HOME | DD
Pupaveg — VV67: Go vegan for me
by-nc-nd
#book #cynthia #kawaii #pig #priya #share #sour #vegan #veganism #kishna #vegventures
Published: 2016-08-12 11:24:54 +0000 UTC; Views: 2947; Favourites: 28; Downloads: 1
Redirect to original
Description
It's my personal choiceIt cannot be called a personal choice when it involves harming a third party for a trivial reason, which is your desire to enjoy eating them / their secretions.
Morality is subjective, you can't prove it's wrong for me
Even if you think that morality is subjective, your ethics should still be backed by logic. They are not random, nor are they plucked from thin air. As such, the question is simple - do you have any consideration for animals or not? Most people would say that they care about animals, or at the very least, would not like to needlessly harm them. Farming animals for our consumption is needless, and so all harm visited upon them including their slaughter, is needless also. So your own subjective view should be to avoid harming them - if you have any consideration for them whatsoever.
It's just a matter of opinion like religion
Religion is based upon ancient scripture, tradition, dogma and superstition. Veganism is based on having consideration for animals, and a desire to avoid animal abuse. Animal abuse is real, animals are being exploited and killed in their billions. It's a reality, can be proven to you. You might say it's a matter of opinion that we'd like to avoid it happening, but if you claim to have any consideration for animals whatsoever, then you will be in agreement.
It's just a matter of culture / social norms
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.
Our ancestors did it
If you live in modern society and you're reading this on the internet, clearly you must acknowledge that you do not live like your ancestors. Your ancestors did many things that you avoid, and you do plenty of things that they never did. Times have changed, we can choose to live non-violently and avoid harming those that pose no threat to us.
We've got canine teeth
Even if we had massive fangs, it wouldn't justify killing animals for the enjoyment of eating their dead bodies. It is proven time and time again that we can live on a plant-based diet in great health, so the shape of our teeth puts us under no obligation to kill. But if we look at this argument more closely - firstly there are animals with far bigger canines than us who eat a plant-based diet, like primates and rhinos and so forth. Secondly, our own "canines" are only named that way because of their position and biological classification in our jaw. They have no similarity at all with true canines which actual carnivores have like lions. They are of no use in biting through raw animal hide, especially not that of a living creature.
Lions do it
Wild animals kill to survive. They must kill to eat, otherwise they would die. Whether they kill on instinct or are aware of their predicament is irrelevant, we are not in their situation. If you live in modern society and have access to crops, vegetables, fruit, grains etc, then you have no obligation or need for animal products. Also, lions exhibit all kinds of behaviour that you would seek to avoid, for instance, violent territorial disputes, and male lions will kill the cubs of a female he wishes to mate with because she won't mate while she has cubs around. Lions are not good ethical role models.
Circle of life
I am not really sure what this means but I will try to cover it - if the suggestion is that "you live you die, therefore killing is fine" then this would justify killing companion animals and also humans. If the suggestion is "we kill an animal so that we can live" then this is false. Animals are killed for the enjoyment of eating their dead bodies. It is not a matter of survival, as proven by all the hundreds of millions of vegans in the world.
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.
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.
Killing animals for no reason is wrong, but if you have a reason it's fine
The reason for killing animals in modern society is for the enjoyment of eating their dead body. That surely is not a justification for taking life. If somebody killed your companion animal, I doubt that you'd say "It's fine as long as you eat them".
Yeah but some animals are to be killed some aren't
The whole world will never be 100% vegan
The whole world is unlikely to ever be free from racism, homophobia or sexism, but that's no reason for you personally to practice it. All anybody can do is take responsibility for themselves. The fact that other people are doing something that you consider to be unethical, isn't a reason for you to copy them.
One person can't make a difference
Everybody is responsible for what they are personally doing. The way for numbers to rise is for individuals to take accountability one by one. If you want for there to be multiple vegans to make a difference, then become one. There are hundreds of millions of vegans in the world, so we are not just one person. In the UK, 12% of people are vegetarian or vegan. If you look at the age range of 16-24, that ratio rises to 20%. It is completely worthwhile to do this and we are having an effect on the industries. Imagine if everyone who is vegetarian/vegan started buying animal products again - that would be a giant increase in demand. As such, we are keeping demand down by continuing to avoid animal products.
~ Vegan Sidekick
Related content
Comments: 89
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
Just once I'd like to see someone make this kind of argument on behalf of an unborn human baby.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
My DA friend makes them: www.deviantart.com/monocerosar…
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
No, I say as I pull out my revolver and put it against the pigs head, but I will end your suffering.
👍: 1 ⏩: 2
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
So you're saying that the least you can do for a victim of systematic oppression before you kill them is make their lives miserable?
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
Granted I would try to make something’s life easier and better if it was having a hard life, but meeting a pig with a knife in its back, which based on the position has severed its spinal cord, and based on the large amount of blood on its body, which implies that it has lost a lot of blood, and the fact that I have nothing medically to help it with, and the nearest Veterinary center is 15-20 minuets away, putting said pig down and ending its suffering would be the only merciful, right thing to do.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
How about not contributing to the exploitation and killing of pigs by not buying those products?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Nope. I can only make sure they have a good life and a swift painless death when the time comes. I’m an omnivore. It would be unhealthy otherwise.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
You can meet all your requirements on a plant-based diet, there is nothing to fear. Indeed, many athletes take up a plant-based diet specifically because of the benefits.
The standard legal form of slaughter for animals is for them to be "stunned" and then have their throats slit. For chickens and pigs, the stunning is generally done with an electric shock, and for other animals a pneumatic bolt pistol projects a metal rod into their forehead. It is claimed that this renders the animal 100% unconscious, but if you actually look into the facts, slaughterhouse workers will admit that there is no way to verify that this is the case for every single animal, and indeed the process doesn't always work, isn't followed routinely, and indeed, the "stun" can wear off while the animal is being killed. But 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.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
There is little to no natural protein in an all plant diet. And I’m sorry, but Whey protein shakes taste awful. Like chalk.
And, so? Then why not just change how the animal is killed? Make it quicker and less painful, if that’s what you’re concerned about.
And there is a justification. Food.
And I would care because it is my companion animal. I have formed a bond with it. And if someone did, I would skin them alive and hang them from their ankles by a tree in the middle of the woods close enough to the ground for the coyotes to rip into their still living, and screaming, flesh.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Whey protein is not vegan: it contains the breast milk from another species mama's nipples which is meant for baby cows, not adult humans.
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.
"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.
"I have formed a bond with it"
That is not a justification for killing other animals. 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. Practically any animal could be your companion if you gave them the chance. People keep pigs as companions, and form bonds with them as strong as you can with a dog.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I did. Hmmmmmm… and still eating meat.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Do you believe it is morally justified to harm others for pleasure?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No. But animals aren’t people. Yes there are some that are super intelligent, but they are still animals.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
No, that's not what I asked. I asked you if you believe that it's morally justified to harm other sentient beings for pleasure?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Again, no. But they aren’t being harmed for pleasure. Bulls fighting matadors are being harmed for pleasure. These animals, the ones in slaughter houses, are being harmed for the necessity of food.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
This is false as proven by all the hundreds of millions of vegans in the world. Humans have no biological need for animal products. Therefore killing animals in order to eat their dead body is, in fact, killing animals for pleasure. And to kill for pleasure is immoral. So you're contradicting yourself by saying that you are against killing for pleasure while participating in killing for pleasure, just like the matadors you mentioned. The only difference is that the matadors kill the animals in public by themselves and you pay to kill somebody else to do the job behind thick walls of comfort. Most of these animals live lives worse than in hell and are sexually exploited, tortured, have their babies taken from them by force and are then mass-killed by the billions. And for what? For your taste pleasure of eating a piece of cheese, ice cream or dairy based cookies? Please explain to me how you are better than other people who kill animals (or humans) for pleasure, if you participate in the largest form of systematic oppression that has ever existed? And while you do so, can you at least try to look from the victims' perspective rather than just your own?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Humans need protein. And several important nutrients cannot be found in plant only diets.
www.healthline.com/nutrition/7…
So again. Necessity.
