason to still continue doing those things today and certainly not a moral justification.
"Don't force your opinions on others"
If you're reading this, I can pretty much guarantee that I did not talk to *you* about this. Either I have redirected you here because that's what you've accused me of and I didn't do it, or somebody else has redirected you here, in which case, I can't vouch for them and it's not my responsibility. But, in either case, even if somebody did start talking to you about veganism, is it really "forcing" their opinion on you? To simply say "please consider not stabbing animals" is a very reasonable suggestion, is it not? Nobody is in a position to "force" you to do anything, if you want to keep stabbing animals, I am not in a position to prevent you. Indeed, from a non-vegans perspective, your opinion is that animals should be stabbed in the neck. To me, that is a far more forceful application of an opinion than simply asking someone to re-evaluate their position on something politely.
"It's natural"
It is untrue that you only do things that you consider to be natural - you use the internet, you presumably use a car or a bus or a plane, and so on. You use modern technology, and do various other things that cannot be called natural. Likewise, there are other things that are natural that you avoid. Nature is pretty cruel, and we actually live life in modern society trying to avoid the perils of nature. You might argue that anything is natural which humans are capable of. But if you argue that, then the justification "it's natural" would apply to literally any human behaviour, and as such is ridiculous, since you would not say that any human behaviour is justified just because a human did it.
"You can love animals and kill them".
Please explain how paying someone to kill animals unnessearily is "love"? It may sound normal if you were raised to do so, but when you think about it, it is hypocritical to love one animal and kill the other. Just like how it's hypocritical that a mother who claims to "love children" loves her real child, but neglects and abuses her adopted child. People who pet dogs, but kill pigs aren't animal lovers, they're dog lovers. And they're speciesist. Especially since animal agriculture is the leading cause of species extinction worldwide. No one who genuinely cares about animals funds the leading cause of killing animals. That is contradicting.
"Vegans think they're better than me"
Veganism is about treating others as equals, not about being superior. It is non-vegans who believe that their tastebuds are superior to all life on earth. As vegans say: "I don't feel superior because I'm a vegan... I'm a vegan because I don't feel superior".
With regards to being judgemental, vegans judge the majority of life on earth as precious. Meanwhile, it is non-vegans who tend to judge all other species as being not worthy of having even basic rights, e.g. the right to be free from harm and exploitation.
"Happy exploitation"
Regardless of the fashion of execution, there isn't a justification for taking the life. It is still taking the life of a sentient being, for your enjoyment ultimately. If somebody killed your companion animal, I doubt you'd say "that's fine because you did it humanely" as described above. And yes, when it comes to killing and oppressing innocents, it IS a black and white issue. You either oppress them or you don't. You can't kill someone "a little". If a choice has victims, people are going to speak up. Sorry, that's just how morality works. And honestly, don't you see the irony in preaching about respecting others their choices while not even respecting your victim's choice to live? Vegans aren't forcing their choice on you - they are telling you to stop forcing your choice on the animals. Most people are not born vegan. I wasn't. I was raised in ignorance of what goes on in animal agriculture, especially regarding egg and milk production. When I learned more, I had an open mind, and took accountability. And I continue to do that today. Veganism is actually about being open to new information, rather than ignoring it and trying to feel blameless.
👍: 2 ⏩: 1
Vegetables do NOT have a lot of protein in them. At most, they range between two to five grams of protein, which is minuscule to meat, which has around ten plus grams of protein in them. If you say that protein deficiency is not a concern for EVERYBODY, that's because most of them eat meat. Vegans like you have it physiologically better than anybody else. That's just where the comparisons end.
Oh, please. EVERYBODY has been redirected to you even without the methods you've explained, not just me. "Indeed, from a non-vegans perspective, your opinion is that animals should be stabbed in the neck." A) I think you mean from a vegan's perspective. B) You just happened to have a very, VERY warped view about the world. Kinda surprising that you would have that despite the fact that you have an open mind. "than simply asking someone to re-evaluate their position on something politely." Which is something you have yet to do in regards of what you're doing right now.
"Especially since animal agriculture is the leading cause of species extinction worldwide."
Uh, wrong. Poaching and trophy hunting is the leading cause of species extinction worldwide, not animal agriculture. If you care so much about species extinction, try signing petitions and donate to environmental organizations to combat poaching and trophy hunting. If you're vegan, just try to at least care about the environment overall and how it's being destroyed by logging and harming animal habitats and fight to preserve wildlife in addition to promoting veganism. And while we're on the subject, promoting is vastly different from spreading. There is a right and wrong way to do things, and as far as I'm concerned, you're pretty much doing it the wrong way. And besides, it IS rather contradictory when you don't do that.
"It is non-vegans who believe that their tastebuds are superior to all life on earth."
Do you seriously have any idea on how many people you've already offended with that statement, including me? Let alone the negative impact it has? Do you wanna know why that offends so many people? It's because you're relying on and enforcing negative and hurtful stereotypes on people who have meat in their diets. You just like vegans who share the same exact views as you do and irrationally hate non-vegans just because they just HAPPEN to have meat in their diets. That's the exact opposite of being open-minded. To have an open mind, you need to accept the differences people have, and that includes food preferences. Makes me wonder how many friendships you so stupidly ended with your narrow-mindedness. If I was in your place, I wouldn't even do that.
"If somebody killed your companion animal, I doubt you'd say "that's fine because you did it humanely" as described above."
