First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
Vegans are Eating the Environment
13258 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / O.C. So.Cal
Offline
Posted 12/23/08

azera wrote:

i eat humans no worries!


you eat pussy too? high five
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 12/24/08

Akisame-sama wrote:


Allhailodin wrote:

The vegans who say they are vegans because they would be killing living things if they eat animals are simply fucking idiots.

First off, plants are living things too, they have cells as well. Thus they are a multi-celled living thing.

Second, it can be alive it it only has one cell. bacteria is also alive. So whenever you use mouthwash or brush your teeth with certain kinds of toothpaste. Your killing not hundreds, but thousands of single celled bacteria in your mouth. But that would even begin to make a difference in the number of bacteria that are in your mouth. There are millions of bacteria that live in your mouth. So if you say "Well I don't want to kill anything" Then fine, never eat anything again, and never use mouthwash and never brush your teeth again.

So if you say your a vegan because you don't want to kill living things, that's pure stupidity,


We say we don't want to kill living things, but we never said we didn't.


It's still a retarded method of doing things.
2283 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / Toronto, Canada
Offline
Posted 12/24/08
2142 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / America, Fuck Yeah.
Offline
Posted 1/8/09

shinto-male wrote:



Rock on
5156 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / F
Offline
Posted 1/8/09
i like my meat
i like my meat with sauce
i like my meat with veggies
1433 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / New York
Offline
Posted 1/9/09 , edited 1/9/09
I am neither a vegetarian nor a vegan, but there is more to their view than "we shouldn't kill things." It amuses me to see people think they've defeated the philosophy by attacking such a weak strawman argument. What if the reason were that they do not want to harm anything capable of feeling pain? If they opposed meat-eating because of the way the animals are treated before slaughter? See Peter Singer's "All Animals Are Equal."
253 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / F / SYDNEY AUSTRALIA
Offline
Posted 1/9/09 , edited 1/9/09
I really think that picture of that tractor killing the little animals is amusing, because it's bullshit ;)
What real organic farm can actually afford a tractor? :O

To be honest half of the things people are saying are pure myths about vegans, I don't know people's reasons I hope it's not intimidation :O

I'm vegan and educated. For those arguing vegans are so ~bad~ because we eat plants, well number 1 is so do you so what's your problem? number 2 is that plants have no complex nervous system and cannot feel pain. It is not the argument we do not eat living things, it is the argument we don't implement pain, torture and exploitation to animals, because then how can we say we have evolved past them?

“The animals of the world exist for their own reasons. They were not made for humans any more than blacks were made for whites, or women for men.”

Many people have lots to say about others being vegan, but what is their real qualm? Is it because it challenges what you eat, and the moral behind it? Is it because you are totally opposed to decreasing green house gases? Or that fact that clearing of land is cleared to feed fat faces with more meat, because the fact stands, it takes a lot more land to raise a cow then to grow crops. Or maybe you just don't want to believe that people can actually live like this and not die, because I'm not dead, I'm not malnourished, my eyes aren't yellow, I rarely ever fall sick, my poo is fine and nothing is wrong with me. So what is your problem against vegans? Is it because you see us hypocrites? Who in this world isn't? And what facts not funded by the meat industry do you know?

“We cannot have peace among men whose hearts delight in killing any living creature. By every act that glorifies or even tolerates such delight in killing, we set back the progress of humanity.”


But you know, feel free to flame or whatev, I don't care, your view is your view. And I won't be replying, would not want to lose sleep over replies. :)



2142 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / America, Fuck Yeah.
Offline
Posted 1/9/09

meowzy wrote:

I really think that picture of that tractor killing the little animals is amusing, because it's bullshit ;)
What real organic farm can actually afford a tractor? :O



Umm, all of them in America, honey.
1328 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Netherlands
Offline
Posted 1/9/09
Nobody touches my juicy steak
Posted 1/9/09
There are many good reason why to be a vegetarian/vegan.

Ethics beings the one thing above all. The way we're treating the animals we're eating is just horrible. Imagine being locked in a cage that only enabled you to move 1cm forward/backwards.

Also from an environmental point of view. Producing 1kg of meat demands for 30 times as much energy, thus poluting 30 times more than producing 1kg of vegetables.