Animals don’t have rights. At least, no the same ones people do. I believe animals should be treated fairly, but I don’t believe they are to be afforded the same rights as people. And I’m sorry, but animals are either food, workers, or pets. And another thing. You believe animals are as emotional as humans, right. Then why does a wolf not care when it kills a deer, or a lion when it takes down a buffalo? If they don’t care about killing their food, which is often more gruesome and causes more suffering than how most slaughterhouses kill their animals, why should I care about animals being killed for food?
And don’t try to compare me to a psychopath. I just know the truth. And I’m not over sensitive.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Did you even read my explaination about protein? Protein is in almost everything. 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. Believing that protein is exclusive to meat shows how easy people can be manipulated by industry propaganda, and how ignorant they are about the millions of plantbased and vegetarian people on the planet. You shouldn't believe everything your tv tells you. Plants have more than enough protein, and unlike the acidic protein from meat, it's safe for your body. If protein really was a concern without consuming the burnt corpse of a genetically manipulated animal, me and millions of others wouldn't be here today, because protein deficiency only occurs in those who are starving, and it doesn't take long for the starving to die. Yet here we live like this for years, and millions even for their entire lives. Maybe you should do a little bit of research about it, rather than randomly googling and pluck the first industry-funded propaganda link from the internet as a "source" for backing up your claim about a subject you clearly have no knowledge about? Just a suggestion. It's a really interesting subject.
Animals don’t have rights. At least, no the same ones people do. I believe animals should be treated fairly, but I don’t believe they are to be afforded the same rights as people.
There are several groups of people who didn't have rights before. The reason why they have rights today is because compassionate people fought for them to be rights by speaking out against oppression. And this is also why people like me speak up for animals today. Obviously no one advocates for rights that aren't appliable to non-human animals (just like how no one voted for children's rights to marry, drive cars etc), but rather the rights to their own bodies and the right to be free from enslavement and objectification. Objectifying and mass-killing animals is not "treating them fairly".
And I’m sorry, but animals are either food, workers, or pets.
Following this logic, if somebody has a dog living with them, and she is pregnant, then simply standing there and saying "When those puppies are born I am going to kill them all" would be enough justification for doing so. That of course is absurd. Basically, you are not in a position to determine the fate of an animal. If the argument is that some animals have been selectively bred for consumption, then again, that is not a justification. The entire process of selectively breeding them was done at the hands of humans, and all subsequent loss of life is at their say so and is entirely unnecessary. The reason why some animals are treated as "pets" is just because humans have chosen for it to be that way, it isn't the fault of other animals. You could make a companionship with any animal if you chose, there's no reason to be killing them just because you chose not to make a friend of them.
Then why does a elf not care when it kills a deer, or a lion when it takes down a buffalo?
Wild animals kill to survive. They must kill to eat, otherwise they would die. Whether they kill on instinct or are aware of their predicament is irrelevant, we are not in their situation. If you live in modern society and have access to crops, vegetables, fruit, grains etc, then you have no obligation or need for animal products. Also, lions exhibit all kinds of behaviour that you would seek to avoid, for instance, violent territorial disputes, and male lions will kill the cubs of a female he wishes to mate with because she won't mate while she has cubs around. Lions are not good ethical role models.
I just know the truth. And I’m not over sensitive.
Are you sure? You seem to be really over-sensitive by throwing a fit over having to give up the taste of bacon and cheese though. I mean, isn't the whole planet's well being and billions of lives worth more than human greed? You say you know the truth, but I have my doubts. I mean, you probably don't even know that animal agriculture is the leading cause of most environmentall ills and also of species extinction and food and water shortages in 3rd world countries. So maybe you could - you know - be a little more open to new information rather than acting that the tv-commercials of the dairy and meat industries are fact?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Most of humanity isn’t vegetarian or vegan. And again, there are some nutrients you can get from a plant only diet.
www.healthline.com/nutrition/7…
www.rd.com/health/healthy-eati…
amp.businessinsider.com/5-brai…
www.naturespath.com/en-us/blog…
www.mensjournal.com/food-drink…
And as for acidic proteins, they are also found in grains, sugar, and all processed foods.
www.healthline.com/health/acid…
And how on earth did you get to that logic? That’s the logic that makes no sense. The logic of your logic seems pretty faulty.
Again, eating fruits and vegetables aren’t enough. No society has ever willingly become vegan.
Of course lions aren’t moral guides. No animal is. Animals, rape, murder, commit incest, commit cannibalism, do homosexuality, child abuse, slavery, and eat and or roll around in theirs or another species feces.
What I was saying is that compared to how animals kill their prey, humans are merciful. And omnivorous. Meaning we eat both plants and meat. Yes we could choose to just eat one, but there would be health detriments.
abcnews.go.com/Technology/stor…
www.anthropocenemagazine.org/2…
theconversation.com/amp/orderi…
Your hands are just as bloody as mine
Agriculture also includes the growing of plants. Just saying.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
"MOST PEOPLE THINK IT'S OKAY TO EAT MEAT AND ANIMAL PRODUCTS"
Most people in the West at one point also agreed that enslaving black people was okay. Most people in certain countries right now think that stoning 'apostates' to death is okay. Majority human vote is not a good way to measure how moral something is. Often throughout history, the masses have agreed with oppression, and are doing the same thing now with the oppression of animals. See appeal to popularity fallacy.
"PROTEIN"
The idea that vegans need to worry about their protein intake in any way whatsoever is a myth that just will not die. The largest study of its kind in history showed that the average vegan gets 70% more protein than they actually need, every single day. And despite the myths that have been put out there (and in particular seem to be prevalent in the field of bodybuilding), no, you do not need to 'combine proteins ' from different food groups to get complete proteins. As it turns out, the only food in the entire food supply that doesn't have a complete amino acid profile is a meat product (gelatin), so unless that's your only food source, you don't need to worry about combining proteins. Amino acids such as carnitine and creatine (found in meat) are actually not dietary amino acids—that is, there is no need whatsoever for humans to consume them, as our own body produces the perfect amount needed of those amino acids (which is how those acids got into the herbivorous cow or the lamb you're eating in the first place, i.e. their own body produced it). It actually turns out that human breast milk (the perfect food for human beings, fine-tuned for us over millions of years) has the lowest protein content of any animal milk in the world , less than 1% protein by weight. Given that no one reading this knows anyone who has ever died from protein deficiency, but knows several people who have died from cancer, protein is not a nutrient of concern for anyone, vegan or not. The strongest land animals on the planet (gorillas, rhinos, elephants, hippos, buffalo, etc.) all tend to be herbivores, thus fuel their superior muscle strength to any meat-eating human with a diet of plants, all of which have a full amino acid profile.
You again revert to googling random links that support your argument. Ironically all of these are funded by Big Beef and the dairy industry and none of them is based on peer-reviewed studies or research. Literally none. If you want to look into nutrition, I suggest you stop believing everything tv-commercials and articles written by the industries themselves to increase profits say - like in the links you randomly googled, and start reading a few peer-reviewed studies and research. Because, by your logic, me and millions of vegans and vegetarians in the world are ghosts. You also seem to be igorant about plantbased populations, so I suggest you look into the Adventist Vegetarians, and the fact that a large part of India and China have been vegan/vegetarian for thousands of years. I am one of those Indians. Claiming we don't exist is just silly and ignorant.
"LIONS THO"
If you agree that violence by humans is not justifed by saying that wild animals do it, stop using double standards when it comes to violence that suits your wims. Because that's called cherry-picking and is a really poor excuse because it can be used for every form of violence non-human animals practice. Also, there is nothing "merciful" about breeding billions of genetically manipulated animals a year and kill them and their babies by the masses for greed. These animals don't have a change to change their own misfortune. I'd rather be a zebra living in freedom than a slave who's being sexually exploited over and over and over again until I can't take it anymore and my body collapses after giving birth to dozends of children (who are also killed), followed by being tortured, killed and dismembered at a small fraction of my lifespan. You are not a lion. You don't need to rape, murder or kill animals to survive.
"ANIMALS DIE IN CROP HARVESTING"
Vegans absolutely have a responsibility to acknowledge that their consumerism causes harm. But the practical solution to the problem of animals dying in crop harvesting is not to consume a diet that requires around 10 times more crops (due to the crops used to raised livestock) and maximises land usage and then on top of that support the largest act of systematic oppression and violence in the history of this planet (2 billion animals murdered every single week) via the meat, dairy, egg, leather, wool, and fish industries. No vegans are claiming to be perfect (or at least, any that are, are delusional). What veganism is very good at, though, is massively, massively minimising one's impact on animals and on the environment.
