Food [deleted]

[The Gunrunner]

Well this one's new.
"In 1947 Watson wrote: "The vegan renounces it as superstitious that human life depends upon the exploitation of these creatures whose feelings are much the same as our own ...".[61] From 1948 The Vegan's front page read: "Advocating living without exploitation", and in 1951 the society published its definition of veganism as "the doctrine that man should live without exploiting animals."[61][62] In 1956 its vice-president, Leslie Cross, founded the Plantmilk Society, and in 1965, as Plantmilk Ltd and later Plamil Foods, it began production of one of the first widely distributed soy milks in the Western world"
According to wikipedia on coining the term 'vegan.' Although I'd recently saw another video that finds someone who came up with it first here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Watson
Or here:
https://www.vegansociety.com/about-us/history Which is a society founded by him.

Wherein the definition is mentioned to be "[…] a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of humans, animals and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals."
So it's not for the sake of being natural. Most of the time you'll actually hear it's to minimize suffering.
While I'm not a vegan myself, that doesn't mean I think the information should be wrong and it's better people are aware of the topic when they want to talk about it. While this is a minor internet rant, people do still reveal what they think about the topic when they take part.

 

[Hall Kervean]

Well this one's new.
"In 1947 Watson wrote: "The vegan renounces it as superstitious that human life depends upon the exploitation of these creatures whose feelings are much the same as our own ...".[61] From 1948 The Vegan's front page read: "Advocating living without exploitation", and in 1951 the society published its definition of veganism as "the doctrine that man should live without exploiting animals."[61][62] In 1956 its vice-president, Leslie Cross, founded the Plantmilk Society, and in 1965, as Plantmilk Ltd and later Plamil Foods, it began production of one of the first widely distributed soy milks in the Western world"
According to wikipedia on coining the term 'vegan.' Although I'd recently saw another video that finds someone who came up with it first here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Watson
Or here:
https://www.vegansociety.com/about-us/history Which is a society founded by him.

Wherein the definition is mentioned to be "[…] a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of humans, animals and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals."
So it's not for the sake of being natural. Most of the time you'll actually hear it's to minimize suffering.
While I'm not a vegan myself, that doesn't mean I think the information should be wrong and it's better people are aware of the topic when they want to talk about it. While this is a minor internet rant, people do still reveal what they think about the topic when they take part.

Well, if we never use anything from any animals, what are we doing wasting space on them? Turn 'em loose and start farming some crops.
The animals won't survive on their own, and capitalism basically says that there is little chance that anyone would keep any sort of farm animal. As a result, they'll be turned away and since they can't survive out in the wild and won't be welcome in urban or suburban environments, they won't survive long.
Do I think animals deserve better conditions, eh. Maybe.
Do I think humans should end all relations with animals and turn them loose and let them BE FREE! Which is pretty much the end goal of vegans? No. That's an absolutely terrible idea.

 

[The Gunrunner]

Hall Kervean
The end goal of vegans is to no longer exploit animals, how that comes about would depend on the strategy the group or person has. Though regardless, the idea that letting them go free would kill all of them isn't true. Granted the reality isn't pretty either, but exaggerating it like that is more than just a little silly. A lot die, the system balances out. Shame, but that's the grim ending reality of mass-breeding. And that's the worst-case scenario, unless you think that companies would realistically release them anywhere they wanted, and start entering cities and private property? I'm just theorizing but I don't think that's what would realistically happen.

http://ethicalvegan.net/read/will-animals-go-extinct-if-the-world-becomes-vegan
So one argument is that, yes, originally a lot will die. The population balances out afterwards. While this doesn't sound like the lovely utopia imagined, it's not like the end-goal (ceasing the exploitation of animals) would be easy. Additionally, the alternative in a vegan mind is a continuing eternity of exploitation in, often, some pretty awful conditions. Neither's good in the short-term, but only one's good in the long term. Well, if it works out.

https://vegyouth.com/choosing-veg/common-objections/
In another argument, veganism happens gradually and the market slowly dies out. That's the key word: 'slowly.' This one makes far more sense, as breeding will decline over time and the population dwindles without a massive deathcount.

This does seem a bit like a cheap argument thusfar - Taking the worst possible scenario, as unrealistic as it is that it would take place, claiming that's the end-goal and how it would take place. Even in the scenario where humans rapidly switch to veganism on a large scale, it isn't overnight, and companies don't continue to breed a product that doesn't have a market. The abundance of animals would dwindle over time like... literally all other products.