Of course I wouldn't say that. For one thing, I would be a moron to not care about my companion animal, and for another, I would be BEYOND PISSED is someone did that without my consent if you're referring to euthanasia. Then again, I would still be beyond pissed if someone killed my companion animal and would have beaten the living shit out of that perp to the point of death of the law allowed it. And before you say anything, I wouldn't even care if my companion animal was a dog, cat, chicken, sheep, duck, pig or cow. A pet is something you bond with regardless of species. That's hardly speciesist.
"it IS a black and white issue."
Oh, for God's sake, get the fuck over yourself. Eating meat is NOT a black and white issue. It's only a black and white issue because YOU think it is. And it's not just that: as I said before, you only think it's a black and white issue because you rely on negative and hurtful stereotypes of eating meat. You're also very refusing to accept the fact that people's food preferences are different from each other, eating meat is no exception. Your narrow-mindedness is more than enough to make Trump blush so hard you'd be able to see it on his ganguro face.
"And honestly, don't you see the irony in preaching about respecting others their choices while not even respecting your victim's choice to live?"
A) You could be asking the same thing in whether or not to terminate a pregnancy. B) What irony? The only irony I see is that you say you have an open mind and yet from everybody else's perspective, you don't. I don't even know if you are even aware of that, and I pretty much doubt if you ever will (my best prediction is never)
"Vegans aren't forcing their choice on you - they are telling you to stop forcing your choice on the animals."
To what, to eat meat? As far as I and everybody else is concerned, eating meat is a necessity, especially for growing children, cancer patients and anorexia survivors. Converting to veganism is just a choice. So I really don't see why eating meat is a choice when it's just an evolutionary trait we all share.
"When I learned more, I had an open mind, and took accountability. And I continue to do that today. Veganism is actually about being open to new information."
Sucks that you weren't taught to respect others' food preferences, though. Quite a shame, if you ask me.
"It is still taking the life of a sentient being, for your enjoyment ultimately."
I'm not going to say this one more time. NOT ONE PERSON who eats meat enjoys killing animals. NOT ONE PERSON who kills animals is a sadist. Realistically and statistically, more sadists enjoy abusing, controlling, torturing and killing people than they do animals. In fact, many sociopaths and psychopaths are more likely to get along with animals than with humans almost to the point of loving them because, well, animals are not human.
One last thing. Regarding what I said about you caring about the environment, here's a fun fact for you. Factory farms are created to keep up with the demand on the meat and dairy market (aka, doesn't fall under the category of sadism in the slightest). In so doing, factory farms contribute to leaving a lot of carbon footprints in the atmosphere, which also contributes to climate change. Free-range farms are generally cleaner and isn't as detrimental to the environment, especially where air pollution is concerned. And believe it or not, I support free-range farming because animals are raised in better conditions than in factory farms. Now, believe it or not, I'm all for one in reducing meat consumption as much as possible. If that happens, then factory farms would decrease in favor of free-range farms because it would mitigate the effects of climate change. Demanding everybody (as in, the whole of Earth's population) to stop eating meat altogether is only going to create more problems than it solves, and I'm not just talking about the health issues people would come across. There would also be overpopulation of livestock and and highly increased competitiveness for food and territory. Believe it or not, I'm a full believer of compromises. Reducing meat consumption means reducing factory farms in favor of free-range farms. That leaves vegans, vegetarians, meat-eaters, and anyone in-between satisfied, right? Try thinking about that.
And here's another fun fact: Did you know that almond milk uses a lot more water than regular milk does (don't know about soy, though; I think they're the same)? Using gallons upon gallons of water to make almond milk can't be all that good for the environment, now can it? Also bees get killed for the creation of almond milk. Where do bees fit in the picture, you ask? Well, I've got it bookmarked just for you: erikaawakening.com/vegan-philo… Please, I urge you to read this. If you think this is not sufficient for you, please Google search "pros and cons of a vegan diet." You would be surprised if you read the link or the results. I do not blame you for being so, really. If you're really refusing to believe that, even if you've given these a lot of thought, then it would be safe to say that I pity you immensely. For being a narrow-minded asshole who refuses to personally change.
P.S. You actually did a good job invalidating people with soy, wheat, almond, nut and legume allergies when you gave me that anatomy sheet. And you also did a good job disregarding whether animals and humans can digest what they eat, their natural instincts, and getting necessary and vital nutrients from it, relying solely on physical appearance, especially humans. You've simply proven to me how ignorant you are of the actual facts. You're welcome. You're more than welcome to block me, but block-replying is pretty much useless as I will not read the reply regardless of what it is (it's just going to be you still spewing ignorance at me and everybody else, really). On the off-chance that you do reply to me and not block me after and I do not reply, it simply means I am sick and tired of putting some actual sense into you, as you are refusing to listen to what me and everybody else says. It doesn't mean that I lost the argument. In fact, I more or less think that you're just in a losing argument, as far as I'm concerned.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Vegetables do NOT have a lot of protein in them. If you say that protein deficiency is not a concern for EVERYBODY, that's because most of them eat meat.
Listen, I don't blame you for being ignorant about nutrition (you can't know everything after all), but I suggest you look into a subject before making claims about it. Because you're literally not making sense now.
A) I think you mean from a vegan's perspective. B) You just happened to have a very, VERY warped view about the world. Kinda surprising that you would have that despite the fact that you have an open mind. "than simply asking someone to re-evaluate their position on something politely." Which is something you have yet to do in regards of what you're doing right now.