There are also a lot of myths that go around that suggest vegans are actually responsible for more animal deaths than meat eaters. The Flaming Vegan debunks this myth excellently, using credible resources, in an article you can read here .
Also regarding crop deaths: see nirvana fallacy and tu quoque fallacy.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
But what about B12 and Heme-iron? You can’t get the first easily on a plant based diet, and you can’t get the last at all.
The dietary needs of an elephant are different than those of a human. And comparing the strength of an animal that is about 18 times the weight of an average human to an average humans strength, it is not exactly smart.
Gorillas are not entirely vegetarian. They eat insects. And surprisingly enough, they may eat meat. A new study. I was honestly surprised and kinda shocked.
news.nationalgeographic.com/ne…
Now they do say it could be contamination, but they also speak about how gorillas in captivity will eat meat. Which I was also surprised by.
And I’m sorry if me looking up information and putting its source down offends you, but isn’t that what you’re doing? I’m just saying. How is my looking up information and providing it wrong?
Now I never said you should be dead because of you’re diet. Just that being vegan is unhealthy.
And seriously? A blogging website. Not even a scientific paper? A website were a bunch of people who won’t disagree with each other and can cherry pick what information they use. And they don’t even talk all that much about why vegan diets don’t kill a lot of animals, they just criticize this one guy about his research. And it’s outdated as well. 2003 is a loooooooong time ago when it comes to information. And it outright lies to. They seem to claim that third world country farmers produce food for the world. This is bullshit. Most of the food that vegans eat is produced by first world countries. Which do use farming machines. America produces 80 percent of all the worlds corn, wheat, and soy. That’s a lot of machines.
And my final point. Phytoestrogens. A dangerous substance. To much of this stuff in a male body absolutely wrecks it, and rips apart their mind. And in a female body? They cause cancer. Phytoestrogens are estrogen that comes from plants. These are converted to estrogen. And as I stated, to much estrogen is damaging to either gender.
You see, it’s not because I hate you that I don’t want you to be vegan, or that I hate animals. It’s that I care enough to say that I don’t want you to be unhealthy.
Oh, and yes, while vegans ave vegetarians may be healthy compared to the rest of the population, that’s because the rest of the population often doesn’t care about what they shove in their face. Those who don’t, and watch what they eat are very healthy. Far healthier than vegans and vegetarians.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
B12
B12 is a vitamin which people associate with animal products. The fact is that bacteria produce B12. As such, it becomes a simple question of - are you going to get B12 from the bacteria in isolation, or are you going to exploit and kill billions of animals just to get B12 from the bacteria within their bodies? In addition, a B12 supplement is injected into livestock to keep their levels up due to top soil being too intensively used and lacking in certain nutrients. So the choice becomes even more absurd - either take a B12 supplement or consume vegan food fortified with B12, OR give an animal a B12 supplement then kill them. Why take the second option?
Iron
Like calcium, iron is a metal, and has nothing whatsoever to do with animals or the stuff that comes out of them. There is no link at all between veganism and anaemia (iron deficiency) and vegans and vegetarians tend to get their RDA for iron without even thinking about it. Remember this rhyme for iron: nuts, beans and dark leafy greens.
Vegans generally have a far better intake of vitamin C than meat eaters (who are, on average, deficient in vitamin C), which aids iron absorption. The type of iron found in meat is heme iron, which is the type of iron your body cannot regulate properly, and forces its way into the bloodstream. This, in turn, encourages production of free radicals, which can damage DNA and increase cancer risk . So it is safer as humans that we consume plant-based sources of iron (non-heme iron).
Also, I didn't say it was wrong for you to look up information. I said that the links you provided are based on industry-funded propaganda, not on solid peer-reviewed research.
The information about crop production is from 2003, but all recent studies still support it (check the bottom links of my message here for a complete list). After all, feeding 58 billion animals on plants is always going to take many more plants than feeding just 7 billion humans on plants. You don't even need scientific evidence for that and it's not "cherry-picking": it's just common sense. The majority of corn, soy and what is fed to farm animals. It's a horrible waste, especially when millions of people are starving. Animal agriculture is inefficient and the worst thing we can do to the planet.
Phytoestogen
This information was written by Janice Stanger, Ph.D:
Let's take a look at where estrogen in food really comes from by comparing cows to plants. Which of these two beings has a reproductive that's closer to humans? The cow? Or the soybeans? You don't me to answer that question; this is just a big DOH. As soon as you start thinking about it, you see what the truth is. Of course the cow is more reproductively more like people! How could an animal be less reproductively like people than a plant is? Plants reproduce, but not anywhere like animals do. When you look at dairy cows, here is the thing: like any woman, female cows only produce milk after they have recently had a baby. So in order for them to constantly produce milk, the dairy farmers constantly keeps them pregnant. And pregnant species of whatever species, wether it's cows, horses or people etc., have very high levels of estrogen. In the case of the cows, because they are pregnant at the same time they're producing milk from their last calf, their milk is very very high in estrogen. And that does not just count for the milk, but also for any product that is made from it, wether it is cheese, yoghurt, dairy ice cream etc. is just packed full, very densely, of estrogen from this pregnant animal that has produced it.
So it's odd when people tell me that that they won't eat soy because "it contains estrogen" while they are eating a piece of cheese, which has 10.000 times the estrogenic activity that the soy has.
Actually the estrogen in soy is called phytoestrogen, since it's a plant estrogen and its effect on humans is extremely weak.
So let's see what research actually says about soy:
Dr. Mark Messina, Ph.D. internationally recognized expert on the health effects of soy has appeared on CNN and is regularly quoted by the media in publications including the New York Times, Newsweek and USA Today. Dr. Messina has presented to both consumer and professional audiences in 44 countries on topics including soy and cancer risk, heart health, menopause and men’s health. Mark is the co-author of The Simple Soybean and Your Health. His research has appeared in numerous professional journals including the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Journal of Nutrition, Lancet, and the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Messina is a former program director in the Diet and Cancer Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, where he initiated a multi-million dollar research program investigating the role of soy in cancer prevention. Mark co-owns Nutrition Matters, Inc., a nutrition consulting company, is an adjunct associate professor in the Department of Nutrition, School of Public Health, Loma Linda University and the executive director of the Soy Nutrition Institute. Keep in mind that this 20 years of overview research is not junk hear/say research found on the internet or junk science published by groups controlled by parties whom have financial gain with a certain result like the meat-, dairy- and egg industries. This is researched published in pre-reviewed scientific journals on soy. The study concluded that modern amounts of soy foods in childhood actually protect young females from developing breast cancer as adults. In adult women it doesn't actually protect the same way as you had it with you were younger but it's not harmful either. And soy phytoestrogens are actually protecting men against prostate cancer, and in case of men who do get prostate cancer, it makes it into a less agressive form. It also concludes that soy is protective against Cardiovascular disease (CVD).
This is all published solid research.
----------------SUMMARY-----------------------
PHYTOESTROGENS ARE REALLY PROTECTIVE
- 20 years of soy research summarized
- Soy reduces breast & protate cancer risk
- May also protect against heart disease
Animal estrogens fuel reproductive cancers: breast, uterine, ovarian, prostate, testicular
----------------SUMMARY-----------------------
There is no credible evidence that modern amounts of soy foods are harmful in health. And by "traditional soy foods" we're of course talking about things like soy milk, soy yoghurt, miso, tofu, tempeh, edamame... any kind of traditional soy food. We're not talking about the manufactured soy food like isolated soy protein or soy oil. We're talking about traditional soy foods. Feel free to eat them once or twice a day. They're either going to help you. They are not going to hurt you. And if you'd rather want to help disease like cancer grow, eat animal estrogens instead. This will fuel your breast cancer, your uterine cancer, your prostate cancer, your testicular cancer or your ovarian cancer.
So if you're so worried about my health, all the more reason to stop advising me to eat animal products. Us vegan and vegetarian populations are not the ones struggling with a mass epidemic of heart disease, kidney disease, diabetes and cancer. Because those are caused by animal products.