 

[Hall Kervean]

Hall Kervean
The end goal of vegans is to no longer exploit animals, how that comes about would depend on the strategy the group or person has. Though regardless, the idea that letting them go free would kill all of them isn't true. Granted the reality isn't pretty either, but exaggerating it like that is more than just a little silly. A lot die, the system balances out. Shame, but that's the grim ending reality of mass-breeding. And that's the worst-case scenario, unless you think that companies would realistically release them anywhere they wanted, and start entering cities and private property? I'm just theorizing but I don't think that's what would realistically happen.

http://ethicalvegan.net/read/will-animals-go-extinct-if-the-world-becomes-vegan
So one argument is that, yes, originally a lot will die. The population balances out afterwards. While this doesn't sound like the lovely utopia imagined, it's not like the end-goal (ceasing the exploitation of animals) would be easy. Additionally, the alternative in a vegan mind is a continuing eternity of exploitation in, often, some pretty awful conditions. Neither's good in the short-term, but only one's good in the long term. Well, if it works out.

https://vegyouth.com/choosing-veg/common-objections/
In another argument, veganism happens gradually and the market slowly dies out. That's the key word: 'slowly.' This one makes far more sense, as breeding will decline over time and the population dwindles without a massive deathcount.

This does seem a bit like a cheap argument thusfar - Taking the worst possible scenario, as unrealistic as it is that it would take place, claiming that's the end-goal and how it would take place. Even in the scenario where humans rapidly switch to veganism on a large scale, it isn't overnight, and companies don't continue to breed a product that doesn't have a market. The abundance of animals would dwindle over time like... literally all other products.

"Alot would die"
Fam, most if not all would die. Domesticated dogs don't last long out in the wild, and they're carnivores. Think about herbivores.
Extinction is a distinct possibility.
Their end goal is to free animals from the oppression of human, which will inevitably mean the death of said domesticated animals. So it could be said that their endgoal is the death of domesticated animals. Yeet?
I would not put it above companies. They will find ways to get rid of them, and get rid of them quickly. Anything that is not profitable, and in fact is a detriment of their business they would be happy to get rid of.

The population is unlikely to balance out. Bro, the world is very different. Carnivores, lack of food, and industrialization will kill off a vast majority of farm animals, if not all of them.
The one that's good in the longterm is, of course, a stable and secure fate for animals.
I can see vegan points about farm stuffs, and maybe they should be addressed. But the least motivating way for companies to do something expensive is losing profits.

"The population will dwindle without a massive deathcount" Fam if the numbers are big enough to have a dwindling population then the deathcount is still massive. I'm saying that either solution ends in the extinction of farm life. One is quick and jolting and sudden, the other is slow and gradual. Both lead to eventual release in the wild, both of which domesticated animals are unfit for, and would die off in.

Oh shoot he's catching on.
RUN
GET TO THE BACON BUNKER
DIVE DIVE DIVE

 

[The Gunrunner]

"Alot would die"
Fam, most if not all would die. Domesticated dogs don't last long out in the wild, and they're carnivores. Think about herbivores.
Extinction is a distinct possibility.
Their end goal is to free animals from the oppression of human, which will inevitably mean the death of said domesticated animals. So it could be said that their endgoal is the death of domesticated animals. Yeet?
I would not put it above companies. They will find ways to get rid of them, and get rid of them quickly. Anything that is not profitable, and in fact is a detriment of their business they would be happy to get rid of.

Dogs aren't the same as cattle. If you've learned about evolution in your class, you may have heard about the odd artificial selection period with dogs. If you've seen a species of dog and asked 'how the ever-lasting fuck is that supposed to live in the wild, and why did it end up like that,' it's because of us. I found an interesting article on the other differences here: https://www.decodedscience.org/wolves-dogs-pet-not-domesticated-predator/53109
"Wolves, living wild, seeking and catching their own food are natural predators and possess what we may term a ‘killer instinct.’

The very thing that caused certain groups wolves to evolve into domesticated early dogs in the first place, however, is their feeding from human leftovers, following human settlers and raiding the dumps they left behind, evolving into increasingly tame animals who were able to tolerate humans at close proximity.

As Alexandra Semyonova explains in The 100 Silliest Things People Say About Dogs, this eliminated the need for dogs to hunt, and they have lost that ability over the years. As evidenced by John Paul Scott and John L. Fuller in Genetics and the Social Behaviour of the Dog, even the largest breeds of dogs have smaller jaws and fewer rows of teeth than wolves, and have lost the drive to hunt and kill prey."
Dogs and cattle were domesticated for very different purposes. Dogs we would want to control their feeding habits, but for cattle (as herbivores, as you mention,) it doesn't matter as much.