A. If you eat meat, you literally (pay others to) kill animals on your behalf. That's just how it is. That's the reality. If you can't handle being told what YOU are doing, what does that say about you?
B. No offense, but killing the planet and trillions of its beings in the name of bacon and cheese seems like a lot more warped up view than simply suggesting we shouldn't do that.
I've been polite in my responses to you so far. I've only stated facts, the reality of things. If being told facts about protein, slaughter methods and morality are "rude" to you, what does that say about you? And if the reality YOU are literally funding offends you so much, should you really be funding it?
Poaching and trophy hunting is the leading cause of species extinction worldwide, not animal agriculture.
Poaching and hunting are a big problem, no one denies that. But they are not the leading cause of species extinction. You see, animal agriculture is the leading cause of global deforestation (over 75%), habitat destruction, GHG emissions (51%), habitat destruction, ocean dead zones, water pollution, and many more environmental issues. These issues are the leading cause of species extinction. You do the math. If you are genuinely concerned about species extinction and deforestation as you say, it makes no sense for you to support the leading cause of it, which is animal agriculture. (You can find the sources for these numbers here: fav.me/dbm82at and here: fav.me/dbj5ov1 I've lined them up in the artist description.) The environmental issues you mentioned are one of the main reasons why I'm vegan in the first place.
There is a right and wrong way to do things, and as far as I'm concerned, you're pretty much doing it the wrong way.
My comics exist to make people laugh and reconsider their position. Some people will not find it funny, some people won't connect at all. There is no form of outreach which is 100% effective - if there was, then that's what everyone would be doing. I know that the comics do have an impact, because I keep getting people writing to me to say they've gone vegan after really thinking about it since seeing the comics. I make them this way so they're accessible and simple. But more importantly - if you aren't vegan and you're trying to tell me how best to get the message across - then just tell me what to say to you, and I'll say it back, and then you'll go vegan right?
Do you seriously have any idea on how many people you've already offended with that statement, including me?
Then tell me what part is inaccurate about that statement? If you consciously choose to support killing the planet and trillions of its beings just because you like cheese and burgers, you are, IN FACT, putting your tastebuds over all life on earth, do you not? LITERALLY. And if being told that you do that offends you, should you really be doing it? Let me make something clear: I don't tell people what they want to hear. I tell them how things really are. If being told what YOU do offends you, it is YOUR responsibility to change, not that of the messenger.
You just like vegans who share the same exact views as you do and irrationally hate non-vegans just because they just HAPPEN to have meat in their diets.
I don't "hate" anyone. I am here to raise awareness about what happens in animal agriculture, and to talk about alternatives. That being said, you talk as if I'm criticizing a personal choice here. But by definition, supporting animal agriculture cannot be a personal choice, because it affects others. How you style your hair, your favourite colour, your preferred music genre—these are all personal choices. Who you choose to enslave, oppress, and kill, however, is not. To summarise: "Your personal choice ends where someone else's body begins". You can't demand respect for your choice if it has victims, especially not from people who care about those victims. No one is obliged to respect choices that oppress and kill others. And if you want to talk about respect, then practice what you preach by respecting your victim's choice to live. So please... stop acting as if this is about a peaceful choice that doesn't harm anybody. This is about literal oppression and killing, and you know it.
Of course I wouldn't say that.
Excactly. But you should realize that an act of violence doesn't suddenly become "humane" just because the victim isn't your pet. Somebody could equally say to you "I don't have a connection with your dog, so I am going to slit their throat". Just because of how you feel about an animal, doesn't mean that animal is disposable, they are sentient beings.
Eating meat is NOT a black and white issue.
There is killing and there is not killing. You either kill or you avoid killing. There is no 3rd option. And if you disagree, then please explain to me how you can kill someone "a little".
You're also very refusing to accept the fact that people's food preferences are different from each other, eating meat is no exception.
Then please explain to me why you are against cannibalism? Surely you know the difference between eating a potato and a sentient being? Again: please stop acting like this is about a victimless choice.
A) You could be asking the same thing in whether or not to terminate a pregnancy. B) What irony? The only irony I see is that you say you have an open mind and yet from everybody else's perspective, you don't. I don't even know if you are even aware of that, and I pretty much doubt if you ever will (my best prediction is never)
Why are you avoiding the argument by bringing up other irrelevant issues? Again: don't you see the irony in preaching about respecting others their choices while not even respecting your victim's choice to live?"
As far as I and everybody else is concerned, eating meat is a necessity, especially for growing children, cancer patients and anorexia survivors.
This is false, as proven by the hundreds of millions of vegans and vegetarians in the world. And ironically meat feeds cancer; it's one of the leading causes of it (I mean, even the World Health Organization classified it a Group 1 carcinogen. which is the same carcinogenic group as asbestos and cigarettes), so you're not making sense. I know I'm repeating myself, but please again: look into nutrition before making wild claims about it. Because denying the very existence of me, my Indian family, all other people who have never eaten meat in their lives, all plant-based tribes (Buddhists and Hindus that don't eat meat) makes your argument really weak.
Converting to veganism is just a choice.
Yeah, and staying alive, too. So are you going to practice what you preach by respecting the animals their choice to live? And future generations their choice to live on a clean planet?
Sucks that you weren't taught to respect others' food preferences, though. Quite a shame, if you ask me.