^_^ If you'd like to see a list of all sources on my claims on the environmental impact of animal agriculture, please check out the artist description of these 2 other works I did, which contains 2 longass lists:
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
So what’s the difference between consuming them, if both have B12 supplemented into them?
Heme Iron helps your body use iron found in plants (phyto iron?) and increases the efficiency of phyto iron. And to much of anything can cause cancer. Or someone to get fat. Or get diabetes.
Phyto estrogen mimics human estrogen. And thus results in problems.
Also, processed foods, like candy bars, and other such foods, are very much responsible for things like cancer, diabetes, heart problems. And these foods are full of soy.
There is no correlation between meat and dairy products and people getting cancer.
www.everydayhealth.com/diet-an…
And saying that vegans can’t get cancer or heart disease is bullshit. And again. Most of the population doesn’t watch what they put in their mouth. This is a pretty good way to get cancer, diabetes, heart disease. Humans being omnivorous doesn’t cause cancer. Eating unnatural foods, like candy bars and other sugary foods, do.
And I trust CNN to be honest and unbiased with their reporting as much as I trust ISIS not to behead Christians. And excuse me if the executive director of the Soy Nutrition Institute sounds like he might be a little biased.
www.globalhealingcenter.com/na…
thechalkboardmag.com/4-foods-c…
www.breastcancer.org/research-…
www.scientificamerican.com/art…
www.acneeinstein.com/soy-and-a…
www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-merc…
www.soyconnection.com/health-n…
nccih.nih.gov/health/soy/atagl…
For those of you who don’t want to read all of that, here is a summary. Soy has chemicals in it that cause digestive problems, stomach pains, and diarrhea. Taking soy supplements for longer than 6 months can also cause bloating, nausea, and constipation. Chemicals in soy can also cause thyroid cancer. And other chemicals may turn on genes associated with, you guessed it, cancer! Soy can also cause hormone imbalance, which can lead to mood swings and weight gain. Eating soy while pregnant is ill advised, as it can disrupt the development of the fetus. Soy can also cause or aggravate acne in women. And soy allergies and intolerance is common. Intaking soy if you have either of these can cause acne. Soy also reduces your ability to absorb calcium, iron, zinc, and other nutrients. It can also disrupt protein digestion and cause pancreatic disorders. Soy also lowers testosterone in men.
I am soy intolerant. So I’m not going to eat something that will leave me on the toilet for an hour screaming “Please God end me now!!!!!!!!!!”. I just won’t.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
So what’s the difference between consuming them, if both have B12 supplemented into them?
1. Consuming plants directly doesn't kill trillions of innocent beings on a yearly basis.
2. Consuming plants directly takes much less land, water, crop production and resources.
3. Consuming plants directly eleminates the leading cause of most environmental ills and also the leading cause of world hunger and species extinction.
4. Consuming plants directly drops deaths due to the most common lifestyle diseases in the Western World to a minimum.
5. Consuming plans directly can feed the entire planet 14 times over, all starving people included.
It is absurd and extremely selfish to do the opposite just because you want to give a B12 supplement to an animal and then eat the animal for no other reason than palate pleasure. The well-being of the planet and its beings is more important than momentary pleasure.
Also, processed foods, like candy bars, and other such foods, are very much responsible for things like cancer, diabetes, heart problems. And these foods are full of soy.
There are many processed foods which are unhealthy. But they aren't unhealthy because of the soybeans that are processed into them. They are unhealthy because they have loads of sugar, fat and cholesterol. Do you really think that a bucket of KFC is unhealthy because soy has been used to make the crust more crunchy? Or because it's loaded with excess saturated fat, cholesterol, processed sugar, loads of salt and other crap that clogs your arteries?
There is no correlation between meat and dairy products and people getting cancer.
Actually there is countless of evidence and peer-reviewed studies on that. Starting at the World Health Organization putting processed meat into the same carcinogenic category as acbestos and cigarettes, there are a lot of others who back it up. No one said that CNN is the source of the information, but the mentioned health experts have APPEARED on CNN because of their amazing discoveries. Major difference there. Sites like Breastcancer.org and the other sides created are literally sponsored by meat companies to spread information to their liking. This pictures shows the sponsors of the sites you use as your source to claim meat doesn't cause the aforementioned diseases: pbs.twimg.com/media/DCyfaYyU0A… As you can see, they're all meatand dairy companies. They literally pay organisations to help fill their wallets and not one of their self-funded research is peer-reviewed. The proof is in the pudding if you ask me, especially since all independed peer-reviewed solid research (+ the FACT that people who regulary consume their products die of common dietary diseases all the time while plantbased populations like the Adventist vegetarians are the longest living populations on the planet) state exactly the opposite.
Even the soy propaganda you provided is literally based on nothing but industry propaganda from the dairy industry, because the soy industry is slowly beating them by offering plantbased alternatives to their products. The dairy industry is collapsing, farmers go out of business. So they literally published a study on soy written by themselves in hope to increase their own sales, ignoring all the evidence and peer-reviewed studies about soy and the fact that soy has been used for centuries by Asians and the longest living populations on the planet. The anti-soy propaganda published by the dairy industry has been debunked 2 years ago, so I'm not sure why you still bring up outdated information. Maybe if you stopped randomly googling and pulling every link convenient to your argument, outdated or not, you could actually learn more about the factual information regarding soy. The book "The skinny on soy" is a good start, and so is the documentary on Netflix "What the health" whom also states hundreds of peer-reviewed sources and research. Soy is a bean. It's not going to kill you, unlike saturated fat, heme iron and acidic protein found in animal products.
If you are truly soy intolerant, you need to stop consuming animal products anyway, because 98% of all soybean meal produced is fed to farm animals, according to SoyaTech soy statistics, and ends up in their meat, milk and eggs. That being said, even if you really were allergic to soy (meaning you can't consume animal products at all, unlike you) soy is not even a nessecity in a healthy balanced plantbased diet. I personally don't even consume that much soy, I'm more of the seitan recipes and I love lupin, beans, lentils and pretty much everything. But I do consume unprocessed soy products regulary. They protect against breast cancer and (for men) against prostate cancer.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The well-being of the planet is not in the hands of vegans. Let me ask you something. If we got rid of raising animals, how much more land would we need to take in order to feed seven billion vegans? How much more environmentally damage would result? And I looked for your “feed the world 14 times” stuff. No where to be found. There was stuff about us producing enough plant and animal related foods to feed 10 billion people, but nothing about being able to feed 98 billion people. The type of corn feed to cows can’t be consumed by people.
www.google.com/amp/s/m.huffpos…
Fat isn’t unhealthy. The human body is designed to burn fat it intakes. When it intakes sugar, it turns it into fat and deposits it on your body. When you intake carbs, the carbs are turned into sugar, which are turned into more fat on your body. And there is healthy cholesterol. Anyone with health knowledge knows this. There is good and bad cholesterol.
Those same studies said, probable. Not definite. And in small amounts, red meat can help fight off cancer. And poultry does nothing to give or help fight cancer. And fish actually helps fight cancer.
www.cancercouncil.com.au/21639…
Oh yes so putting people out of business and forcing their families to starve is a good thing. Well done vegans. Doing that instead of trying to help and make things less cruel is soooooo much better.
www.dairyfarmers.ca/farmers-vo…
Japanese people eat fish. And they are more active, and nearly obsessed with cleanliness. These are parts of why they live so long.
Saturated fat is actually healthy for you, unlike trans fat. And again, there is good and bad cholesterol. You can find good cholesterol in eggs.
And the fact that if I eat anything with soy sauce makes me go running to the bathroom supports the fact that I’m soy intolerant very well. And I didn’t say I was allergic. I said intolerant.
And contrary to what you say, you are actually quite rude and offensive towards those who are omnivorous. I mean saying things like we should be put in meat grinders. That we are unintelligent. That we are monsters. Saying we can’t love animals if we eat meat. It’s rather unjust.