Yeah, companies may just kill off their supply instead. It would depend on foresight and whether or not THEY would be charged to move the animals afterwards, I think. Then again, in a scenario where most humans are turning vegan, that could also be seen as a big hit to a company's image. Regardless it would be up to what vegans try to put in place. There are animal rights groups which work with the idea, so it would probably tie in with them. A 'no killing the animals pls,' for a rough idea.

Ah, almost forgot. Here's a few pages on domestic cattle being released in the wild:
https://www.northcountrypublicradio.../when-domesticated-animals-return-to-the-wild

http://feralhogs.tamu.edu/frequently-asked-questions/frequently-asked-questions-wild-pigs/

"24. What’s the difference between a pig, hog and a boar, and are their different species?

All are descendants of a common ancestor-the Eurasian wild boar. The term Wild boar is typically used to describe Eurasian wild boar from Europe or Asia. Feral hogs are those that originated from domestic breeds but may be the result of a few or many, many generations in the wild. In the U.S., the best descriptor is probably to refer to them simply as wild pigs. Regardless, the Eurasians and domestics gone feral are largely the same species and therefore will interbreed with no problems resulting in all sorts of “hybrids” between the 2 groups. None of these should be confused with the javelina, a native pig-like mammal found in the American southwest that is not even closely related to wild boars/wild pigs/feral hogs. The best name to use is simply “wild pig”."

I haven't found much on cows, but if you want I can keep looking. I encourage you to look further into these domestic species released into the wild though.

The population is unlikely to balance out. Bro, the world is very different. Carnivores, lack of food, and industrialization will kill off a vast majority of farm animals, if not all of them.
The one that's good in the longterm is, of course, a stable and secure fate for animals.
I can see vegan points about farm stuffs, and maybe they should be addressed. But the least motivating way for companies to do something expensive is losing profits.

Probably not all considering that, from info thusfar, they'll act like their wild counterparts again. There are some types of breed which will, like the type of chickens too fat for their own legs. That's something pretty much bred for a no win scenario though. Industrialization isn't something specific to veganism - That's something that endangers the environment and animals in general. Then lack of food, I assume you mean abundant numbers mixed with an environment not meant for that. That's why a dwindling market is the better option; the sustainability issue ceases to exist. The carnivores thing is just whether or not the domesticated animals have had the appropriate instincts and so on bred out of them.

Only from an evolutionary perspective. Animals are conscious, same as humans, and they make connections as we do. This is why the purpose is the quality of life in the end, not how many are alive. It's routine slaughter, not just a breeding program. Your's is an argument of benefiting a collective while a detriment to every individual part of said collective.

Companies are already barred from certain actions because it's a detriment to society or, in this case, societal values/views. In Canada we've had an issue for years over a few companies having a strong monopoly on cell phone plans. Did the government motivate them to lower their prices for greater profit? No, they stopped them from buying the smaller companies that made competition so small. That ties into two topics, but the point here is that their loss of profit was irrelevant and it would be the same here. Slavery is a very profitable thing too you know, but that's not being brought back anytime soon for the sake of profit.

"The population will dwindle without a massive deathcount" Fam if the numbers are big enough to have a dwindling population then the deathcount is still massive. I'm saying that either solution ends in the extinction of farm life. One is quick and jolting and sudden, the other is slow and gradual. Both lead to eventual release in the wild, both of which domesticated animals are unfit for, and would die off in.

Apparently this isn't true.

Oh shoot he's catching on.
RUN
GET TO THE BACON BUNKER
DIVE DIVE DIVE

Bacon is an unsuitable building material for bunkers.

 

[Axel The Englishman]

Gosh darn it guys, you're gonna get another thread close down. And where will I get my giggles then?

 

[The Gunrunner]

Those threads get closed down because people start having shitfits. I don't think the conversation's uncivil; it's not like we're throwing insults at each other. Just arguments and disagreement, sometimes with a blunt delivery.

 

[Axel The Englishman]

Axel watches. Axel cares.

 

[kibou]

As long as a thread stays civil and polite, it's fine

Personally I think releasing cows, even if it works and they don't go extinct, would be impractical? Most people would still want/have to eat meat and other animal by-products in order to live healthily, so we'd have to... hunt cows? It seems easier to just regulate how they're treated more.

Sometimes, in my experiences, vegans seem to have assumed that people don't know where meat comes from- that is, dead animals. Or that we don't know how factory conditions are. Which I mean, sure it probably doesn't occur to most people when they're eating "oh wow this was once a living breathing cow and I am literally putting its flesh into my mouth and its life has been snuffed out" and it might take awhile for children to realize and have it sink in, but everyone knows about death and meat and lots of people have at least heard that factory conditions aren't great.