That said, I'm not a vegetarian
2283 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / Toronto, Canada
Offline
Posted 1/9/09

The Myth of Animals Rights
by Tibor R. Machan

A recent Rivera Live television talk program hosted several animal rights advocates who were given considerable air time defending their position in both analytical and emotion terms. Only a couple of skeptics offered some doubts about the idea that was the focus of the program.

I watched and listened closely and found that the program offered hardly any measure of balance during the discussion. There was a law professor, for example, who raised some questions but gave no clear cut argument against the idea that animals have rights akin to human beings, the position widely shared about those who got nearly all the air time on the program.

One legal specialist defending the notion of animal rights made the flat out claim that animals must be considered to have the right to freedom just as individual human beings. He gave his own example of offering shelter to six dogs as the model that ought to be emulated throughout the world. He even characterized his practice as giving asylum to the dogs, as one might give asylum to a political refuge from a totalitarian society.

I filed the spectacle away, having dealt with the issue both in Op Ed essays and scholarly pieces I have written and even had reprinted in ethics text books on the topic. But I wasn’t permitted to leave it at that since the next day, watching a National Geographic Explorer program on CMBC, my attention was returned to the topic. On this program a polar bear’s hunt for baby seals was depicted in extensive detail. First we saw how the bear managed to capture and kill a baby seal. Next we saw a mature polar bear fighting off a young one as they both had their eyes on the carcass of a dead seal. Suddenly my ears perked up: the narrator made a comment that brought to mind the animal rights program the night before. He said, "The older males are known to kill younger ones when fighting over carcasses." No, they do not share even a bit of the scavenged pickings but either chase the young bears away or out and out kill them as they attempt to preserve for themselves everything they found. Of course, human beings have been known to battle it out over scares resources throughout history, but in most regions of the world it is a crime to kill a young person even in defense of one’s property, let alone over wild prey. Killing youngsters, while it does occur, is deemed to be a crime in nearly all – especially civilized – societies. Where it isn’t, the bulk of world opinion considers the region barbaric and brutal.

Given this, how can we seriously entertain the idea that animals have rights like human beings do? If this were true, all the inter-species brutality in the animal world would have to be construed as out and out criminal. But, quite sensibly, it isn’t. Why so? The reason is that animals operate as their instincts dictate, and in many cases instincts dictate that animals kill their own kind. Fish often eat their young, as do lions when they are impelled to do so by their genetic disposition, presumably to rid their pride of bastard offspring.

Why, on the other hand, do human beings get prosecuted if they engage in similar conduct? Why is it brutal, barbaric – and should be criminal – to kill children for fun, profit or even survival? The reason is that human beings are fundamentally different from their animal kin in the wild. They have the capacity to make choices, they possess free will and have the responsibility to act ethically and respect the rights of other human beings. Why? So these others can carry out their morality responsibilities on their own initiative. Human beings, in short, are free and morally responsible. And it is this fact that gives rise to their having basic rights that others ought to respect and they may protect with force and law. These rights carve out a kind of fence – or sphere of personal authority – around persons, something they all require in order to carry on in a dignified manner when in one another’s company.


There are many ways human beings can be guilty of mistreating animals. Perhaps even the law should make some provisions to ensure that wanton torture and mistreatment of animals are minimized. But this is not because animals have rights, which they cannot have given their nature as instinctually driven beasts instead of moral agents. Talking, therefore, about animal rights is a confusion and misguides our thinking about our proper relationship with the rest of the animal world.

July 25, 2000




http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/machan6.html
2283 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / Toronto, Canada
Offline
Posted 1/9/09
EATING MEAT IS NATURAL

Animal rights activists often make the claim that humans do not
"require animal protein to meet our nutritional needs". While this is
true, it is not a dietary choice recommended by North American health
authorities.

According to the USDA 1995 Dietary Guidelines for Americans (the
Canada Food Guide was not at hand), the recommended diet is one "with
most of the calories from grain products, vegetables, fruits, lowfat
milk products, lean meats, fish, poultry, and dry beans [and] fewer
calories from fats and sweets."

As for vegetarian diets, the Guidelines state: "Most vegetarians eat
milk products and eggs, and as a group, these lacto-ovo-vegetarians
enjoy excellent health... You can get enough protein from a vegetarian
diet as long as the variety and amounts of foods consumed are
adequate. Meat, fish, and poultry are major contributors of iron,
zinc, and B vitamins in most American diets, and vegetarians should
pay special attention to these nutrients."