And also, upon learning your religious preference, all your arguments have been, to me, rendered null and void.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I think you're missing the point entirely. The land, water and resources used for producing animal feed is incredibily inefficient. Every second, rainforest with the size of a football field is cut down to make space for cattle and their feed crops. It takes up to 25 pounds of crops to produce 1 pound of meat. It's incredibily inefficient and it's the leading cause of the destruction of the planet. It's never going to be sustainable, it's never going to be cruelty-free and it's never going to be morally justified.
Fat isn’t unhealthy. The human body is designed to burn fat it intakes.
Excess fat is unhealthy. Animal products contain excess fat and zero fiber, which is harmful to your body, especially saturated fat.
And there is healthy cholesterol. Anyone with health knowledge knows this.
Well, then you clearly don't know, because the human body makes its own cholesterol and taking in additional cholesterol via diet is harmful to your organs.
When it intakes sugar, it turns it into fat and deposits it on your body. When you intake carbs, the carbs are turned into sugar, which are turned into more fat on your body.
Catbs cannot make you fat in and of themselves. When we eat carbs, we either store it or we burn it. Eat fat? It goes straight to your fat. Your body can't turn those carbs into fat, unless you are really overdoing it. From the American Society of Clinical Nutrition's study on Novo Lipogenesis: even if you were really overdoing the calories, they found that 97% of fat stored was from fat. About 3% was derived from carbs. To extrapolate that and put that into perspective: if somebody is 100 pounds overweight, probably 3 of those pounds are actually from carbs.
If the problem for diabetes for example would be sugar, not fat, then how do you explain things like the Walter Kemper's rice diet, where he fed people rice, fruit and table suger and reversed diabetes? Including a 25% pf diabetic retinopathy cases, that's diabetic blindness?
Also, to drive the animal fat diabetes connection home in particular, from the Adventist study, vegan populations had 78% lower risk of diabetes, ALL diabetes, and that's not from eating less sugar. Explain that. The longest living population on earth used to be the Okinawans, back when they ate 97% plants and 80% carbohydrates from sweet potatoes and other whole foods. They were the longest living population on earth. But since they became a pork producer and started eating more of a Western diet, their health suffered. Now the longest living population on earth are the Adventist Vegetarians, many of which are vegan. At the same time those with the highest animal product consumption have the lowest life expectancies, like (sadly) the Inuit populations. The same is happening to the Japanese right now.
Soy sauce barely contains soy: it's loaded with salt, and some people can be sensitive to that. If you were allergic or intolerant to soy, there would be a lot of animal products you wouldn't be able to eat. So clearly you're not. But as I said: you don't even need soy to be vegan, even if you were allergic to it. A person I know is soy intolerant, according to her actual blood tests, and she just consumes food without soy.
So mindlessly yelling that read meat fight cancer (while it actually causes cancer, even the World Health Organization states this), that saturated excess fat and cholesterol your body doesn't need is good for you and that eating eggs is healthy while it consists of over 50% fat (did you know it's illegal for egg companies to advertise their products as "healthy"? Because they're anything but that!) is extremely dangerous and basically narrows down to telling people that they should kill themselves.
Saying we can’t love animals if we eat meat. It’s rather unjust.
Someone who pets dogs, but kills other animals is not an animal lover, but a DOG lover. And they are speciesist. Animal lovers don't choose their selfish taste pleasure over the lives of billions of farm animals and millions of wild animals (animal agriculture is the leading cause of species extinction).
I mean saying things like we should be put in meat grinders. That we are unintelligent.
This is known as a "strawman" fallacy, since I have never said these things. Ironically those are the thing meat eaters DO say about their victims. The comic with the meat grinder should clearly not be taken literally: it's a comic ffs to point out the double standards of people advocating for the death of animals, but wouldn't want it to happen to themselves (the "as long as I'm not the one being killed, killing is fine" hypocrisy). There is also a difference between saying that someone is ignorant and saying someone is unintelligent. (Although the latter does seem to apply to some arguments like "if you scratch your face, you kill bacteria, that's the same as mass-murdering animals" (yeah, I've heard that one multiple times before).
And contrary to what you say, you are actually quite rude and offensive towards those who are omnivorous
If telling people to stop harming animals is "rude" and "offensive" then what do you call torturing and killing animals for a snack, like you do?
And also, upon learning your religious preference, all your arguments have been, to me, rendered null and void.
Neither of my arguments are based on religious claims, only on scientific evidence. I am not religious. Just because my family was born in India, doesn't automatically make one religious. What kind of racist are you? Sounds like you're desperate for working your way around my arguments. Maybe you can just admit that you kill innocent mothers and babies and the whole planet because you enjoy the taste of their dead bodies? I mean, it sounds a lot easier than pulling argument after argument until there are none left?
Sources:
Example of Peer Reviewed Diabetes Research by Neal Barnard:
ajcn.nutrition.org/content/89/…
A few studies on Fat in the Muscle Cell and Insulin Resistance:
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/artic…
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/artic…
diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/…
Walter Kempner's Rice Diet:
www.retinalphysician.com/issue…
Kempner W, Peschel RL, Schlayer C. Effect of rice diet on diabetes mellitus associated with vascular disease. Postgrad Med. 1958;24:359-371.
Skyler, J. Walter Kempner: a biographical note. Arch Intern Med. 1974;133:752-755.
Newborg, B, ed. Scientific Publications by Walter Kempner. Vol 1. Durham, NC: Gravity Press; 2002:1.
Kempner W. Treatment of kidney disease and hypertensive vascular disease with rice diet. JAMA. 1944;125:48.
Stead EA. Walter Kempner: a perspective. Arch Intern Med. 1974;133:756-757.
Newborg, B. Scientific Publications by Walter Kempner. Vol 2. Durham, NC: Gravity Press; 2002:2.
Table sugar quote: www.sciencedirect.com/science/…
Vegan Diabetes Rates:
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/artic…
Overfeeding and Carb Storage / Carbs Only 3-10% of Fat Stored:
ajcn.nutrition.org/content/74/…
More Reading on Difficulty of Storing Carbs as Fat:
ajcn.nutrition.org/content/74/…
Inuit Life Expectancy:
Okinawan Diet Breakdown and Longevity: www.okicent.org/docs/anyas_cr_…
Adventist Vegetarians Longest Living Formally Described Population:
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11…
www.statcan.gc.ca/access_acces…
Low Carb Increased Mortality Study:
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23…
Study on 350,000 Men - Higher Cholesterol higher coronary disease:
jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/ ...
Chart Source: www.pcrm.org/sites/default/fil…
DeviantArt won't let me paste the list of sources on the environmental subject in this message because the list is too long, so you can find them in the artist description of my post here:"
and here:
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
And you seem to be avoiding the question. But I guess I can’t expect you to want to answer everything.
Excess fat is the stuff you have around your waste when you don’t exercise enough. And that is unhealthy. Now while saturated fat isn’t the healthiest, it is healthier than trans fat. Unsaturated fat is the healthiest, and actually decreases you chances of heart disease. And saying fat makes you fat is equivalent to saying rotting meat turns into flies.
And you can lose weight while eating fat.
drhyman.com/blog/2016/01/08/wh…
www.washingtonpost.com/lifesty…
Sugar and carbs do make you fat.
healthcare.utah.edu/the-scope/…
It is accepted by modern science that sugar causes diabetes. And genetics.
The Okinawans also ate fish. They were pescatarian. And as for Inuits, how much modern healthcare do they have access to?
Nice “No true Scotsman” fallacy. No true animal lover would eat meat. You must only like dogs and cats.
You’re right, you don’t say we should be put in meat grinders. Just that if we love animals and don’t want you to put them on a vegan diet then we shouldn’t mind be ground up and fed to them. And you do call us unintelligent. Multiple times. Or equate us with monsters. And no one wants to be killed. Calling it a hypocrisy is idiotic. No matter what most people don’t want to die.
You yourself said that animals are rendered unconscious before being killed. How is that cruel?
And before this, I didn’t know your family came from India. How the flying frick am I supposed to assume something about you based on your race when I don’t know what your race is?!
www.deviantart.com/pupaveg/art…
And I was referring to this when I meant your religion. I am not sure if this is your religion or if you are calling omnivores satanic, which is an insult if I ever saw one, and enormously untrue.
