@lagurash Amount of petroleum pollution to feed the meat industry > tilling a field. More pollution more animals killed. Not to mention that the pollution was for killing animals in the first place.
@TheRuindragon "Amount of petroleum pollution to feed the meat industry > tilling a field."
Yes, I agree that the current set up is destructive, but that doesn't mean eating meat is bad. Watch "Fresh the movie", there's a farmer who migrates his animals between a few fields in order to have healthier farming (healthier meat for healthier people and a healthier environment). Alternative methods to petroleum is viable.
@lagurash Yes, eating meat IS bad, have you seen the abuse common factory farms do to animals?! And so what if ONE farmer migrates his animals. Its not the common practice. And its not like they are going to use any other source of fuel any time soon. Petroleum makes the government money, so they aren't concerned about making alternative methods.
@TheRuindragon How does mistreating of animals mean eating meat? Does a guy who beat his dog do so because he's going to eat him? Are all animals who are eaten mistreated before their death? No to both? Then obviously, it is not necessarily so that eating meat is bad just because people mistreat animals. Deforestation and killing jungles and cropping land is bad, but you apparently don't mind eating vegetables. Assuming that eating meat is bad because people mistreat animals is a non sequitur...
Are you trying to say that the only way to eat meat is to abuse animals because that's how things currently are done? Is-ought problem, non sequitur, appeal to numbers.
"And so what..."
One instance of animal mistreating not taking place discredits any rationale that all meat that's eaten by man is brought about due to animal abuse, which shows that your connection between "eating meat IS bad" and "animal abuse" is a non sequitur.
@lagurash So how come vegetarians eat meat or eat something that has been in contact with meat become violently ill? Because its natural rejection, people aren't supposed to eat meat. Its an extremely ignorant and destructive habit. Yes. If you eat meat now you are abusing animals. You are talking as if there is no such thing as animal abuse. Too bad there is. The only way to supply meat fast is to abuse animals profusely. You eat meat and you ARE abusing animals. Stupid ignorant bastard.
You'd be surprised what symptoms your body will manifest or erase just because of your mind. Besides, does it matter? Their (and vegetarians are hypocrites for not being vegans due to the abuse required for dairy products) physical response to eating something has no impact on the universal moral implications of eating that something.
"Because..."
Then why do we have an omnivorous arrangement of teeth?
@lagurash You sound like the world is going to change and everything is okay. The problem with you meat eaters is you surround yourselves with ignorance and think that as long as they don't see it happen it never happened. We have an omnivorous arrangement of teeth because the primitive ancestors of us 1-6 million years ago occasionally ate dead carrion. We have evolved from that, and if you look at the jaw structure of an older ancestor you can see the canines are much larger.
@TheRuindragon That means if human flesh was put on your plate and told you that it was pork that you are HIGHLY likely to eat it and believe its pork. You are completely blind to your taste buds. You disgusting creatures are zombies honestly. The amount of grain that feeds the meat industry could feed every starving person IN THE WORLD. But instead, you guys NEED your meat. So actually, if you eat meat, you are killing people. Do you enjoy the fact that your steak starved a child to death?!
@TheRuindragon Now if you really think that eating meat is still okay then give a BIG smile and say: "Im glad I eat meat because I am killing starving children and my lifespan will be significantly shorter because of the bad decisions I have been taught to believe it right that are actually quite wrong and disgusting."
@TheRuindragon "bad decisions....that are actually quite wrong and disgusting."
Again, unproven claims, and attempts at poisoning the well, as well as general ad hominems. You think it's wrong, but you're both a hypocrite (as vegetarians still ingest dairy, which requires animal abuse) and fallacious in this line of thinking.
For meat grazing? Where are you getting this stuff? As for the undernourished, do you think companies would reduce produce prices to poor countries? Capitalism is the prob.
@lagurash Unproven, opinions yes, but logical. I am neither fallacious or a hypocrite. I already said that if people didn't eat meat then the milking cows and the egging hens wouldn't be treated like SHIT and then killed for meat. Actually yes they would, with the extreme amount of extra produce, since there is no cattle to food, people will eat. An the "stuff" just branches out from the facts I posted.
Sorry, but to prove statements of fact, evidence must be presented. Even if you had a well reasoned argument (which I haven't seen you present one yet), having it based on opinions doesn't prove your assertions that eating meat is bad, or that eating meat means one is responsible for killing another human for that meat.
"I am neither fallacious or a hypocrite."
Yes, you are both. Easily correctable, though, so come back when it's corrected.
Non sequitur. There's nothing inherent to eating meat that constitutes abusing animals. Further, even if it weren't a non sequitur, you've provided nothing to support your claims.
"You are..."
In previous post: "Then obviously, it is not necessarily so that eating meat is bad just because people mistreat animals." So, where do I make the speak as if there's no abuse? The sentence, "One instance of animal abuse..." acknowledges that animal abuse occurs.
@lagurash Continued from last comment. Our canines are gradually receding. It's just like how our adult front incisors have points on them as they grow in. To easily slide through the gum line and become placed in allignment. And even if vegetarians promote the abuse of animals it wouldn't happen if people didn't eat meat. Once milk/egg production becomes to slow they slaughter the animals. If I had my own farm I would treat the mothers like queens. Same with the hens.
@lagurash How can you say my statements are non sequitur? They aren't! I have provided a multitude of evidence to prove that if you eat that steak then that cow was abused its entire life and it was probably separated from its children a few times before it was slaughtered. You act like everything is okay, and that it just never happened. Well guess what, it did! You are zombies. Really, you are. You are 80 percent less likely to have a heart attack if you rid of meat from your diet.