I guess if I was a cow or a chicken it'd really suck, but I can't be upset about it when killing for food is literally the natural order of things, and if I went vegan I know that I'd personally die from malnutrition. Not everyone is capable of living on a vegan diet nor would it be healthy for everyone, so where would those people be left off? Is letting farm animals die of old age more important than the lives of humans?

So the fact that animals have to die for me to eat them and live doesn't bother me, but like I said earlier, I do think factory conditions could be improved and animals could be treated much better.

Prices of meat would probably rise a lot if all farm animals were released. That wouldn't be good for a lot of people either.

Also correct me if I'm wrong or if it's just a misconception, but don't wild pigs go feral after awhile? And in some places there's even boar infestations that are a problem?

If there's any in the area, supporting small and local farms and buying animal products from them is also another option. That way you know where it's coming from, how the animals are treated and fed, and support local business. It's hard to avoid buying things that are tested on animals and the like, but when you can, that's another good option.

I have no problems with anyone who's vegan. It's their decision and body. Some individuals or opinions that belong to the parts of the group I don't like, but I also know that not all vegans share the same ideas and morals or treat veganism the same way, and "vegan" is a group too big to be easily generalized.

 

[Hall Kervean]

Dogs aren't the same as cattle. If you've learned about evolution in your class, you may have heard about the odd artificial selection period with dogs. If you've seen a species of dog and asked 'how the ever-lasting fuck is that supposed to live in the wild, and why did it end up like that,' it's because of us. I found an interesting article on the other differences here: https://www.decodedscience.org/wolves-dogs-pet-not-domesticated-predator/53109
"Wolves, living wild, seeking and catching their own food are natural predators and possess what we may term a ‘killer instinct.’

The very thing that caused certain groups wolves to evolve into domesticated early dogs in the first place, however, is their feeding from human leftovers, following human settlers and raiding the dumps they left behind, evolving into increasingly tame animals who were able to tolerate humans at close proximity.

As Alexandra Semyonova explains in The 100 Silliest Things People Say About Dogs, this eliminated the need for dogs to hunt, and they have lost that ability over the years. As evidenced by John Paul Scott and John L. Fuller in Genetics and the Social Behaviour of the Dog, even the largest breeds of dogs have smaller jaws and fewer rows of teeth than wolves, and have lost the drive to hunt and kill prey."
Dogs and cattle were domesticated for very different purposes. Dogs we would want to control their feeding habits, but for cattle (as herbivores, as you mention,) it doesn't matter as much.

Yeah, companies may just kill off their supply instead. It would depend on foresight and whether or not THEY would be charged to move the animals afterwards, I think. Then again, in a scenario where most humans are turning vegan, that could also be seen as a big hit to a company's image. Regardless it would be up to what vegans try to put in place. There are animal rights groups which work with the idea, so it would probably tie in with them. A 'no killing the animals pls,' for a rough idea.

Ah, almost forgot. Here's a few pages on domestic cattle being released in the wild:
https://www.northcountrypublicradio.../when-domesticated-animals-return-to-the-wild

http://feralhogs.tamu.edu/frequently-asked-questions/frequently-asked-questions-wild-pigs/

"24. What’s the difference between a pig, hog and a boar, and are their different species?

All are descendants of a common ancestor-the Eurasian wild boar. The term Wild boar is typically used to describe Eurasian wild boar from Europe or Asia. Feral hogs are those that originated from domestic breeds but may be the result of a few or many, many generations in the wild. In the U.S., the best descriptor is probably to refer to them simply as wild pigs. Regardless, the Eurasians and domestics gone feral are largely the same species and therefore will interbreed with no problems resulting in all sorts of “hybrids” between the 2 groups. None of these should be confused with the javelina, a native pig-like mammal found in the American southwest that is not even closely related to wild boars/wild pigs/feral hogs. The best name to use is simply “wild pig”."

I haven't found much on cows, but if you want I can keep looking. I encourage you to look further into these domestic species released into the wild though.



Probably not all considering that, from info thusfar, they'll act like their wild counterparts again. There are some types of breed which will, like the type of chickens too fat for their own legs. That's something pretty much bred for a no win scenario though. Industrialization isn't something specific to veganism - That's something that endangers the environment and animals in general. Then lack of food, I assume you mean abundant numbers mixed with an environment not meant for that. That's why a dwindling market is the better option; the sustainability issue ceases to exist. The carnivores thing is just whether or not the domesticated animals have had the appropriate instincts and so on bred out of them.