You're at least 13 years old (or you wouldn't be allowed on this site) and you don't know what morality is? Again: if you oppress, sexually exploit and kill others, people are going to speak up for the victims. That's just how morality works. You could use your poor argument for EVERY form of violence. But respecting violence has nothing to do with respect, quite the opposite actually. Animals are the victim here, not you. So excuse me, I'll go ahead and respect their choice to live over your choice to harm them needlessly.
I'm not going to say this one more time. NOT ONE PERSON who eats meat enjoys killing animals. NOT ONE PERSON who kills animals is a sadist.
But every single person who eats meat enjoys the result of killing animals. So they literally kill for their enjoyment. And how do they call people who kill for pleasure again...? If you don't want to kill innocents for pleasure, then JUST. DON'T. DO. IT. It's not that hard, you know.
Realistically and statistically, more sadists enjoy abusing, controlling, torturing and killing people than they do animals. In fact, many sociopaths and psychopaths are more likely to get along with animals than with humans almost to the point of loving them because, well, animals are not human.
Research states that sadists always start with killing animals. And honestly, the kill count of all sadists, serial killers and terrorists combined fades in comparison to that of those who support animal agriculture. When you think about it, legal oppression and killing are actually worse, because it is condoned and defended by society (look at slavery for example) which makes the victims free game. All the more reason why people like me argue against it. The worst forms of oppression throughout history were legal, after all.
Grass-fed, organic, free-range etc
Regardless of the nature of their lives before slaughter, farmed animals get sent to slaughter. There is a misconception that animals get to "live out their lives" and then get killed. Animals get killed as soon as their purpose is served, or as soon as they reach a profitable size, which is at a fraction of their potential lifespan. The very definition of grass-fed/organic/free-range animals is actually very loose and can vary wildly. It doesn't mean that the animals have any kind of quality of life necessarily, it just means the farm has to meet some arbitrary requirements to earn that title. That's not to say that every single farmer treats their animals dreadfully while they live - some actually do give their animals a fair standard of life before sending them to have their throats slit. But it's ignorant to think it's the norm in the first place. But regardless of the fashion of execution, there isn't a justification for taking life. It is still taking the life of a sentient being, for your enjoyment ultimately. Vegans their problem with animal exploitation isn't HOW the animals are being enslaved and killed, it's THAT the animals are being enslaved and killed. Because it's completely unnecessary and destroys the planet and its beings.
And "happy" farms like organic farms are actually worse for the environment than factory-farming for obvious reasons: it takes more space, water, food, and pollution to raise animals "slower" without the fattening-up method. That's why factory farming came into existence in the first place. No matter how you look at it, raising over 58 billion land animals on plants will ALWAYS require more food, water, space and pollution than feeding 7.5 billion humans on plants. Animal agriculture, whether it's factory-farmed or free-range, or even organic is the least efficient form of farming there is. Pretending you're doing the environment a favor by supporting it literally makes no sense.
And here's another fun fact: Did you know that almond milk uses a lot more water than regular milk does
This is false. Over 58 billion animals are raised for slaughter each year. In order to feed them, it takes far more land, water and crops to feed them than it does to just feed us 7 billion humans on plants. The number of animals being farmed is unsustainable in fact, causing all kinds of pollution as a result of their manure and the greenhouse gases released, which is more harmful than all traffic pollution combined. Disagree with me? Please feel free to research it, but it's by definition going to require additional farming, space, resources, water...
please Google search "pros and cons of a vegan diet."
Random Google wesbites written by meat-addicts and industry-funded companies are not credible sources. I'll stick to peer-reviewed papers, thank you.
You actually did a good job invalidating people with soy, wheat, almond, nut and legume allergies when you gave me that anatomy sheet.
Then here's another for people with allergies. You're welcome!
You've simply proven to me how ignorant you are of the actual facts.
Um, honestly, all you've done so far is ignored all new information that was provided, ignored the hundreds of peer-reviewed papers I've provided, made ignorant claims about nutrition which you backed up by using random Google results as your source. You literally came to a page for people who care about animals to demand respect for your choice to kill those very animals. And after having your arguments debunked, you ran off saying that you won't reply. It's clear that you're not open to new information. You just came here because you want to feel better about your violent, unethical choices, handling a childish "I kill the victims you care about and I'm awesome for it, and don't you dare say otherwise!" attitude. YOU are the one who literally came here to spew ignorance, haven't provided even a single peer-reviewed source, and then ran off while covering your ears like a kid. If you're going to be closed-minded, why even bother commenting? It's ironic that you try to turn this around and make me look like the one who isn't open-minded. While all you've done so far is cling to your old dogmatic beliefs, say that you'll never change, even after learning that it's not just killing trillions of beings every single year, but also the entire planet. While when I discovered all that, I took responsibility and changed. So who is really the closed-minded one who doesn't change when new information is being presented?
I won't block you. I don't block anyone ever (unless they spam, or are harassing me, my followers, or use sockpuppets). And I won't run off after replying either. Because I am openminded and therefore open to having a mature discussion. I'm not here to speak on behalf of myself, but on behalf of the oppressed. So I have no issue challenging the dogmatic beliefs of their oppressors. Feel free to reply.
👍: 2 ⏩: 2
To pokemonsonicgirl123 It's sad that you decided to block me after you ran out of fake concerns when they were refuted. But since I already wrote this, I'm just going to attach it to the conversation anyway.
First of all: how is stating facts on par with "being angry"?