As for vegan diets, the Guidelines, in part, state: "Vegans eat only
food of plant origin. Because animal products are the only food
sources of vitamin B12, vegans must supplement their diets with a
source of this vitamin."

While lacto-ovo-vegetarian diets rely on animal by-products to be
complete, vegan diets rely on artificial dietary supplements and are
by definition incomplete and unnatural.

Anthropologists and human paleontologists have found that modern Homo
sapiens, despite our advanced technology and civilization, are not
significantly different either physiologically or psychologically from
our Paleolithic ancestors. In their groundbreaking 1988 book "The
Paleolithic Prescription: A Program of Diet & Exercise and a Design
for Living", MDs Eaton and Konner and researcher Shostak used the
Paleolithic diet which consisted of a wide variety of vegetables,
fruit, and wild game (which is very lean meat) to recommend a modern
diet similar to the American Dietary Guidelines.

Eaton et al. also claimed that, while adult vegans "can be basically
healthy... there is some evidence that children raised exclusively on
such diets have slowed growth and development. To propose humans as
basically vegetarian in nature, however, is clearly unjustifed. Meat
is, and has always been, a major constituent of the human diet."

Humans have evolved for the past two million years as omnivorous
hunters/gatherers and have as much right to eat meat as any other
predator on this planet. However, unlike other modern predators, many
of whom often begin eating their prey while it is still alive and
conscious, we treat our prey far more humanely.

Instead of trying to rewrite or deny our evolutionary and dietary
heritage, it would make more sense to adopt an animal welfare approach
that advocates the humane use of our animal food sources rather than
an animal "rights" position which ultimately seeks no use of and no
contact with animals (including pets).

Jim Powlesland
July, 1996

--------------
S. Boyd Eaton, M.D., M. Shostak, and M. Konner, M.D., Ph.D. 1988. "The
Paleolithic Prescription: A Program of Diet & Exercise and a Design
for Living". Harper & Row, New York. ISBN 0-06-015871-9)


http://www.ucalgary.ca/~powlesla/personal/hunting/rights/meat.txt
1186 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / F / Leading your nigh...
Offline
Posted 1/9/09
I'm not a vegetarian, but I don't eat a lot of meat. I mean once in a while maybe... but not a lot. It's just because too much meat makes my stomach churn ever since I was little >_<
3498 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Nowheresville, MI
Offline
Posted 1/9/09
If god didn't want us to eat cows, he wouldn't of made them so slow.
Posted 1/9/09 , edited 1/10/09

meowzy wrote:

I really think that picture of that tractor killing the little animals is amusing, because it's bullshit ;)
What real organic farm can actually afford a tractor? :O

To be honest half of the things people are saying are pure myths about vegans, I don't know people's reasons I hope it's not intimidation :O

I'm vegan and educated. For those arguing vegans are so ~bad~ because we eat plants, well number 1 is so do you so what's your problem? number 2 is that plants have no complex nervous system and cannot feel pain. It is not the argument we do not eat living things, it is the argument we don't implement pain, torture and exploitation to animals, because then how can we say we have evolved past them?

“The animals of the world exist for their own reasons. They were not made for humans any more than blacks were made for whites, or women for men.”

Many people have lots to say about others being vegan, but what is their real qualm? Is it because it challenges what you eat, and the moral behind it? Is it because you are totally opposed to decreasing green house gases? Or that fact that clearing of land is cleared to feed fat faces with more meat, because the fact stands, it takes a lot more land to raise a cow then to grow crops. Or maybe you just don't want to believe that people can actually live like this and not die, because I'm not dead, I'm not malnourished, my eyes aren't yellow, I rarely ever fall sick, my poo is fine and nothing is wrong with me. So what is your problem against vegans? Is it because you see us hypocrites? Who in this world isn't? And what facts not funded by the meat industry do you know?

“We cannot have peace among men whose hearts delight in killing any living creature. By every act that glorifies or even tolerates such delight in killing, we set back the progress of humanity.”


But you know, feel free to flame or whatev, I don't care, your view is your view. And I won't be replying, would not want to lose sleep over replies. :)





But would only being a vegan effectively get that basic message across?
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.