And on another note, are you an Adventist?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I have already stated everything on the health aspect, so I have nothing more to add on that part. You're free to read my view on it in my previous message and check out the sources (which you clearly didn't, judging from your reply which again provides just industry-funded propaganda, not even a single peer-reviewed study).
You yourself said that animals are rendered unconscious before being killed. How is that cruel?
The standard legal form of slaughter for animals is for them to be "stunned" and then have their throats slit. For chickens and pigs, the stunning is generally done with an electric shock, and for other animals a pneumatic bolt pistol projects a metal rod into their forehead. It is claimed that this renders the animal 100% unconscious, but if you actually look into the facts, slaughterhouse workers will admit that there is no way to verify that this is the case for every single animal, and indeed the process doesn't always work, isn't followed routinely, and indeed, the "stun" can wear off while the animal is being killed. But 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. 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.
And I was referring to this when I meant your religion.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yah know, I have to say, I feel the meat industry was more human further back. The reason? People used guns to quickly blow an animals brains out. No fear, pain, or chance of it waking back up. Of course they stopped this because…
1. Bullets are expensive.
2. People getting upset about the animals brains getting blown out.
3. It’s pretty messy.
4. Horrible diseases form when brain matter enters the blood stream.
Now I know why they don’t do injections to kill the animals. It’s honestly a bad idea to give people meat with poison in it.
I guess the best way to make it “humaner” would be to give the animals the chair, essentially. Kill them out right with electricity.
And there are a lot of oxymorons in English, like jumbo shrimp, or, according to my animal science teacher, military intelligence. The original way the word slaughter was used was for killing animals. Slaughter became what it is today thanks to people comparing very bloody killings to animals being killed.
I honestly have no idea if animals even has the meta cognitive ability to value their life. They certainly don’t want to die. Nothing does. They want to be able to pass on their genes, which is the only reason they struggle for survival. There is no nice way to kill someone. But there is a painless one.
And I looked it up. That stuff looks good. And I’m sorry about assuming your religion. But there are some cults out there that just change the spelling of Satan so they can try and say they don’t worship him.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It doesn't matter how quick you kill them, it's unnessecary. If somebody killed their dog or child with a gun shot, I doubt you'd say "that's fine, because they were killed quick and didn't see it coming".
Paying for killing an animal is NOT compassion for animals. Any more than killing a human is compassion for a human or killing a dog is compassion for a dog. Killing animals isn’t compassionate. It’s cruel and it’s violent.
My friend, you cannot “kindly” kill an animal that doesn’t want to die. You can kill a sensitive creature but it’s never going to be kind, it’s never going to be compassionate and it’s never going to, by definition, be humane.
As Andrea Kladar said: “To examine whether something is “humane”, first determine if you would want it done to you.”
Listen, it comes down to this: There is no right way to do the wrong thing. Because whether it’s factory farmed or organic, the animals always ends up with the same fate. A fate that we would never tolerate for cats or dogs. No matter how humane the butcher, food store, company or package claim it to be. If you love animals, start eating like it. ^_^
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
First off you assume I would hold my dog and my child as equals. I would let my dog die the most horrible death imaginable before I let my child even be scratched.
I never said it was compassion for animals. Of course killing is violent. I never said it wasn’t. But violence can be necessary from time to time. In order to feed people, killing animals is okay in my books. Basically, people are more important than animals. End of discussion right there, for that discussion. Now we should be compassionate to animals, but not at the expense of people.
Killing animals to feed people isn’t wrong. Forcing people to do something they don’t want because of misguided morals is wrong. And lying to them to make your morals seem right is wrong.
I do love animals. But I will not stop eating them just because someone else says it’s wrong. I will decide that for myself.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
First off you assume I would hold my dog and my child as equals. I would let my dog die the most horrible death imaginable before I let my child even be scratched.
That sounds pretty evil to be honest. Especially since that wasn't even the question.
But violence can be necessary from time to time. In order to feed people, killing animals is okay in my books.
Now we should be compassionate to animals, but not at the expense of people.
That is a really contradicting argument. Animals are killed for the enjoyment of eating their dead bodies. It is not a matter of necessity, as proven by all the hundreds of millions of vegans in the world. Violence doesn't suddenly become ok just because the perpatrator says they're ok with it. Because the victim isn't.
Basically, people are more important than animals. End of discussion right there, for that discussion.
Actually, the opposite is true—humans are the only species on earth whose complete removal would benefit absolutely everything (the air, the oceans, the animals, the forests, the soil, etc.). So the idea that a species whose very existence is detrimental to everything is superior to the existence of those species who actually play a role in the ecosystem, is absurd. The idea that one's own kind is superior to another's own kind is the root of all the oppressions throughout history—hardly something we should be aspiring to.
I do love animals. But I will not stop eating them just because someone else says it’s wrong. I will decide that for myself.
Breeding beings into existence for the sole purpose of killing them for your own pleasure is not "love". Also, "I choose to do it" is no moral justification for doing so because it applies to all forms of violence. Again: violence doesn't suddenly become ok just because the perpatrator says they're ok with it. Because the victim isn't. That's why I'll keep speaking up for the victims, not the victimizer.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
So evil is saying I value my kid more than my dog? And to answer the question, no, it would not be okay if someone just killed my dog or my child, even if it was quick. I would be enormously pissed if my dog was killed, and even more so, a thousand times more so if my child was killed.
What contradiction? Saying that animals aren’t more valuable than people, but that they should stil be treated with as much respect and compassion as possible without making them more valuable than people, is some how a contradiction? Animals don’t have the reasoning abilities to be victims. Nor the meta cognitive ability.
Well not true. Internal parasites also have no real value or place in this world. And humanity can make or break the planet, heal, or murder it. We just have to do it right, to truly learn how to heal, without degrading te human person, the planet.
I do love animals. But animals in a slaughter house are to become food. I can’t feel sorrow for food. The victim is an animal. I’m sorry, but “The Secret of Nimh” and “Doctor Dolittle” aren't documentary's about the intelligence and emotional complexity of animals. It’s fantasy. The animal, is incapable of complex thought. Now some are. Chimps and other great apes, and dolphins certainly are, but cows and pigs just aren’t.
You are speaking up for yourself. That is what you are doing. Those factory farms you guys complain about from documentaries? Hand picked because they were the worst of the worst. You are speaking about your own opinions.
And all the research you bring up has the chance of being very wrong. Remember, flat earthers have research on why the earth is flat. As do people who say the moon landings are fake.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
And to answer the question, no, it would not be okay if someone just killed my dog or my child, even if it was quick. I would be enormously pissed if my dog was killed, and even more so, a thousand times more so if my child was killed.
Exactly. You don't actually believe that a quick death justifies killing. Because it doesn't, no matter who the victim is.
And humanity can make or break the planet, heal, or murder it. We just have to do it right, to truly learn how to heal, without degrading te human person, the planet.
And that's what it means to be vegan. So... why are you arguing against it again?
I do love animals. But animals in a slaughter house are to become food. I can’t feel sorrow for food. The victim is an animal.
This sounds incredibly contradicting. Do you even know what love is?
The animal, is incapable of complex thought. Now some are. Chimps and other great apes, and dolphins certainly are, but cows and pigs just aren’t.
Intelligence is not a valid justification for taking life. To put this as simply as possible, cats, dogs and hamsters are not as intelligent as us. But most people would be appalled to think of that as a reason to kill or harm them.
You are speaking up for yourself. That is what you are doing.
So when I talk about animals being brutalized and the effect animal agriculture has on the planet defines "speaking up for yourself"? You seen awfully confused, especially since the only one speaking up for themselves (in your case: your tastebuds) is you. Note that so far, you not once have considered your victim's perspective on all this. All I hear you saying is "me me me".
Hand picked because they were the worst of the worst.
Actually, as a former cattle rancher myself, I can confirm that it's common practice. If you don't believe me, visit your nearest slaughterhouse or factory farm. Did you really believe that animals were being tickled to death?
You are speaking about your own opinions.
Explaining how animal agriculture is harming the environment, animals and people is not "an opinion". These are facts. Learn the difference between fact and opinion.
E.g:
"Meat is good" is an opinion.
"Eating meat is the leading cause of global deforestation, habitat destruction, ocean deadzones and greenhouse gas emmissions" is a fact.