Second: Cultures and social norms develop over time. Whether it is slavery, women having the vote, or anything else, the fact that it was ever the norm or part of culture, is not a justification for it. If you think that culture is a justification, then if you look at other cultures, you must advocate every single practice that they do, regardless of how clearly unethical it is. That's not a rational point of view. You should be able to form a view on a practice regardless of where it happens. So if you say that killing dogs is unacceptable because your culture says so, but you think that it's fine if other cultures do it, consider the following: If someone is about to kill a dog in your culture, would you really say "Excuse me, can you please cross the border to that other culture where that kind of thing is the norm? Then I will stop caring about that dog". This is about the victim, it doesn't matter where it happens.
Third: Just because a product is available for purchase does not make everybody obliged to buy it. This argument becomes clearly absurd when you apply it to anything else - if you stop smoking, you'll be putting people out of jobs in the cigarette industry, so everyone has to smoke. Or, if you stop drinking alcohol, you'll be putting people out of jobs in the alcohol industry, so you have to drink. It makes no sense at all. Industries exist to meet a demand, and to make money from people. If people don't want those products, then that's not their fault, consumers are not obliged to buy everything on offer and fund every single industry out there. If consumers' money is not being spent on one item, it's being spent on another, which means there will be greater demand elsewhere, so the industries change over time to accommodate what consumers want. It doesn't mean job loss in the first place.
Fourth: Erika Awakening is not a vegan, nevermind a valid source. She is a pro-meat propagandist pretty much all actual vegans despise for spreading false information (seriously, not even non-delusional meat-eaters take her seriously). She is not just extremely ignorant about nutrition, but also about and environmentalism. And she has literally zero peer-reviewed sources to back up her arguments, which resulted in an article with so many flaws (I mean, the "B12" and the "almond milk" argument... come on!) that have already been debunked by actual scientists and medical experts decades ago, that I don't even know where to begin pointing out its flaws. Using her as a source is therefore as absurd as using every other random Youtuber as a source. Random bloggers are not peer-reviewed sources. Every peer-reviewed paper spits on her childish blog post. The only reason why people like you listen to her is that she is telling you what you want to hear; that you can keep killing innocents without feeling bad about it. You don't care about the fact that she has zero peer-reviewed sources to back up her nonsense. You just want to feel good about doing something bad. But you should realize that not all people choose the path of delusion. Many people are actually more interested in the actual truth rather than staying in a bubble of delusion just to feel better about oppressing and killing. Honestly, I have provided you hundreds of peer-reviewed sources to back up my claims, and all you can come up with is a random pro-meat teenage blogger as your source? Really?
Firth: As for your argument about "closed-mindedness", I think you have things mixed up here. You came to a page that is against killing for pleasure for the sole purpose of telling them that you will never stop killing for pleasure. You literally just came here to state that they're closed-minded, and will never change. That literally defines being closed-minded. It's ironic, isn't it? As I said before: most people are not born vegan. I wasn't. I was raised in ignorance of what goes on in animal agriculture, especially regarding egg and milk production. When I learned more, I had an open mind and took accountability. And I continue to do that today. Veganism is actually about being open to new information, rather than ignoring it and trying to feel blameless. And then there's the fact that you just blocked me over politely debunking your arguments (on my own page) and can't even respond substantively... who is really the closed-minded one? #irony
"Instead of saying that it's the "moral choice," say that it's a healthy choice and also eco-friendly."
Sixth: Veganism is not a diet or trend. It is an ethical stance. You have it mixed up with being plant-based. That is not the same thing as being vegan. Plantbased people consume a plant-based diet for health reasons. Vegans consume a plant-based diet and avoid animal products in other areas of life (clothing, cosmetics) for ethical reasons; because it's morally wrong to objectify, enslave and kill other sentient beings when we don't have to. So if anything would be misinforming people, it would be your suggestion of acting like being against senseless violence is some kind of trend, rather than a moral stance.
Seventh: The suggestion is that vegans want all domesticated animals to be released into the wild. But that's not what anybody is suggesting. You can't do that practically because those animals are domesticated, and are not natural breeds, they were selectively bred. So it would be releasing billions of animals into ecosystems which would cause so many unknown problems. What vegans want is for animals to stop being bred. It isn't a question of - either they get eaten by wild animals, or by us. We don't need to be breeding them at all.
And finally: It's quite ironic that you keep accusing me of the very things you are doing. Your last comment is so full of irony, I don't even know where to start. But I'll do my best.
IRONY
BOOM! TEXTWALL! I think that covers pretty much everything. Oh my goodness, THAT much irony? I honestly can't believe anymore that you're not even aware of this irony. It's clear that you are not interested to shift from your dogmatic beliefs. You were raised with these beliefs and it's hard for you to accept that those beliefs could be questioned, nevermind that they're based on myths and propaganda. Thankfully new information about the impact of animal agriculture is becoming more and more mainstream these days. It will only continue to grow. Maybe one day you will be ready to accept that you shouldn't always question everything you've been taught since birth. Have a nice day.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Well, congrats. You've further proven everybody else's point as well as mine that you are very, very ignorant of what people say and what you say is "fact" regardless if it's false, especially if it's been proven many times that that this is false. The link I gave you is from an actual reasonable vegan, and you either chose not to read it, or you did read it but decided to not care. Which further proves said reasonable vegan's point: "I have a few tips before you read the rest of this article. First off, hold your fire and actually listen to what’s being said before launching into personal attacks at the author. Oh wait! You’re not going to be able to do that, because deficiencies of DHA/EPA, B12, and other nutrients have lowered your brain function and made you impulsive and irrationally angry. Right." Although I would not say that you're impulsive and irrationally angry, per se, just irrational-irrational. And this is from an actual, honest-to-God vegan. Open-minded does not mean to place stereotypes on people, you know.