@TheRuindragon How can you possible say that eating meat is natural? If its so unhealthy for you body wouldn't you get it by now? Its NOT NATURAL. You eat meat for pleasure and taste. There is nothing in the meat world that can't be found in the vegetarian world. Starving people in south korea had to resort to cannibalism. They said that it tastes like sweet pork. Human flesh was sold on the market as pork. It was purchased and ACCEPTED as pork.
Or all of the waste spewed into the air by factories that have a bunch of air pollution, such car making, or paper making. Oddly enough, not so much from meat processing.
"Primary cause..."
Fossil fuels which also help transport how much produce?
"Percentage of U.S. topsoil"
And how much is destroyed from the massively used monoculture?
@lagurash READ the facts. #1 cause = greenhouse. #1 cause for greenhouse = meat. Very little, considering the fact that mostly all vehicles aren't being used to transport produce. So very little pollution actually. Lost, considering the demand for produce from meat farms. I cant post the source because youtube wont allow html code. Don't whine at me.
@lagurash bit. ly/763n6O. I mean compared to the consumption of fuel compared to transportation. Anyways, yes, it does use some oil. But compared to the wasteful and avoidable consumption from the meat industry, its a fraction. Really? You think that a sentient being like being abused? Pigs have about the intelligence of a 3 year old child. You're saying that you would be okay with locking up and abusing a 3 year old?! "Read the facts" = Read all of my older posts.
@TheRuindragon Are you kidding me? Using arguments like "Largest meat eater that ever lived: Tyrannosaurus Rex (Where is he today?)"??? Not very sound...
A vegetarian athlete is an argument? How many eat meat? This argument isn't as compelling as you think it is. Just because one guy can be a good athlete while being a vegetarian (which is still hypocritical due to the abuse of milking cows for dairy) doesn't mean that we all should be at least vegetarians. Scientific studies for these "facts"?
@TheRuindragon Where's the scientific study that says that pigs have the intellect of 3 year old children? Further, what makes you assume that farm animals are sentient (meaning being considered aware)? More baseless assertions, or assertions as evidence for your assertions.
"You're saying that you would be okay with locking up and abusing a 3 year old?!"
Straw man (misrepresenting an opponent's position then knocking down the misrepresentation without actually refuting their argument).
@lagurash watch?v=ymhawjNU4gs Pig facts. How can you say farm animals aren't sentient... they see... they smell, they taste, they hear, they feel, they love etc etc. I'd say that is considered aware... And I was trying to prove that its pretty much what people are paying for when they buy animal products...
@TheRuindragon "How can you say farm animals aren't sentient."
Straw man. I never said that they are or are not sentient. I said that there hasn't been enough, or any as far as I'm aware, that conclusively determine that animals are aware. If you have cases of this, please cite them, otherwise it's another baseless claim.
What does having senses have to do with sentience? Can you prove that they feel (I assumed you meant emotional, not physical)? Bacteria/plants react to environment, they int?
@lagurash Definition of aware: 1. Obsolete on one's guard; vigilant 2. knowing or realizing; conscious; informed. And I already giving you a link of the so important awareness of pigs. Emotions are the byproduct of the brain... plants don't have brains. Animals do.
So? You listed senses (sight, hearing, etc), which aren't emotions. How do you know that plants don't have emotions? Have there been studies on this? Did they conclusively prove no emotions in plants, or just that we can't notice certain responses? What about fly traps that react to damage and prey?
More importantly, do you have a scientific study determining animals are sentient? Do reactions mean awareness?
@lagurash The are senses. Yes. Sentience meant to follow your senses thus being aware. Emotions are by products of the brain, since plants don't have brains... they don't disapprove of us killing them. Plus, picking a tomato isn't killing the plant. The tomato is more like the hair/fingernails of the plant. Raspberries have seeds in their fruits... so an animal comes up and eats the berry then poops it out a mile away. That's actually helping the plant.
@TheRuindragon "Sentience meant to follow your senses thus being aware."
Awareness isn't based on senses, noticing that something is aware is based on senses and their reactions based on those senses. If you were just a living brain in a jar, would you be less sentient because you'd be numb to the surrounding world, or couldn't communicate the fact that you think and are aware of yourself? That's another non sequitur...you like coming to unconnected conclusions, don't you? You do it enough...
@lagurash You can't be a brain in a jar without being dead... you need a circulatory system digestive system etc to survive so it could never happen. And even if you didn't know what was around you, would you approve of being killed? Again if you argue plants = taking a tomato isn't killing it.
@lagurash Just because an animals can't see itself in the mirror doesn't mean it isn't self aware. How are you even sure that the animal ISNT seeing itself in the mirror? Can you tell when the cow will say "Ohh I look good!" So how can you prove that the cow didn't see itself? What about eyesight? How are you sure that cows can percieve such complicated images such as themselves. They use other senses smell touch taste etc. How does a mirror prove they are/arent self aware?
That's an idiotic straw man...the test isn't to determine if they can see themselves, the test is to determine if they are aware enough to determine that the reflection is just a reflection of themselves and not another creature.
"Can you tell"
Appeal to ridicule, and a ridiculous one at that, since it's based on the idiotic straw man of the mirror test.
"...can percieve...themselves."
That's the entire point of the test, to help determine if they can.
@lagurash "That's an idiotic straw man...the test isn't to determine if they can see themselves, the test is to determine if they are aware enough to determine that the reflection is just a reflection of themselves and not another creature."
So the test isn't about determining if they can see themselves but to determine if they can see themselves?
I showed you a vid that proves that's false. That shows you know of the case. It's not the only case, but it disproves your statement of "only way". Remember, just because things, like plant farming, are popularly done one way (like monoculture) doesn't mean that it's the right or best way to do it. Simpletons like you think it's only the current way or no way. So, that's a false dichotomy, another empty claim, then an ad hominem. Yep, sound arguments...