And all the research you bring up has the chance of being very wrong. Remember, flat earthers have research on why the earth is flat. As do people who say the moon landings are fake.
That's funny, because the sources the meat industry uses (and you linked to) are literally based on fake science. Not even one of the flat earth or meat propaganda articles is based on peer-reviewed studies or research, unlike the statistics I have provided (which you clearly didn't even bother looking into, judging from you're assumption that they're based on fake news rather than peer-reviewed studies, statistics and solid research). So if you hate fake news, all the more reason to stop defending the meat industry. Because honestly, just like the cigarette industry, they're pretty much defined propaganda. Honestly, I am starting to believe that you don't care what the truth really is. You're just here because you want to feel good about your current views, which kinda explains why you'd rather believe a random Youtuber over peer-reviewed studies. 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.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I believe the reason justifies the killing.
And I did look back through some of your stuff. I learned what Halal is. It is disgusting. Sharia law. Saying animals must have their throat cut out with a knife. Absolutely barbaric. The bolt gun was humane. It was quick and painless. Halal wasn’t. And if it’s the legal minimum, I think we should change it. The bolt gun is better. Sharia law slaughter isn’t. This is another part of why I don’t like Sharia law.
Also, I don’t eat out a lot. My family mostly eats chicken we buy at the store. And as for eggs? We get them from our own chickens. 14 hens.
I did supply some peer reviewed studies. .gov’s and .edu’s are peer reviewed. Like the one about how carbs and artificial sugars do make you fat.
Listen. What I mostly eat throughout the day is carbs. And artificial sugar. And I am overweight. I’m pretty sure chicken, which has no usable, digestible fat, isn’t making me fat.
I will try to get better fiber intake. That will make me healthier. Being vegan won’t. A higher fiber intake will. All omnivores need to do is increase their fiber intake and they’d be just as healthy as vegans. Thank you for that bit of health wisdom.
Seriously? People think steak is a good source of fiber? I can’t really describe how idiotic that is. I knew steak didn’t have fiber in it since I was a child.
And again. How much more area will be cleared to feed 7.68 billion vegans?
It’s interesting to hear you were a cattle farmer.
And those studies all forgot one thing. Fiber intake. And the fact that most vegans are health nuts. Also, I did supply a peer reviewed study as to how carbs make you fat.
Vegans aren’t gonna save the world. Saying one group is completely right is a fallacy.
The reasons for taking an animals life should be any one of these.
1. The animal is suffering and there is no way to help it.
2. The animal is a danger to humans.
3. The animal is going to be food.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
I believe the reason justifies the killing.
So if the perpatrator is ok with violence, it makes violence ok?
And I did look back through some of your stuff. I learned what Halal is. It is disgusting. Sharia law. Saying animals must have their throat cut out with a knife. Absolutely barbaric. The bolt gun was humane. It was quick and painless. Halal wasn’t. And if it’s the legal minimum, I think we should change it. The bolt gun is better. Sharia law slaughter isn’t. This is another part of why I don’t like Sharia law.
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.
Also, I don’t eat out a lot. My family mostly eats chicken we buy at the store. And as for eggs? We get them from our own chickens. 14 hens.
How does that justify animal abuse?
I did supply some peer reviewed studies. .gov’s and .edu’s are peer reviewed. Like the one about how carbs and artificial sugars do make you fat.
That isn't peer-reviewed. Do you know what peer-reviewed means?
Listen. What I mostly eat throughout the day is carbs. And artificial sugar. And I am overweight. I’m pretty sure chicken, which has no usable, digestible fat, isn’t making me fat.
Really? Do you realize that eggs consists over 50% fat and that by eating animals and animal products you directly take their body fat into yours?
I will try to get better fiber intake. That will make me healthier. Being vegan won’t. A higher fiber intake will. All omnivores need to do is increase their fiber intake and they’d be just as healthy as vegans. Thank you for that bit of health wisdom.
Artery-clogging food isn't going to make you healthier, and ingesting more fiber doesn't make all that excess saturated fat and cholesterol suddenly healthy. That's like saying smoking can be just as healthy as non-smoking as long as you eat your veggies.
And again. How much more area will be cleared to feed 7.68 billion vegans?
A lot less than feeding 58 BILLION land animals a year, that's for sure.
It’s interesting to hear you were a cattle farmer.
I regret it...
And those studies all forgot one thing. Fiber intake. And the fact that most vegans are health nuts.
No, we're not. There are some, but overall we don't have to worry about what we eat because, aside from things with too much sugar or oil, vegan food in general is more healthy than non-vegan food. So I don't bother being a health nut: I already cut out the most harmful foods of them all (animal products) so I don't need to be a health nut.
Vegans aren’t gonna save the world. Saying one group is completely right is a fallacy.
You going vegan actually will make a difference. A huge one. Indeed, in the US alone, 400 million fewer animals were brought into a life of exploitation and suffering in 2014 than 2013, due to a rise in the number of plant-based diets. In the UK, the number of vegans has risen 360% in the last decade, hence why the main chain restaurants there are changing their menus in order to cater to demand (e.g. restaurants offering vegan cheese pizzas, etc.). So why not join the ever-growing number who are becoming part of the solution to the problem of animal suffering?
Want to see how much of a difference you'd make by boycotting animal products for a certain length of time? Check out the Vegan Calculator and see for yourself!
In any case, we are accountable for our own actions. Imagine if someone said that, just because burglaries are still going to happen regardless of whether you burgle or not, you might as well burgle. Just because others are doing something, that doesn't mean we should be playing a part in it as well. As the saying goes: "Be the change you want to see in the world".
The reasons for taking an animals life should be any one of these.
1. The animal is suffering and there is no way to help it.
2. The animal is a danger to humans.
3. The animal is going to be food.
1. Agreed.
2. Don't agree. By that logic, we should kill all lions, tigers and other predatory animals acting on their instinct for not undestanding human law (which doesn't make sense) + that would mean that we should kill all humans, too except vegans because they are a danger to ALL species on the planet and the planet itself.
3. This defines killing animals for pleasure if you live in the 1st world. And pleasure is no moral justification to harm other beings.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No. If the reason is justified it is okay.
Emotional appeals aren’t logical arguments.
Also, you said this already, the first one is a video about the difference between the bolt gun and Halal. Talking about how barbaric Halal is. It says, and I quote, “the Western humane instant slaughter of the bolt gun, and the Islamic slaughter of Sharia law.” It’s an anti Sharia law video, not an anti slaughter video.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZE2svQ…
My chickens produce in the same way the 1905 chickens do. Also, I eat eggs about once every other month. And as I said, chicken fat can’t be used by the human body. So it’s not making me fat.
So .govs and .edus aren’t peer reviewed? Like the ones you used?
Actually yes, it will.
The environmental damage from all the fertilizers used to grow those crops will be devastating.
Processed food is far more damaging. Sweets, and things like candy. The over all difference between most omnivores and vegans is that most omnivores don’t get enough fiber. If they did get enough fiber, they would be healthy. Fiber is what prevents heart disease and cancer.
A tiger that has become a man eater is a danger to people, it should be put down. Basically, you’re saying, that if a brown bear was trying to kill and eat you, and I could stop it, I should let you die?
It seems to me that with your last statement, you place human life as below that of animals, and saying that all omnivores and non vegans should die because of there diet? Well done miss Hitler, well done feme Thanos, for revealing your true nature. Animals lives aren’t more important than a persons. Saying that they, an animals life, is more important than a humans life, is evil, and monstrous. Genocide for all, the old, the infants, men and women, all non vegans. See how easy it is to run the world with only 1 billion people across the world.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No. If the reason is justified it is okay.
So if the perpatrator thinks the reason is justified, it makes it ok, despite the fact that the victim is not ok with it?
Emotional appeals aren’t logical arguments.
An appeal to emotion is saying that animals and the planet should die because you crave cheese and milkshake.
Also, you said this already, the first one is a video about the difference between the bolt gun and Halal.
Halal is barbaric, I'm sure we agree on that. But other slaughter isn't any better either. It's both killing for momentary pleasure. You wouldn't say that a bombing terrorist is better than a murderer who kills their victims with a knife, would you? It's all senseless violence.
My chickens produce in the same way the 1905 chickens do. Also, I eat eggs about once every other month.