Only from an evolutionary perspective. Animals are conscious, same as humans, and they make connections as we do. This is why the purpose is the quality of life in the end, not how many are alive. It's routine slaughter, not just a breeding program. Your's is an argument of benefiting a collective while a detriment to every individual part of said collective.

Companies are already barred from certain actions because it's a detriment to society or, in this case, societal values/views. In Canada we've had an issue for years over a few companies having a strong monopoly on cell phone plans. Did the government motivate them to lower their prices for greater profit? No, they stopped them from buying the smaller companies that made competition so small. That ties into two topics, but the point here is that their loss of profit was irrelevant and it would be the same here. Slavery is a very profitable thing too you know, but that's not being brought back anytime soon for the sake of profit.


Apparently this isn't true.



Bacon is an unsuitable building material for bunkers.

Gasp. NO. MY LIFE IS A LIE
I realize that and that's literally my point famboy. They're not wolves anymor, they wouldn't survive in the wild.
Fam th is isn't supposed to be how dis works ur supposed to counter my points, not reinforce them. That was literally my point.

Lul I'm sorry that cracked me up.
The article opens with "What happens when certain species of domesticated animals like chickens and pigs escape to live and breed in the wild?"
Basically it never even touches cattle, just chickens and pigs.
Not even mad, I just think that's funny.
*raises hand for internet high five.

You know, this is sounding more and more like "well, if they manage to survive just long enough to... then they may make it."
Thing is, the world isn't made for them anymore. They have nowhere to go. Cows are too big, sheep stay in herds, pigs can be a danger, and chickens are one of the most predator-friendly birds on earth.

Lol I was trying to incorporate an Emperor Palpatine quote. Idek why.

Lul then we should be giving animals their own governments, property, and rights that are equivalent to ours, if they have a consciousness.
Very different. First of, monopolies have nothing to do with animals.
Second off, slaves are humans, and humans are... more important than animals! #Harambedidsomethingwrong

Pssh. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't.

YOU WOULDN'T KNOW YOU HAVEN'T TRIED IT!
SMOKE BOMB! SMOKE BOMB!
*poof*
SERPENTINE!

 

[Hall Kervean]

Lul
If you *need* to be vegan or you'll die, I'll support ye.
If you're a vegetarian, that's fine.
I'm just sayin' vegans need to think through the ramifications if total victory is achieved.

 

[Axel The Englishman]

If cows were released into the wild, then y'all gotta get a huntin' permit, ya hear?

 

[Hall Kervean]

If cows were released into the wild, then y'all gotta get a huntin' permit, ya hear?

Unless you're in India.

 

[Mx.Trinity]

As long as a thread stays civil and polite, it's fine

Personally I think releasing cows, even if it works and they don't go extinct, would be impractical? Most people would still want/have to eat meat and other animal by-products in order to live healthily, so we'd have to... hunt cows? It seems easier to just regulate how they're treated more.

Sometimes, in my experiences, vegans seem to have assumed that people don't know where meat comes from- that is, dead animals. Or that we don't know how factory conditions are. Which I mean, sure it probably doesn't occur to most people when they're eating "oh wow this was once a living breathing cow and I am literally putting its flesh into my mouth and its life has been snuffed out" and it might take awhile for children to realize and have it sink in, but everyone knows about death and meat and lots of people have at least heard that factory conditions aren't great.

I guess if I was a cow or a chicken it'd really suck, but I can't be upset about it when killing for food is literally the natural order of things, and if I went vegan I know that I'd personally die from malnutrition. Not everyone is capable of living on a vegan diet nor would it be healthy for everyone, so where would those people be left off? Is letting farm animals die of old age more important than the lives of humans?

So the fact that animals have to die for me to eat them and live doesn't bother me, but like I said earlier, I do think factory conditions could be improved and animals could be treated much better.

Prices of meat would probably rise a lot if all farm animals were released. That wouldn't be good for a lot of people either.

Also correct me if I'm wrong or if it's just a misconception, but don't wild pigs go feral after awhile? And in some places there's even boar infestations that are a problem?

If there's any in the area, supporting small and local farms and buying animal products from them is also another option. That way you know where it's coming from, how the animals are treated and fed, and support local business. It's hard to avoid buying things that are tested on animals and the like, but when you can, that's another good option.

I have no problems with anyone who's vegan. It's their decision and body. Some individuals or opinions that belong to the parts of the group I don't like, but I also know that not all vegans share the same ideas and morals or treat veganism the same way, and "vegan" is a group too big to be easily generalized.

Fine? OP is bashing on vegan's... there's some valuable information in this post but at the same time the majority is just passive aggressive jabs at anyone whose vegan or vegetarian. "Let's name this topic something to do with vegan's then talk about nothing but meat". It's kinda promoting a negative environment.