@lagurash Number of people worldwide who will die as a result of malnutrition this year: 20 million
Number of people who could be adequately fed using land freed if Americans reduced their intake of meat by 10%: 100 million Percentage of corn grown in the U.S. eaten by people: 20Percentage of corn grown in the U.S. eaten by livestock: 80 Percentage of oats grown in the U.S. eaten by livestock: 95 Percentage of protein wasted by cycling grain through livestock: 90
@TheRuindragon Ah, a book that blames those who eat a product for the actions of those who produced it. While demand has some responsibility for supporting those who acquired or manufactured a product by unethical means, that does not necessarily mean that people who eat meat are abusing animals. That's a non sequitur, and thus is irrational. As I've said before, currently common methods are deplorable, but that doesn't mean everyone is bad for eating meat. Monoculture for herbivores harms, too.
@lagurash No, its a book that proves that eating meat is not essential for the human body. It's actually harmful. And have you read any of my previous comments? If you eat meat you kill people. And yourself. Well maybe if people stopped eating meat so much the supplier would realize that they need to cut supply and after the supply becomes so low the ethical treatment will follow. So yes, it is your fault. You are the most ignorant person I have ever met. You don't have a response to my posts.
@TheRuindragon Cont. You don't have a response to my posts because you know I'm right. Directing the conversation towards another issue if a sign of ignorance and weakness. Face it, I'm right. And you will probably post a "non sequitur" comment that is "non sequitur" to my previous posts. You sure love those two words huh? Oh well, even if I don't get through to you which is highly probably because of your extreme ignorance, I guess my lifespan will be my victory.
That's an outright lie and an attempt at poisoning the well. What's the other issue that I'm trying to redirect the conversation?
"Face it, I'm right."
Hardly...
"And you will..."
You sure love committing that logical fallacy. Your arguments are fallacious, which is why I keep making note of your fallacies. Your case cannot be considered true if it doesn't logically hold up to scrutiny.
@lagurash Teeth structure, personal farms etc. My "fallacies" aren't real fallacies. You honestly think that anyone in the world is going to have perfect arguments? My case can be true even if the way I display it doesn't appeal to you.
@lagurash Again, nothing in the meat world can't be found in the vegetarian world. So your argument is false. You made a fallacy. HAHA! Lets make fun of eachothers' arguments! Well now that you are aware of precious comments I suggest you go read them. It IS logical because its true. I'm sure somebody has come up with a number on how many people you actually kill with a omnivore diet. I don't feel like looking for one, I'm just proving you are wrong. Supply is always changing. Destruction doesnt
@lagurash You didn't have to make an argument about it. I'm just showing you that you can get the same amount of nutrients from a vegetarian diet as omnivore. I'm simply showing you that eating meat is very wasteful and harmful, and the only reason you do it is because meat tastes good. But really, its disgusting... the smell of cooked ham is similar to a rotting human corpse. If you put that into perspective you might start drooling if somebody was burnt alive. "What smells like bacon?!"
Disgusting to you, not to everyone else, and to assume that your views should be pushed onto others is just as controlling, abusive, and disrespectful as you view the meat industry is to the meat.
"he smell of cooked ham"
Have you smelled a rotting human corpse? If you had, you wouldn't make a false statement like this...
"If you put"
You finished off this post with a "slippery slope" combined with an "appeal to ridicule"...quoted for easy searching
@lagurash Okay, well how then how come I can't eat meat now even if I tried? I get sick. It's a natural rejection to a foreign food. And yes they did studies in korea they showed that humans indeed taste like pork.
Possibly it's operant conditioning. What does this matter? So, because you get an upset stomach when you eat a particular type of food, the human body isn't meant to process it? That's quite a hasty generalization.
"...taste like pork."
So? Red herring...
"wasn't an assumption"
It was a question that had an assumption at the root of it...so, "Omfg... dude you are an idiot"...which is an ad hominem as well. Terribly fallacious arguments for your no-meat case.
@lagurash No. Iv'e talked to many vegans and vegetarians they have eating things that have come into contact with meat (Such as freshly removed pepperoni from a pizza). They all reporting becoming violently ill. Go try human flesh... see what you think. You seem to be okay with other meats... why not try human? See what happens then. You'll probably get locked up as a psychopath and everyone will think your a zombie. And i said omfg dude your an idiot because you are...
Do you know what operant conditioning is? Not to mention that getting used to new foods is exceptionally common, and if you refrain from eating certain foods, or just don't have them available for long enough, it may cause discomfort to consume them. That doesn't mean that you are no longer able to process meat, or that eating meat is wrong.
"violently ill"
Diarrhea/vomiting is a common response to unaccustomed food. Brother reacts same to Chinese...
@lagurash I'm trying to show that you are unnecessarily doing damage to the world around you and yourself when there are preventable and satisfying alternatives to your diet. What is so wrong with that?
@TheRuindragon "I'm trying to show that you are unnecessarily doing damage to the world around you and yourself when there are preventable and satisfying alternatives to your diet. What is so wrong with that?"
Eating meat isn't unnecessary, and there are some people who have certain deficiencies (including but not limited to iron and zinc) which require a decent amount of meat intake.
There's nothing wrong with eating as you please, but infringing rights by forcing others to do the same is.
@lagurash Buddy. There is NOTHING in the meat world that can't be found in the vegetarian world. There are other ways to get those nutrients. 2 tablespoons of pumpkin seeds = 8.6mg of iron. Firm tofu 3 ounces = 8.5mg of iron. Sufficient amount of iron needed per day = 15-30 (Depends if you are deficient). And plus... the requirement are much lower when switching to a vegan diet because the intake changes.
So, because there are alternative options, it's wrong to go with this option? There are alternatives to heterosexual intercourse, does that mean that heterosexual intercourse is wrong? Obviously, no...