"If you aren't vegan and you're trying to tell me how best to get the message across - then just tell me what to say to you, and I'll say it back, and then you'll go vegan right? "
Okay. I'll tell you this plain and simple. First, explain the health benefits of veganism, but also make sure to explain the downside of veganism and how to counter these as best as possible. And provide links from ACTUAL medical sites, not the the ones that are self-serving and rife with misinformation and falsified facts. Secondly, state that veganism is good for the environment, but also state that converting to veganism isn't enough to save the environment and explain why so, with links from environmental websites made and ran by ecologists and biologists. You could also link them petitions for them to sign to help further stop the destruction of Earth's environment. And thirdly, stating that converting to veganism is a "moral" choice will only drive more people away than it attracts. In fact, it only attracts ridicule and rebuffing. Instead of saying that it's the "moral choice," say that it's a healthy choice and also eco-friendly. Otherwise, actions speak louder than words (and probably misinformation.
And no, I don't recommend you don't repeat it back, because, knowing you, and from what I have seen, you have a VERY bad habit of twisting people's words purely for your own benefit. Even if you don't and say it like just like what I said, what makes you think I'll go vegan? In fact, I think you've further proven that you only care about your beliefs and only care about those who share your beliefs. From the way I see it, it's really no different from say, having a deep-as-hell hatred for Relena Peacecraft from Mobile Suit Gundam Wing and being a die-hard HeeroxDuo fangirl. How are these similar, you might ask? People always say very degrading and slandering things about Relena which are, predictably, 99% not true, whether it's pure ignorance, or a case of believing their own falsified facts and stating that their so-called "opinions" are fact, no matter how many times they're proven wrong by the rational ones. They make journals on why people should ship HeeroxDuo and often make false statements about Relena, claiming that they're 100% canon, the few of which that downright ASK to hate Relena with the very same reasons. In the case of veganism, it's a little different, but the analogy remains the same: you make false facts to make people hate a beloved character for your own benefit. You stereotype meat-eaters or those who have meat in their diets for your own benefit. You're just too self-absorbed to even listen. You're refusing to accept differences, much less learn to. You only care about yourself and those who share the same exact beliefs as you; you're no different than a Fundamentalist Christian.
"If you consciously choose to support killing the planet and trillions of its beings just because you like cheese and burgers, you are, IN FACT, putting your tastebuds over all life on earth, do you not?"
Again with the black-and-white stereotyping. Please knock it off for everybody's sake. It's not good for them, nor is it good for you.
"That being said, you talk as if I'm criticizing a personal choice here."
That's because you ARE. And you're still proving my point that you're so blind to everything else, believe it or not.
"I don't "hate" anyone. I am here to raise awareness about what happens in animal agriculture, and to talk about alternatives. That being said, you talk as if I'm criticizing a personal choice here. But by definition, supporting animal agriculture cannot be a personal choice, because it affects others. How you style your hair, your favourite colour, your preferred music genre—these are all personal choices. Who you choose to enslave, oppress, and kill, however, is not. To summarise: "Your personal choice ends where someone else's body begins". You can't demand respect for your choice if it has victims, especially not from people who care about those victims. No one is obliged to respect choices that oppress and kill others. And if you want to talk about respect, then practice what you preach by respecting your victim's choice to live. So please... stop acting as if this is about a peaceful choice that doesn't harm anybody. This is about literal oppression and killing, and you know it."
Yes, continue doing that. But you also can't demand respect with this black-and-white mentality you have. Respect comes from accepting differences and not be an asshole about it. And animals do not have the same mental capacity as humans to make choices. Sure, they can problem-solve, but make choices, no.
"But you should realize that an act of violence doesn't suddenly become "humane" just because the victim isn't your pet."
Again, compared to what you think, I do love animals. And I don't have to have a pet just to love animals. In fact, NOBODY has to have a pet to love animals. You're only making false dichotomies here.
"You either kill or you avoid killing. There is no 3rd option. And if you disagree, then please explain to me how you can kill someone "a little"."
IF and WHEN you can. Why do you think the phrase "last resort" exists? The only option here is to reduce factory farms in favor of free-range farms. Stopping meat consumption altogether can only cause more problems than it solves. I'm a huge fan of "reduce, reuse, recycle" and I'm all for one in reducing meat consumption for the sake of the environment, not stopping altogether.
Don't believe me? We're all aware that immediately ceasing to eat meat might have some environmental benefits, but NOT all of them. And it's not just that; livestock will no longer have economic value and they would either be killed or sent to sanctuaries. Noticed that I said "killed" in this. We need meat? They get killed. They no longer have economic value? They get killed. Get forced into the wild? They die. So, killing them for meat consumption is the most merciful in the long run because compared to the latter two options, it's quick and painless. Not that I support factory farming. Still don't believe me? Here: www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/10…
www.theatlantic.com/business/a… It's good that you want the planet to become vegetarian, but it would also help to think about the consequences--economic and environmental--about this. For instance, the poor would be hit the hardest because they've lost their only source of 10+ grams of protein. So in their case, meat is a need for them. And it's not just them; it would also affect different countries whose cultures revolve around certain meats, leading to a loss of cultural identity. There's also environmental consequences like desertification, loss of biodiversity, loss of people's homelands and increased city space (the last two of which I'm admittedly rather skeptical about).