Edit: I'm not a vegan or vegetarian but I live with one. She's a vegeterian by choice, and by nature. She's allergic to meats so I have a relatively good idea of what kind of conversations will upset someone who is vegetarian, or vegan. It's fine if you just wanna talk about the ethics and what not but talking about grilling a bird or asking for bacon straight after "Oh I thought you were a triggered vegan" is a pretty bright red flag. kibou

 

[Hall Kervean]

Fine? OP is bashing on vegan's... there's some valuable information in this post but at the same time the majority is just passive aggressive jabs at anyone whose vegan or vegetarian. "Let's name this topic something to do with vegan's then talk about nothing but meat". It's kinda promoting a negative environment. kibou

Calm down fam.
Vegetarians are fine. I just like to make "herbivore" jokes. If you want, you can start making omnivore or carnivore jokes with me; I don't mind. If they're good, I'll even laugh.
Vegans for health reasons are fine, though some people need to take supplements.
I'm just pointing out that if total victory was achieved, the end result wouldn't be the best for animals.
There are issues with factories, but they should be addressed by fixing them, not by starving the companies of profit. Capitalism says that when a company is losing profits, they attempt to become cost effective. And cost effective means worse conditions.

There are point to be made, but at the same time, there are jokes to be made as well.

 

[Mx.Trinity]

Calm down fam.
Vegetarians are fine. I just like to make "herbivore" jokes. If you want, you can start making omnivore or carnivore jokes with me; I don't mind. If they're good, I'll even laugh.
Vegans for health reasons are fine, though some people need to take supplements.
I'm just pointing out that if total victory was achieved, the end result wouldn't be the best for animals.
There are issues with factories, but they should be addressed by fixing them, not by starving the companies of profit. Capitalism says that when a company is losing profits, they attempt to become cost effective. And cost effective means worse conditions.

There are point to be made, but at the same time, there are jokes to be made as well.

I'm not upset with you. I'm upset for other reasons.
But in any case all of the research that I've done on this specific subject points to the fact that... because the factories work the way they do (quantity over quality) the animals are crammed into uncomfortable living conditions because they aren't seen as animals. They're seen, and treated just like any other package. They plump the animals up with hormones to promote aggressive growth. Then once they're ready they all go to the slaughter.

I was mainly talking about chickens there. For the bigger animals a lot of the employees who work at those places can be very abusive to the animals, and because there's no psyche evaluations for people who are going to be slaughtering animals... a lot of people who enjoy that kind of work treat the animals very badly. Luckily corporations have done quite a bit to stop that sort of thing before it gets too serious but the point remains that there is a moral dilemma regarding taking one life to support another. We've evolved enough as a species that we actually don't NEED to eat meat, because we're omnivores. Now of course there is the exception to that rule with people who do actually need it but for the bulk of us... we just enjoy it. Because of that animals don't have enough room to grow or live properly due to corporations OVER producing, a lot of the meat in stores goes to waste because they just have too much on the shelves.

Then there's the problem of supply and demand, if they over supply they can over demand, but if they over supply to an under demand then that's where the problem arises with waste in particular. That's a whole nother discussion on it's own, surely.

That's my bulk of the understanding I have of the corporations and the demand for meat. But then you have organizations like PETA who claim to be "pro-life" and then turn around and euthanize 90% of their animals. It seems like no one really has a good answer or solution to the issue. I'm not going to say "yeah shut the factories down and let all the animals loose" because where would the animals go? Where would they get their food? How would it effect the environment, specifically crops? What happens when a GMO whose too sick or mutated to move... decomposes? Will that effect other animals? etc. etc. etc. it's just a massive cluster f*k of information that has to be considered, analyzed, and planned for... before we can really do ANYTHING about it. Then there's the issue of people that LIKE to eat meat... surely there will be political issues that arise and riots that break out over it, if it's done too quickly.

But the most important question to all of that is... does any of this even matter? Will humanity be able to ever get over something like this? And how long will that take?

Hall Kervean

 

[Hall Kervean]

I'm not upset with you. I'm upset for other reasons.
But in any case all of the research that I've done on this specific subject points to the fact that... because the factories work the way they do (quantity over quality) the animals are crammed into uncomfortable living conditions because they aren't seen as animals. They're seen, and treated just like any other package. They plump the animals up with hormones to promote aggressive growth. Then once they're ready they all go to the slaughter.