"eating meat isn't necessary at all"
Eating (consumption by mastication) isn't necessary at all, given the fact of feeding tubes that put nutrient filled solutions into you....and saline to keep you hydrated. Does that mean that eating anything is wrong? ...
@lagurash So really, eating meat isn't necessary at all. Plus people are only in need of higher iron when they are anemic and they usually are given supplements for... so it isn't the norm. Really how can you say that? There is everything wrong with eating as you please. People before civilization ate meat for survival. But now we are in no need for it. If you think you still need meat then go ahead, get naked, run out into the forest, and sniff everyones butts.
So? It was a risk assessment, one in which has higher occurrence in athletes. The idea of presenting it was to present the other side to your "eating meat is wrong" concept.
"There is everything wrong with eating as you please."
If you mean over indulgence, or eating based on whims and not exercising, or eating based on miseducation or bad habits, then I absolutely agree. However, if using one's brain, getting educated, and taking care of themselves, then no
@lagurash Plus... what about cannibalism? Are you saying that it's okay to go out and kill people to eat their flesh because it tastes good? You never see people doing that... because its unnecessary and you would get arrested before it because its wrong. So how is it okay to do it to animals? They are sentient too. Humans aren't much different from animals. We all want food, sex, recreation. We all have ears, eyes, a nose, a brain, blood, arms, legs...
@TheRuindragon "Are you saying that it's okay to go out and kill people to eat their flesh because it tastes good?"
Straw man. It was never my argument that people should eat meat because it tastes good. Stop assuming that I'm saying these random things simply because I don't buy the claims you're selling.
"So how is it okay"
0.o Making the same sentience claim with no evidence to back that up (and no, that video doesn't prove they're sentient...). We aren't too different, but are enough.
@lagurash Then why do you eat meat. Because otherwise people don't need it. You can get all the nutrients from meat from plants. Does it give you special super powers? No, it just lowers your life span. And I already asked... what about babies? They aren't as smart as us... so its okay to eat them! That's your whole argument in a sentence.
The meat I do it is for taste and benefit. I usually only ever eat pork or beef if I have protein cravings, and that's not often. Like I've said before, I usually just eat chicken (and they've failed to show that they come anywhere close to sentient by scientific standards). Regardless, I do not make a moral value claim on it, you are. You're saying that it's necessarily wrong to eat meat, but provide fallacious arguments and no scientific evidence.
@lagurash Benefit? How can you benefit yourself or the world around you with dumping unhealthy substances into your body and ruining the environment. And see you just proves it was because of taste. How can you prove that eating meat isn't moral? When damaging yourself and the environment is it really a good moral?
So, now you've determined that meat is unhealthy? Another baseless assumption with absolutely no evidence to support it...
"ruining the environment"
The thing that's ruining the environment is the fossil fuels used, not the meat processing itself. Powered by hydroelectric dams and such ruin wouldn't be an issue.
"When damaging"
Again, baseless claims. Do you bother looking up information, or just making broad assertions without much evidence or logic?
@lagurash Cholesterol Vs. Nutrient rich plants. You need plants. You don't need meat. The thing is is htat it will never change. As long as there is a demand companies are not going to waste their time finding alternative resources. Again... Cholesterol.
@lagurash They'll cry if you hurt them they'll get excited when you play with them... The only thing different between humans animals that is really remarkable is intelligence... is intelligence the shield from consumption? What about disabled people or babies? Should we eat them too because we think their not intelligent enough so they wont care?
@lagurash Bacteria don't comfort you when you are sad. Sentience is intelligence... so is awareness. I'm interested. Does bacteria really move away from things? But that brings up a good point. Plants don't move away when they are hurt. So I am againt killing bacteria unless necessary (same with living in the wild) I dont even kill insects. (voluntarily of course, you can't avoid stepping on an ant once in a while) My point is its better to follow the most moral path. Which is ending slaughter.
@TheRuindragon "Bacteria don't comfort you when you are sad."
Plants, chickens, horses, cows, even most other people don't comfort me when I'm sad, what's your point? This sounds an awful lot like the argument from emotions fallacy...
"Does bacteria really move away from things?"
Sarcasm: No, survival doesn't entail avoiding danger or harm...
"Plants don't move"
Some fly traps do. 0.o
"I dont even kill insect"
Which definitely aren't sentient, by our tests, and are also high in various nutirents
@lagurash My cats purr when im upset. That's the only experience I can show. And don't call me a hypocrite for having cats because I give them vegetarian cat food which actually will extent their lifespans. You got me on that one, fly traps do indeed move. But does that prove they are self aware? I don't believe in killing any living thing. I think that this is the most moral lifestyle this way and we all should strive to live a more moral life.
Appeal to emotion. The truth of claims are not determined by how fuzzy they may or may not make us feel. Teddy bears make tons of people feel better, but that doesn't mean real bears are something to walk up and hug, or even that everyone should necessarily have a teddy bear. 0.o
"hypocrite for having cats"
I wouldn't have called you a hypocrite, but you should know that cats are more carnivorous than we are (ya know, since they're carnivores...). 0.o
@TheRuindragon "My point is its better to follow the most moral path. Which is ending slaughter."
What do you mean by slaughter? Just the killing definition? Gotta kill something to eat...and you chose plants. Or do you mean butchering livestock? By butchering do you mean dress for the market? Plants are dressed for market. Or do you mean "barbarous" killing? In which case, the killing modern killing methods are much more humane and civilized than classic methods, despite the bloody result.
@lagurash Ending slaughter... slaughter I mean by torturing the lives of animals and ending their lives way before it's their natural time. Plants dont feel discomfort when they are put near eachother and they don't feel pain/torture. The point is animals are self aware. Plants aren't.