Did you read the artist description? And do you avoid all other products that contains eggs from the supermarket?
And as I said, chicken fat can’t be used by the human body. So it’s not making me fat.
Um, that literally makes no sense.
The environmental damage from all the fertilizers used to grow those crops will be devastating.
The majority of those crops are used to feed the 58 billion farm animals a year, so if you're truly concerned about the overproduction of crops (which I very much doubt) all the more reason to stop consuming animal products.
Processed food is far more damaging. Sweets, and things like candy. The over all difference between most omnivores and vegans is that most omnivores don’t get enough fiber. If they did get enough fiber, they would be healthy. Fiber is what prevents heart disease and cancer.
Fiber does not prevent heart disease and cancer. It just helps your stomach digest your food better. You can eat all the fiber you want, but it won't prevent cancer from smoking, toxic processed foods or animal products. Note that most of the processed foods considered unhealthy do contain animal products, which makes them much more unhealthy.
A tiger that has become a man eater is a danger to people, it should be put down.
All tigers would eat a human if they saw one. That's what they do in nature: eat other animals to survive. If they should die for that, why should non-vegan humans get a free pass for eating animals and destroying the whole planet out of greed? What's with the double standards?
Basically, you’re saying, that if a brown bear was trying to kill and eat you, and I could stop it, I should let you die?
Maybe that brown bear wouldn't need to eat me if we stopped cutting down the forests they live in to make space to grow crops to feed cattle? Wild animals are left with a decreasing amount of space every year, because of people like you.
It seems to me that with your last statement, you place human life as below that of animals, and saying that all omnivores and non vegans should die because of there diet? Well done miss Hitler, well done feme Thanos, for revealing your true nature.
No, you aren't listening. I am literally using your own reasoning against you. If they should die according to you for hunting animals for survival, why do you get a free pass for killing out of greed and selfishness? What's with the double standards? And LOL at Hitler coming from someone who advocates and participates in mass-murder of innocents "because they are not like you", and literally forces their victims in a gas chamber which is literally copied from WWII.
Animals lives aren’t more important than a persons. Saying that they, an animals life, is more important than a humans life, is evil, and monstrous.
That's what racists say when you compare white people to black people, too. Yet they can't prove it. "I am more important than them" is an opinion, not a fact and honestly, using morally irrelevant differences as an excuse to enslave and kill others is what truly is evil and monstrous. It is based on arrogance and arrogance only. While if you look at it from a neutral perspective, actually, the opposite is true—humans are the only species on earth whose complete removal would benefit absolutely everything (the air, the oceans, the animals, the forests, the soil, etc.). So the idea that a species whose very existence is detrimental to everything is superior to the existence of those species who actually play a role in the ecosystem, is absurd. The idea that one's own kind is superior to another's own kind is the root of all the oppressions throughout history—hardly something we should be aspiring to. So tell me, oh-mighty-human... what exactly makes your life the most valuable to the planet when all you do is destroy it out of greed?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
A terrorist is not okay with a sniper round going through his head. It doesn’t matter wether or not the victim is okay with being killed, it is okay if it can be legally and morally justified.
The planet won’t die because people want cheeseburgers. It would die because people are to busy arguing over wether or not it’s moral to eat cheeseburgers to actually try and take care of the earth. Humanity may have screwed the planet, but we are the only ones who can un-screw it. What would take nature thousands of years to do humanity could do through combined effort in 50.
A terrorist and a murder are senseless violence. Slaughtering animals to feed people isn’t. And before you say that you don’t need to eat meat, try first telling tribal peoples in South America that. They are surrounded by edible plant matter, yet they still eat animals. Why? Animals are much harder to catch than plants. So why don’t they just go vegan?
Chicken fat has the same nutritional value as a cotton ball. Your body cannot use it at all. So it is forced out of your system. It leaves undigested.
It’s not an over production of crops I’m worried about. It’s algae blooms. When fertilizer enters a waterway, it causes algae to explode. This causes an over abundance of oxygen, which in turn causes bacteria populations to skyrocket. The toxins then produced by the enormous bacteria population feeding results in the death of all life in said waterway. My concern is not only will the overly large amount of fertilizer used to grow crops for 7.68 billion vegans result in such algae blooms in rivers and lakes, but in the oceans as well. That would result in an ecological disaster that would potentially wipe out all life in the planet.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=2m4p8s…
This is your largest ever study of its kind, which states in it that fiber helps stop heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and other disorders and diseases. It also states that vegans get the same amount of protein as everyone else, not 70 percent more like you claimed earlier. So either you are wrong, or they are.
No. Tiger usually avoid people. That is because, like most animals in the planet, they have been genetically modified by humans. This is because tiger that would have preyed on people were hunted down, and whatever genetic predisposition towards hunting humans they had was weeded out of the gene pool.
And again, you’ve proven you view animal life as above that of a humans. Despicable.
The territory of brown bears and land used for farming aren’t even anywhere near each other. It’s not farming that’s doing anything to the bears appetite. And I call bullshit on the fact that you said you would let the bear eat you. You would be screaming for my help.
Oh, insulting me? My my, someone can’t support their own arguments.
Hitler was a vegan. And an avid animal rights supporter. That’s how he was able to convince the public to be as cruel to those they oppressed and to kill even state it was okay to kill them. By making humans equal to animals. Abs who said I was for the gas chamber method of slaughter?
Did you just compare a black person to an animal? That’s racist!!
No, saying people deserve to die because of their beliefs is evil and monstrous. Saying I am better than an animal isn’t. Saying people are equal to animals is just as insulting and degrading as when white people said the same about blacks. Reducing people to the same level as an animal, let alone below them, will always result in people being mistreated. This is what you are doing. You are allowing people to say to themselves “I can rape, murder, torture, and otherwise abuse this person because they are equal to an animal.”
Our sudden removal from the planet would be huger as detrimental. All those poisons and diseases we have locked up no longer have anyone running the prison. All those nuclear reactors would have no one to keep them cool. And reducing the population. Well now we have no reason to be as environmentally conscious, because there aren’t as many of us. Reducing it anywhere below 5 billion would result in such a change in thinking.
No. Saying another group is equal to animals is the source of all oppression, which is exactly what you described. All oppression starts with making someone else equal to an animal. What makes my life so valuable is the fact that I can help the planet my own way. Maybe a new energy source that creates zero environmental impact. Maybe a new crop that uses little water to grow.
Tell me, vegan, if you are equal to an animal, then why should your life, hold any value? You’re just as valuable as an animal if you are equal to one. So why should you have any value? After all, your equal to animals. And we can get more animals.
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
Here's another one that specifically shows animals being stabbed through their backs, when in reality their throats are slit, and usually after electrocution. Someone who sees this comic out of context will think you believe animals are slaughtered the way you show the pig. It's a reoccurring theme in your comics and I think you could easily get the same aesthetic and emotional effect by varying the weapon used. I'm not trying to come on too strong, it's just... I'm having trouble understanding why you don't see the theme here.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
So what do you suggest to improve it?
1. Upload all of the pages regarding slaughter I've already written on DA? (This might be too boring, as it only contains text and a long, boring list of sources).
2. Draw some comics regarding the stun argument.
?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, this one is finished, but if you were me, I would mention in the description what the knife is being used to represent, or post a link to a source that explains how animals are slaughtered. That way people couldn't accuse you of not knowing what you're talking about!
As for future comics, I would show a variety of weapons used, not just knives. You could show a stun gun in one, a bolt gun in another, a knife in another, etc.
I'm not trying to be mean! I just thought it might help you understand what I meant if I pointed out some of the comics that people told me made them stop reading your comics. I'm just trying to help, I'm not trying to be mean.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yeah, I replied to your other message about it. I have decided to cram it into a new comic. Thanks for sharing your suggestion.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
All the more reason not to kill them and their babies
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I think I might get a pig instead of a dog. Plus, if I live near a lush forest, the pig can help me find edible mushrooms. I love pigs~ so cute and smart and talented~
Be vegan. For the sake of mushrooms(what I will name my future piglet).
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I want a pig, too. Someday, if I ever have a bigger house and more money, I will rescue a pig from a farm.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Pigs are just the cutest little things. Plus, they always look so innocent!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
| Next =>