I was mainly talking about chickens there. For the bigger animals a lot of the employees who work at those places can be very abusive to the animals, and because there's no psyche evaluations for people who are going to be slaughtering animals... a lot of people who enjoy that kind of work treat the animals very badly. Luckily corporations have done quite a bit to stop that sort of thing before it gets too serious but the point remains that there is a moral dilemma regarding taking one life to support another. We've evolved enough as a species that we actually don't NEED to eat meat, because we're omnivores. Now of course there is the exception to that rule with people who do actually need it but for the bulk of us... we just enjoy it. Because of that animals don't have enough room to grow or live properly due to corporations OVER producing, a lot of the meat in stores goes to waste because they just have too much on the shelves.

Then there's the problem of supply and demand, if they over supply they can over demand, but if they over supply to an under demand then that's where the problem arises with waste in particular. That's a whole nother discussion on it's own, surely.

That's my bulk of the understanding I have of the corporations and the demand for meat. But then you have organizations like PETA who claim to be "pro-life" and then turn around and euthanize 90% of their animals. It seems like no one really has a good answer or solution to the issue. I'm not going to say "yeah shut the factories down and let all the animals loose" because where would the animals go? Where would they get their food? How would it effect the environment, specifically crops? What happens when a GMO whose too sick or mutated to move... decomposes? Will that effect other animals? etc. etc. etc. it's just a massive cluster f*k of information that has to be considered, analyzed, and planned for... before we can really do ANYTHING about it. Then there's the issue of people that LIKE to eat meat... surely there will be political issues that arise and riots that break out over it, if it's done too quickly.

But the most important question to all of that is... does any of this even matter? Will humanity be able to ever get over something like this? And how long will that take?

Hall Kervean

Ehhh
Growth hormones are going out of style.

I have no moral dilemma on this.
As a Christian, God gives man dominion over the earth. As a human, we are superior to animals. As a consumer, the animal is a valid product.
Yes, lives are important, but I care very little if an animal life is given up to sustain a human life. I honestly think that nobody should ever compare a human life to an animal life.
Reminds me; there was a decision making game. I had to choose what to hit if there were no other options. The AI must have thought I was an animal hater or something, because I chose to run over pets every time instead of humans.
We kind of do need meat; there are a lot of important properties that are in meat.
That last part I need evidence for. And if that's the case, then maybe that's what vegans should be campaigning about.

Maybe because instead of campaigning about a specific issue, i.e. the overstocking of meat or the hormones, vegans campaign for all animals to be free from oppression? Blanket statements will never work as well as targeting an issue to work with. I'm sure if vegans worked with corporations to find a more stable number, then people would see a change. Minor, but minor is better than none.
My point! highest of fives!
I dunno!
It would be devastating for the local environment.
I have no idea!
Yes it will, negatively.

I was saying in a scenario where veganism was completely victorious, and no one ate any more meat.
And my point was that if veganism achieved all of its goals (not certain vegans; veganism as a whole), it would lead to the mass extinction of farm animals via "natural causes.

Not really, except maybe for the growth hormones. They're phasing out though.
I'm sorry, really am, but "get over something like this" Getting over eating meat.
The Bacon Empire shalt forever last! Ayyeeyaiyah!

 

[Mx.Trinity]

Ehhh
Growth hormones are going out of style.

I have no moral dilemma on this.
As a Christian, God gives man dominion over the earth. As a human, we are superior to animals. As a consumer, the animal is a valid product.
Yes, lives are important, but I care very little if an animal life is given up to sustain a human life. I honestly think that nobody should ever compare a human life to an animal life.
Reminds me; there was a decision making game. I had to choose what to hit if there were no other options. The AI must have thought I was an animal hater or something, because I chose to run over pets every time instead of humans.
We kind of do need meat; there are a lot of important properties that are in meat.
That last part I need evidence for. And if that's the case, then maybe that's what vegans should be campaigning about.

Maybe because instead of campaigning about a specific issue, i.e. the overstocking of meat or the hormones, vegans campaign for all animals to be free from oppression? Blanket statements will never work as well as targeting an issue to work with. I'm sure if vegans worked with corporations to find a more stable number, then people would see a change. Minor, but minor is better than none.
My point! highest of fives!
I dunno!
It would be devastating for the local environment.
I have no idea!
Yes it will, negatively.

I was saying in a scenario where veganism was completely victorious, and no one ate any more meat.
And my point was that if veganism achieved all of its goals (not certain vegans; veganism as a whole), it would lead to the mass extinction of farm animals via "natural causes.

Not really, except maybe for the growth hormones. They're phasing out though.
I'm sorry, really am, but "get over something like this" Getting over eating meat.
The Bacon Empire shalt forever last! Ayyeeyaiyah!