You mean if they lived out in the wild without human interference? ...where predators and diseases cull herds? ...simply idiotic...and another appeal to nature.
"Plants don't"
How do you know? You assume that a brain much like animal brains are required for discomfort. If a venus fly trap flinches away from being pricked, does it not feel discomfort? It may not realize that's the case, but it's still discomfort.
Again, why do you feel you need ad hominems if your argument is supposedly so valid? ...
"You don't..."
Lack of response does not denote lack of ability to respond.
"Now if you really..."
Eating meat doesn't kill starving children, nor significantly reduce one's lifespan. Over indulgence in meat can reduce lifespan, but eating meat at all doesn't. I guess you wouldn't like any studies that supports meat, though
@lagurash Then please respond, give an argument, I'm interesting in what you have to say. Yes it does, can't you read? These facts ARE true. So yes, you really are killing starving children. You need to break yourself away from your bubble of ignorance. The extreme amounts of cholesterol from a "normal" meat diet significantly reduced the lifespan. Starting vegetarianism at age 20, people live on average an extra 5-7 years. And please, tell.
You are asserting that they are facts, with no citations.
"So yes, you really are killing starving children."
Another assertion. You make assertions as premises to prove a conclusion, without any evidence at any point. To paraphrase Hitchens, anything asserted without evidence can be equally dismissed without evidence.
@lagurash I may be assertive but you can't deny that its staring you in the face. You can't deny that because of the extreme waste from animal farming it could be used to feed starving children. So give up steak, and take pride knowing that you could have prevented the death of a starving child... or whistle and sweep it under the mat. It's not going away. I'm not saying that it IS happening... I'm saying that its HIGHLY LIKELY that it's happening.
Who said that I'm denying any fact that's "staring me in the face"?
"So give up steak..."
Quite a bit of an assumption there, as I don't often eat steak (maybe once or twice a year, assuming that I even go to a steak house...). How is not eating a steak preventing the death of a starving child? Another non sequitur, and unwarrantably prideful.
@lagurash By the way, the consequences of a vegetarian diet vs a omnivore diet is MUCH less destructive. We wouldn't NEED to be clearing out the rain forest if there wasn't a demand for meat. The land that was wastefully used for meat can be use to produce MUCH more food (vegetarian) than the meat raising land did. That would end hunger in the ENTIRE WORLD and we would save the rainforest. You are ignorant to the destruction your diet is causing.
@TheRuindragon "...consequences of a vegetarian diet..."
argumentum ad consequentiam, and monoculture (and the land cleared for it) is having just as much of a destructive impact on the environment and our future food security. Are you assuming that the rain forests and land clearing is only for raising meat? That'd be absurd, considering the demands for produce.
As for land usage, both could be accomplished without the current destructive methods, but that still doesn't make eating meat wrong.
@lagurash Hey guess what, the reason most of the land that will grow plants will be FED to the livestock. So yes, they are being cleared for meat. So yes, it does make eating meat wrong.
@TheRuindragon "So yes, it does make eating meat wrong."
Another assertion. In order to avoid produce's contribution, you are asserting that essentially the majority of produce is made for feeding to-be-slaughtered animals. Any evidence of that?
"My "fallacies" aren't..."
They are if they fit the definition of fallacies, which I've explained that they do and how, so yes, they are fallacies.
"You honestly..."
P1: All dogs are mammals. P2: I have a dog. Conc: My dog is a mammal.
@lagurash Yep. If you read my older posts you would know the wasteful amounts of produce being used for meat. And if my arguments are such fallacies please be specific on how they are so invalid. I am basing my arguments on the evidence supplied to me by the source... which ARE true, so how are my arguments false? Now I want your opinion. If you are willingly slaughtering animals inhumanely, polluting horrendously, promoting hunger, and shortening your lifespan... is taste really worth it?
@TheRuindragon Aye, I know that you say that there are a bunch of wastefulness going on, but that doesn't necessarily mean that we should eat non-meat either (just another non sequitur...).
"please be specific"
So, I have to tell you what the definitions of the fallacies are, too? Fine... Non sequitur means "does not follow" and a case of it is when someone makes a conclusion that doesn't follow from the premises...
"I am basing"
You've used unconfirmed data to make fallacious conclusions...
@lagurash It's true that there are other ways to cut down on waste, but meat is a big one. So if you REALLY do need your meat... I'd suggest cutting down and eating more organic foods. It's more healthy, moderation is good.
Yep. I used non sequiturs. Sometimes you need to to make a point.
So, because eating meat is a relatively wasteful process, it's wrong? Compared to photosynthesis, consumption of plants are relatively wasteful. So, by your logic, maybe we should stop eating anything?
"it was to prove..."
You also can have a diet of protein shakes, raw eggs, and vitamins and be an athlete. It's an irrelevant, fallacious argument known as a red herring.
@TheRuindragon "Now I want your opinion. If you are willingly..."
Straw man (misrepresenting an opponent's position then knocking down the misrepresentation without actually refuting their argument), and it assumes unproven presuppositions.
"I'm simply showing"
No, you're asserting that. You're also assuming that the current state of meat processing is the only possible state, which is why you think eating any meat is wrong. This non sequitur assumes an "is-ought problem" (at least wiki it...)
@lagurash It wasn't an assumption. It was a question... Omfg... dude you are an idiot. Yes I am aware that some people but very few give a little tiny shit about their animals but still it's not much of a difference. The demand is way too high and the money is flowing in way too fast for companies to change their ways.
Are you also aware that one occurrence that contradicts an "always" claim (that is to say a claim that states something must always be the case, or must necessarily be so) invalidates said "always" claim?
"The demand is..."