And yes, I did careful research about this. But unlike you, I searched up the pros and cons and searched for articles and sites are written from a neutral point of view and not overly preachy (and believe me when I say that it is hard as hell to look for any).
"Over 58 billion animals are raised for slaughter each year. In order to feed them, it takes far more land, water and crops to feed them than it does to just feed us 7 billion humans on plants."
And you haven't even worked on reducing that number why? It's like you not even care at all, you only care about being right and nothing else. As far as I'm concerned, you're just wasting your time saying "veganism is the moral choice" instead of taking real action. That saves a lot of people from their headaches just by talking to you.
And here: www.popsci.com/almond-milk-cou…
magazine.scienceconnected.org/…
sustainability.ucsf.edu/1.713
Since you're so freaking desperate for actual answers.
"You're at least 13 years old (or you wouldn't be allowed on this site) and you don't know what morality is? Again: if you oppress, sexually exploit and kill others, people are going to speak up for the victims. That's just how morality works. You could use your poor argument for EVERY form of violence. But respecting violence has nothing to do with respect, quite the opposite actually. Animals are the victim here, not you. So excuse me, I'll go ahead and respect their choice to live over your choice to harm them needlessly."
A) I'm ten years older than that and I know full well what morality is. B) That would be applicable for sex slaves, mobs, human traffickers, pro-birthers, and the like. But not for butchers, whether they're part of factory arms or free-range farms. C) I DO NOT in any way, shape, or form, support violence. The only time I do is when push comes to shove, but otherwise, I would only reserve it as a last resort. Also, eating meat is no matter of diplomacy, believe it or not. And animals cannot CHOOSE like humans can. That's like saying a fetus chooses to live. D)You say animals are the victim, and yet you're making yourself out to be one in this argument (although I do admit some fault in just coming here).
"This is false, as proven by the hundreds of millions of vegans and vegetarians in the world."
But not the scientists? Because they're right and you and the rest of vegans and vegetarians are wrong and you and the rest of them go out of their way to prove that you're right regardless if you've been proven wrong time and time again? They're the ones that provide facts based on research, the other group only speaks from experience. The scientists that do the research are the ones that win out over the experience of the population.
Protein leads to weight gain in anorexics. This is good for them because they're sorely lacking in muscle mass and need to get their healthy weight back. Denying them meat would only make them suffer more and die from starvation. How could you not care about this? Eating meat doesn't change the risk of cancer even a bit. Even if it is, the source goes to the cancer-causing chemicals found in the grass where cows eat. Why haven't you focused on that? Why are you not advocating to stop the use of pesticides spread on crops and grass? That should stop the carcinogens from seeping into their flesh when they get slaughtered. It might take a while, but it should do the trick.
"It is still taking the life of a sentient being, for your enjoyment ultimately."
Stop talking as if we actually do. Enjoyment isn't some we HAVE TO experience, believe it or not.
"Then here's another for people with allergies. You're welcome!"
Okay, for once, you actually provided something that is not biased. Unfortunately, you failed to provide the cons for this, like you always do. Why did you have to forget that there are cons to EVERY LITTLE THING?
"It's clear that you're not open to new information. You just came here because you want to feel better about your violent, unethical choices, handling a childish "I kill the victims you care about and I'm awesome for it, and don't you dare say otherwise!""
And neither are you and so are you.
"YOU are the one who literally came here to spew ignorance, haven't provided even a single peer-reviewed source, and then ran off while covering your ears like a kid. If you're going to be closed-minded, why even bother commenting?"
Again, so are you.
"It's ironic that you try to turn this around and make me look like the one who isn't open-minded."
That's because you're NOT open-minded. My recommendation is to go on Walkabout and meet yourself and have yourself point out your flaws without even a hint of sugarcoating.
"So who is really the closed-minded one who doesn't change when new information is being presented?"
Actually, now that I think about it, information is not the issue here, nor is it beliefs, IT'S YOUR STUBBORN AS HELL AND OVERALL TOXIC ATTITUDE. Why the hell do you think some people dislike you a great deal?
"Because I am openminded and therefore open to having a mature discussion."
Yes, because you only rely on black-and-white stereotypes in order to be open-minded. That's where the toxic attitude is coming from, believe it or not.
"YOU are the one who literally came here to spew ignorance, haven't provided even a single peer-reviewed source, and then ran off while covering your ears like a kid. If you're going to be closed-minded, why even bother commenting? It's ironic that you try to turn this around and make me look like the one who isn't open-minded."
You also do the same thing to other meat-related stamps. Don't act like you're 100% free of the blame.
" So who is really the closed-minded one who doesn't change when new information is being presented?"
That is the question I can very easily answer. You're still the close-minded one regardless of what you say and the information represented to you is from an actual vegan who's unlike you in more ways than one.
Since you want "peer reviews" of the pros and cons of veganism so badly, here are the links I've google-searched: chriskresser.com/why-you-shoul…
www.verywellfit.com/health-ben…
www.healthscopemag.com/health-…
www.medicalnewstoday.com/artic…
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/artic…
time.com/4252373/meat-eating-v…
www.webmd.com/diet/obesity/new…
www.everydayhealth.com/diet-nu…
And before you start spewing further nonsense at me, these are done by ACTUAL doctors and nutritionists, not meat-eaters. I would strongly recommend to read these CAREFULLY and do not let yourself be blinded by your own beliefs. There is no "try" in this, sorry.