We don't need to eat meat. That's a simple fact. If we needed it vegans and vegetarians wouldn't exist but for the most part it sounds like we agree on the matter

 

[Hall Kervean]

We don't need to eat meat. That's a simple fact. If we needed it vegans and vegetarians wouldn't exist but for the most part it sounds like we agree on the matter

Fam, there are people taking in pills.
And tbh meat is the easiest route to getting the nutrients we need from meat.
Plus, meat is amazing.
Whoever the first person was that decided to stop eating meat made a poor decision.
RIP Fred McSteve.

 

[Mx.Trinity]

Fam, there are people taking in pills.
And tbh meat is the easiest route to getting the nutrients we need from meat.
Plus, meat is amazing.
Whoever the first person was that decided to stop eating meat made a poor decision.
RIP Fred McSteve.

lmao my gf has been vegetarian since she was 5 or 6. I've lived the lifestyle with her. There's a lot of vegetarian alternatives to meat, all packed with nutrients your body needs. What nutrients are you referring to? Because she's very healthy and doesn't need supplements

The only reason I eat meat is because I don't personally have to kill it, I've been arm deep in a deer's neck and it was not a pleasant experience. But to each their own

 

[Hall Kervean]

lmao my gf has been vegetarian since she was 5 or 6. I've lived the lifestyle with her. There's a lot of vegetarian alternatives to meat, all packed with nutrients your body needs. What nutrients are you referring to? Because she's very healthy and doesn't need supplements

The only reason I eat meat is because I don't personally have to kill it, I've been arm deep in a deer's neck and it was not a pleasant experience. But to each their own

Protein iron etc. And there are alternatives to meat, but they're just alternatives. Alternatives are usually not as good as the real thing.
Vegetarians are less likely to need supplements than vegans.
That's a reason that a lot of people eat meat.

 

[kibou]

We don't need to eat meat. That's a simple fact. If we needed it vegans and vegetarians wouldn't exist but for the most part it sounds like we agree on the matter

Some people for nutritional or health reasons need to, though. Not everyone can do it healthily. I have a disorder that severely limits my diet and if I got rid of all meat and animal byproducts I'd be living off of bread, peanut butter, a few fruits that are mostly water, and more vitamins than I already take.

Some people are allergic to nuts and soy, which would severely impact their ability to go vegan.

Maybe in the future it'll be different, but in current times a lot of people are too poor to go vegan.

I do also wonder if lab-grown meat will ever be able to take off though! I completely forgot about that.

 

[Mx.Trinity]

Protein iron etc. And there are alternatives to meat, but they're just alternatives. Alternatives are usually not as good as the real thing.
Vegetarians are less likely to need supplements than vegans.
That's a reason that a lot of people eat meat.

I suppose but the point still stands that you don't need to eat meat to live. Protein and iron is prominent in a LOT of other foods that aren't meat. Have you actually done the research or are you just repeating what you've heard? I don't mean to be rude but if you start a discussion based around these things then I would think you'd of done your homework.

Sure you'll need to eat more vegetables to get the same amount of protein but vegetables are actually easier for your body to metabolize...

On to your other point about vegans... I've never done my research on vegans, but from what I've heard it could be easily understandable that supplements would be needed. That I will give you a pass on

 

[Mx.Trinity]

Some people for nutritional or health reasons need to, though. Not everyone can do it healthily. I have a disorder that severely limits my diet and if I got rid of all meat and animal byproducts I'd be living off of bread, peanut butter, a few fruits that are mostly water, and more vitamins than I already take.

Some people are allergic to nuts and soy, which would severely impact their ability to go vegan.

Maybe in the future it'll be different, but in current times a lot of people are too poor to go vegan.

I do also wonder if lab-grown meat will ever be able to take off though! I completely forgot about that.

We aren't talking about you >: we're talking about the majority!

 

[Hall Kervean]

I suppose but the point still stands that you don't need to eat meat to live. Protein and iron is prominent in a LOT of other foods that aren't meat. Have you actually done the research or are you just repeating what you've heard? I don't mean to be rude but if you start a discussion based around these things then I would think you'd of done your homework.

Sure you'll need to eat more vegetables to get the same amount of protein but vegetables are actually easier for your body to metabolize...

On to your other point about vegans... I've never done my research on vegans, but from what I've heard it could be easily understandable that supplements would be needed. That I will give you a pass on

I'm sharing my perspective, and simply stating observations. I didn't say that they weren't, I just said that the easiest way to get the supplements in meat is to eat meat. If that's not true, my life is a lie.

But they are yucky

We aren't talking about you >: we're talking about the majority!

Don't discriminate. That's... um... allergicist.