So? Again, you assume that the current conditions are the only conditions for mass meat eating, which is an is-ought fallacy, then you make an argument from consequences fallacy to claim that eating meat is wrong. Terribly fallacious once again...
@lagurash I never said its the ONLY conditions. I told you that there are other practices which very few people follow because they can make more money mass producing.
You implied that the common practice is the only way that mass meat eating would be viable, and I even think one of your earlier posts agreed with this summary of your position (since I can't recall which one, I won't hold this part against you).
"make more money"
So? Their preferred method being wrong means their method is wrong, not that eating meat is wrong because their method is wrong. Non sequitur...again...
@lagurash Please provide some links to said well-conditioned farms. Prove that animals can be mass produced without torture or discomfort. Again. Yes, just because a method of producing is wrong doesn't mean the product is wrong. I want to see these said farms.
@TheRuindragon "Please provide some links to said well-conditioned farms."
You mean the link to the YT video of that farmer who migrated his livestock? ...trying to just ditch the evidence I've given thus far? It doesn't torture them, nor give discomfort, and every livestock farmer can do it, it just hasn't been popularized. It's possible, and profitable, just not popular. You insinuating that the fact that it's not popular mean that it's less credible? That'd be an argument from numbers...
@lagurash Anything. And I don't remember any link... Post again please :3. How are you sure that the animals are comfortable? Are they in large pastures eating grass out of the ground? Or fenced in side to side standing in mud and their own waste and forced to eat corn and wheat which is unnatural because its cheaper...
...that's it, I'm done. You're a fallacious troll with no concept of rationality or proof. It's all based on how you feel, when it comes down to it, and that's not sufficient, or logical, enough to make truth statements. You've found all these things to make you feel more moral, but it's apparent that you haven't researched the validity of such claims, or the lack of research and evidence supporting them. You believe in God and homeopathy, too? 0.o
@TheRuindragon What evidence? My entire point this entire time is that there isn't evidence presented to support these claims. I don't believe your crap because you have not given any evidence, let alone sufficient evidence, for such claims. On top of this, you've done absolutely nothing but make baseless assertions and fallacious arguments.
Just remember that assuming you're right because I'll no longer respond after this post would be the argument from silence fallacy, but logic surpasses you.
@lagurash I was going to suggest posting in messages. It's getting annoying to comment on this video. As for fallacies and evidence... I can say that there is a pimple on your face. But you will tell me that I didnt provide enough evidence to show that there is a pimple on your face. You require such miniscule points that dont even really matter for you to agree with me. I need to show you a mirror then take you to the doctor just to prove that there is a pimple on your face...
@lagurash One last thing... If you really need the evidence then go watch the documentary earthlings. wwwdotearthlingsdotcom they give lots of evidence.
@lagurash I feel sorry for you actually. I'm trying to improve your life for the better and extend your lifespan and all your doing is pushing me away. Meat is the drug, I am the intervention. The drug might seem like you need it, but once you realize what it has done to you and the world around you, you will think otherwise.
@lagurash I don't believe in something so unstable as god. As for veganism, its healthy and beneficial. The world will never find peace until we stop this was between species.
@lagurash I also have to admit that you made a more stable argument than other omnivores. "god put animals on this earth for us to eat" Oooh then it MUST be right. ahah
@TheRuindragon "I quoted normal because what is accepted to be normal by the majority really isn't a normal level for what your body needs."
Normal levels for what one's body needs vary from person to person, so making claims of what the normal is happens to be based on some average statistic (assuming that you got it from a statistic) which aren't exactly accurate either. And yes, popular opinion on what's normal doesn't dictate what is normal, as such would be an appeal to numbers fallacy.
I am not a vegan, but i find this to be a short but very good video response. Thank you for sharing your opinions in a very respectful and thoughtful way, unlike many others share their own.
also are society does not do this to animals because they are just animals. It does it to feed the mouths of millions and millions of humans who live on the planet earth. Yes some of the ways we treat animals it outrageous and in some instances people should be punished...however some of these ways are to try and ensure that everyone has food and not everyone does. The way that they process meat now is the only way to prevent it from going up in price cause so much is needed.
ok...your argument for being a vegan is healthy is that yea vegans do have bad things happen to them but it CAN be healthy? Thats like saying yea cigarettes cause cancer but not all people who smoke get cancer. You can argue that being vegan does increase the chance that you will be an appropriate rate for your body size and that people who are healthy physically are less likely to develop illnesses such as diabetes or get heart attacks...but instead you go with the "duh some people are healthy!
I can tell you that they kill the animals in slaughter houses in a way that does not cause the animal pain. Like in some they use a pin that goes through the back of the animals head killing them instantly with no suffering. Therefore this is no longer cruelty because if it was they would simply beat the animal to death
This is a decent video but one thing that stuck out to me was your first point. Just because babies are not self aware they will become self aware at some stage in their life. This is not the same for some animals. So that one argument that you propose is flawed. Otherwise good video. I'm not a vegan but I hate factory farming and I actually only eat fish and chicken that is wild. I was vegetarian for a time but it didn't work out for me.
Personally I am all for ending animal cruelty, its disgusting. But I the I also really hate PETA they are a horrible organization, they spend so much money on campaigns and harassing people who eat meat and they murdered 97% of the animals they had in their care instead of trying to find them homes or actually caring for them. Instead of wasting money trying to get everyone to stop eating meat (which is impossible) they could actually save animal lives!
I agree with you on the first one, all animals feel and think and should be treated with respect. But the example of the human baby is a far cry from the point. We don't go eat each other just because some of us happen to eat other animals. We preserve our own kind because we survive better in numbers, Nowadays it's a different story.
Human babies do pass self aware tests even in the whom even after 2 weeks of conception. That is why anti abortion activist have concerns about abortion.
i have to ask this question... Every animal thats made into human food - in this video, are living in small squared booths.