If you STILL don't believe all this, then, I don't really know what to say, other than you're an ass who refuses to change her attitude and behavior towards others.
P.S. Use links to actual sites providing "proof" instead of your works, because your works are NOT "proof," therefore, unreliable.
P.S.S. I don't recommend telling your "followers" to whiteknight me because of your toxic attitude.
P.S.S.S I also do not recommend making a journal about this, make a new comment or a new edit about this and play the victim card. It only further shows how toxic you are.
One last thing: peer reviews are conducted by SCIENTISTS. As in, the ones you are allegedly against. Did you know that?
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
By the time you finish reading this comment, a few hundred or thousand so animals will be mutilated, dismembered, skinned alive, poisoned, you name it. Wonder why it's not on the news.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Recently it's been getting a lot on the news in my country. Activists stormed a random farm and exposed footage of the horrific conditions farm animals in "happy Dutch farms" are forced to live in.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
LOL "Happy Dutch Farms" Imagine what their product labels are like.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
This is what a "happy" Dutch farm looks like: www.facebook.com/brechtje.wens…
These are photos of last week, taken by an activist in my country who entererd a farm in Boxtel (The Netherlands) with over 100 other activists to expose the horrific animal cruelty going on there. It was like a nightmare.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It's disgustingly gruesome to think of all those wasted lives without care or concern.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Can you imagine that most people in my country are more concerned right now about that animal abusing farmer's reputation and completely ignore what he's doing to these animals? All I hear from those people is "poor farmer!" 
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Up next:
Osama Bin Laden is dead!
What? He just killed a bunch of people, so what? These Americans are so extreme! As if busting the concentration camps wasn't enough!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
OMG, HOW DARE THEY FILM UNDERCOVER FOOTAGE OF DOG FIGHTING IN A COUNTRY WHERE IT'S LEGAL!!! POOR DOG BREEDERS' WEPUTATION IS DAMAGED NOWWWW!!!!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
LOL so true. Did you hear that the ALF recently set thousands of game birds free from being shot to death for sport? Guess who got the sympathy. The people who's properties were damaged. They were "victimized" by the "extreme" activists. We look upon animals as savage beasts but they're actually dutiful and true to their nature. Starting to wonder whom it really is.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Wow, that's really messed up. That people defend someone's right to kill over someone's right to live.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I know, right? So many people say that hunters have the right to kill and that activists should just leave them alone, and I'm like what???? I've noticed that speciecism is literally the same as racism and sexism. We discriminate against other humans and forget that we're human. We actively treat animals like they're expendable but forget that we're animals. Have you noticed that we judge an animal's right to live based on their usefulness to us and the environment. We only keep as many animals alive as we need to sustain ourselves and the environment. We literally treat them like worthless objects without understanding their value to themselves. Who know how many millions of lives were lost unfairly at our hands. Just last year in Austrailia, 292 crocodiles were brutally massacred by villagers for killing ONE farmer, for crossing onto their territory. Just for THAT, there goes 292 lives, and what do the crocodiles know? They were defending their territory and they got attacked by hatred and vengence. The government had to step in, one official quoted "crocodiles are god's creatures too". It only goes to show how delluded and ignorant we are as a species. I'm personally happy that other animals have no other desires other than to live and thrive. They don't commit crime, nor do they kill for pleasure. They only do what they must for their famalies, themselves, and the environment. Humans really ruin every form of natural balance. Take what we want, think we're entitled to it, even lives. Time and again we fail to realize that just because we are the most powerful doesn't mean we abuse it. True nobility is accomplished by admitting you're not the most powerful, and treating those at your mercy with kindness, because that's what you would expect in their shoes. I mean, hooves, or claws, or paws. You know. If nature itself could think, there's no doubt Mother Earth would wipe us clean for the destruction we caused. It's not to late to change how we live but there are a lot of things to fix.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I know. It's really messed up. But that's why people like me and you exist: to encourage moral progress.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yes, of course. I'm sure we once had this level of morality but we may have lost it. This reminds me of a time one of my family relatives got offended at me for comparing drinking milk to rape. She's a girl and is also studying law. I don't think she fully understands what happens to the cows even though she claims to. It's dark, but that's exactly what we pay for when we encourage dairy. We just have to understand that their value is no different than us.
I also jokingly said that if I ever get arrested during activism that she should bail me out
Interestingly enough, my passion for modern animals comes from the prehistoric ones. I guess that's where evolution takes you
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I always ask them how restraining a female to sexually violate her without her consent is not rape. Because honestly, rape is rape, no matter who the victim is and what purpose the attacker has. People need to stop being rape apologists just because the victim doesn't look like them.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well said. That may actually be worse because of her inability to escape. In the industries, it's not once or twice. It's probably 7-10 times to countless pigs and cows, and all of their children are turned into "delicious" bacon and veal. Nothing more than cruel barbaricy, if that's even a word. You'd think a mother who has been through that pain of giving birth and raising children could imagine how bad it is.
I kid you not a saw this activism video of this guy explaining rape in the dairy industries. It was either James Asprey or Joey Carbstrong. His viewers were two girls, either best friends, or mother and daughter, I don't remember now. The whole time, they were LAUGHING. It was repulsive. They just thought it was a big joke despite the video evidence. What would it take? Wouldn't they know how bad it is if they were the victims?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It's not just rape, it's bestiality. And those friends of the activist are disgusting rape apologists.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Definitely agreed! The so called "Humane Meat" still involves the death/killing of another animal so "Humane" Meat is still morbid.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1