BUT! As the matter of fact, the industry, now more than every, is serving people animals, who have been out in the fields, for their whole lives. Not in a 2x1m booth.
Is that also in your eyes evil, or cruel?
you also never tell anything about home slaughtering, or animals who lives most theire lives outside.. is that evil and poluting too?
Many people rape, murder, practice slavery, sexism, kill people with different beliefs, and we're people, so shouldn't we get to do it too? I doubt that humans could prevent predation in the wild, but yes I'm sure that any animal you name could be raised vegan, though I wonder, what does that have to do with our diet or ethics? I addressed your point that we've been eating meat throughout our history in the post before yours.
I think it is unethical to kill for food, of course it is better when the animal is allowed to spend it days('free-range' animals still spend nights in confinement) outside, whether they live in cages their whole lives or whether you go hunt them in the wild. Though I do wholeheartedly support hunting and free range meat for those who choose to eat meat, they are still an unethical practices.
"In the U.S., only four companies produce most of the nation’s animal products, including 81 percent of cows, 73 percent of sheep, 57 percent of pigs and 50 percent of chickens." These corporate giants are all about efficiency and as is the case for many large businesses would often rather take a fine for illegal behavior than reduce profits.
@1MacCrack1 Where are you getting your information, factory farming is on the rapid increase, and has been for decades, demand has shot up, and the control of the industry has been dramatically compartmentalized.
@axzsszxa yea me too. I concern about animals, but i still enjoy eating them, as long as i know they have been given their right, to move freely, as much as they want outside.. Factory pigs, cows, chickens doesnt taste good, and THAT is animal cruelty. Outgoing animals, is as closest to the natural thing, as we get, maybe besides hunting.
@axzsszxa How about this; Which seems more like what nature intended: eating meat that was given unto the earth, or popping pills made by human beings? I would say that eating meat sounds MUCH more natural of a way to get the proteins and nutrients you need rather than to pop pills. Lets see: Eat meat, or be addicted to pills?
@TheDeathOfChaos Nature actually doesn't have intentions, it's just a word for what happens without human interference, and if you think you can call store-bought meat natural you clearly have no idea where it came from. Animals fed unnatural, unhealthy diets that cause ulcers, malnutrution and many other diseases, inconvenient appendages are cut off (beaks, tails horns,ect.), male cows are castrated by twisting and pulling of the scrotum. Chickens feet often grow around their wire cage's floor
@axzsszxa because they are completely immobilized by overcrowding, 4 chickens to an area the size of a sheet of paper is common. If an animal has an infection or injury they are given antibiotics or killed. Animals are directed with 1000's of volts of electricity or with blunt instruments.Cancerous animals are ignored, not cured, euthanized, or removed from the meat. Hormones and genetic engineering are used to make them as big as possible, leading to many animals bones breaking under their own
@axzsszxa weight, which is usually ignored beyond perhaps more antibiotics being administered. I can think of many adjectives that describe meat production but natural is certainly not one of them. No one gets protein from vitamins, the common things vegetarians/vegans ought to, depending on their diet and location, get from vitamins are b-12, iodine, d, and iron, which I can get in a single multivitamin. By your inaccurate use of the word addiction, both would be addictions.
@axzsszxa Fine. I will go buy a gun, go into the woods, and shoot a fucking deer. Take pictures of me slaughtering it and send you them. Or I could go to the store and buy meat that's already been done for me. I've never went hunting, but I'll make it a first just for you.
If you do hunt I certainly don't want pictures and do not condone it, but if you are going to don't use traps or buckshot and please try to make it's death as fast and painless as you can and if you do hunt it won't be for me, it will be because you value the taste of meat above the animals life.
Can you really feel ethically sound doing that though, I'm sure if you've never shot before you won't be able to hit it in the head. You will have to watch it die, painfully, more frightened and confused than you have likely been in your whole life. Then you will have to slice open it' neck while it is still alive probably making a futile attempt at running away. Later you will have to separate it's organs from its muscles.
Their suffering, and their experience in general, is no less important because they are not a member of our species. As abhorrent as I find the idea of stalking, shooting, and slicing open the neck of another, if you are going to eat meat then hunting seems to me to be the lesser of two evils. Though it's death may be more painful than that of a farm animal it's life will not be that of confinement, torture, mutilation, and abuse.
@TheDeathOfChaos I want to make this very clear, I believe that killing another animal for food is completely unethical. Killing with the justification of flavor or the 'justification' that animals are not smart enough, which is entirely relative. If another animal, far more intelligent than humans, were to show up and begin eating us we would likely reapply such a principle. Not to mention that the same argument would apply to people with mental disabilities as well as to children.
I left a main point, though to a degree it is implicit, which is that ethical considerations are not based on intelligence, familiarity, , but rather capacities for subjective experiences. The way I see it, put quite roughly, ethics are about minimizing the suffering and maximizing the happiness of conscious beings.
@axzsszxa What is unehtical is killing anything for no purpose. Kicking a puppy just to laugh, or killing an elephant or deer just because it's 'sport' should be unethical. If there was an instance of worldwide epidemic and you met up with a wild animal, I doubt your theories and thoughts of ethics would become very useful to you, or even under the right circumstances.
I can't honestly say for certain, it is quite possible that survival instinct would take over, but I don't believe I can justify it ethically and it has little relation to the situation you and I are in.
My ethics aren't really all that useful now, that's not their purpose.
I believe the question at the root of what your saying is would I hunt
to save my life. If my survival depended on hunting repeatedly I would quite possibly kill myself to be morbidly honest, particularly if the world was falling to disease.
@axzsszxa And the strong will keep surviving. The weak would drop like flies, you included, because you don't believe in keeping yourself alive is ethical enough to try if the circumstances arose to such a heightened significance.. I'll leave at that, lol.
@TheDeathOfChaos You do essentially nothing without any purpose, to use your example, you may kick a puppy to satisfy a twisted sense of humor or hunt for a thrill or sense of conquering, the issue is whether the purpose justifies to actions. In the case of meat, does the pleasure justify the killing, let alone the mistreatment farm animals receive prior to death
@axzsszxa You face a pack of wolves, and they glare at your wife and children, only you to protect them. People like you would let their family die, wouldn't they? You could get on one knee, after they've eaten into your family with their blood on their snares, looking at you. "It's not ethical!" you would scream, but only to but cut short by the puncture of a pack of wolve's sharp fangs digging into your flesh, and there so ends your life as well as your family because of 'ethics'.
@TheDeathOfChaos No, for one I believe in self defense, I would do what I could to defend my family from wolves as well as from human attackers, though if I could reliably prevent the attack without resorting to harming them I would. I've never claimed that killing is always unjustifiable, but to kill to in extenuating circumstances is not the same as to kill for pleasure.
@axzsszxa Or, ethics aside, you fight them off and because you have no weapons at hand, you have to kill them or they, themselves, would eat you and your family, so you do what you must do: you grab hold of their head, and snap their neck, your you grab a nearby rock and beat them until they stop moving. Your family is safe, but only at the cost of ending the life that threatened the lives of your wife and children.
@axzsszxa To say that hunting animals to eat is unethical is denouncing every last thing that has brought civilization to where it stands to this day. Native Americans, when they had hunted, used every last bit of the animal and even praised nature for blessing them with the plentiful meat, hides, and bones they used to live, and the same to the rest of the civilizations of ancient times that brought us to where we are today. So go ahead and denounce them, you will be denouncing only yourself.
The pyramids and the great wall are wondrous monuments, but that does not mean that the countless slaves that were worked to death making them were treated ethically. I am not my ancestors actions, heavily influenced by them though I may be, I can choose to act differently and feel and think differently than they did and that is precisely what constitutes any significant sense of self.
Even in modern times many places are extremely sexist, racist, or divided by religion and the farther back you look generally the worse it was. You may think we have attained a good state through our civilizations actions, I would tend to disagree on many counts, but besides that it does not inherently say anything of the ethical nature of the actions that led to that state, bad actions can lead to good results and vice versa.
Also, in the case of Native Americans it would have been much more difficult to maintain a vegetarian diet, not least because of how little they knew of nutrition and the modest scale and variety of the farming that did go on. Most civilizations practiced slavery up until a few hundred years ago.
@TheDeathOfChaos The history of our society and civilization, as well as others, is filled with practices you and I would consider unethical. Native Americans doing something does not justify it. Many Native Americans were practicing cannibals that would attack other tribes and eat those they captured. The Aztec would capture people in wars and unprovoked raids and sacrifice them to the sun god, in a ceremony in which they removed the heart from the living person and ate it.
@axzsszxa So if the choice was presented to you and I, you would most likely let your family and yourself be slaughtered because of a principle that ties you down, while I would be prolonging the life of my family, even if it meant that only I were to suffer injury or death in the process.
@axzsszxa Though I hope you would get past your pathetic ideology and prolong the lives of your family at the cost of an animal's life rather than sacrifice your family as well as your own life for an idea that the attackers wouldn't even understand in the slightest bit, anyway. So, used side by side with my metaphorical situation, which is ethical? Choose saving your family, and vegitarians/vegans will call you a fake. Choose saving the animal, and you're a coward. Which would you sacrifice?
So you put the poor mice outside and they will not come inside again?Mice has nothing to do with hygiene but with food.Humans stock food and that is a magnet for mice.A couple of mice have between 4/8 young 4/6 times a year.A typical field holds 100 mice/ha causing around 5 to12% destruction and you put them outside?They eat your food to.
What about rats?Put them outside?What about the euthanasation of cats and dogs in PETA shelters,is that ethical?OR is it because they do it?
I checked out your story ans as always with your people,lies.PETA have never done any campaign regarding wild rats and mice.They did campaign about laboratory rats and mice.They only true objective with this is hitting the laboratories who use animal experimentation and nothing else.You people are hypocrites and this is once again the proof.You only use "popular" animals not the other ones to make money and get sympathy .Draw your conclusions.
You don't have a good argument. At all.
Ahhimonfire 5 months ago
Comparing a baby to an adult is disingenuous.
Conflating animal abuse and eating meat...
Psychological welfare for chickens? Where's the study to back up that claim? One could argue so do spiders.
Animal cruelty laws work well for the treatment of humans, why not animals? Def quibbling?
Least harm? Logically extends to genocide of humans to reduce our harm.
Drinking alcohol can be healthy. Should we be alcoholics?
He said rearrange priorities, not that vegans don't care.
Another conflation.
lagurash 9 months ago
@lagurash Amount of petroleum pollution to feed the meat industry > tilling a field. More pollution more animals killed. Not to mention that the pollution was for killing animals in the first place.
TheRuindragon 8 months ago
@TheRuindragon "Amount of petroleum pollution to feed the meat industry > tilling a field."
Yes, I agree that the current set up is destructive, but that doesn't mean eating meat is bad. Watch "Fresh the movie", there's a farmer who migrates his animals between a few fields in order to have healthier farming (healthier meat for healthier people and a healthier environment). Alternative methods to petroleum is viable.
"More pollution more animals killed."
Slippery slope...
lagurash 8 months ago
@lagurash Yes, eating meat IS bad, have you seen the abuse common factory farms do to animals?! And so what if ONE farmer migrates his animals. Its not the common practice. And its not like they are going to use any other source of fuel any time soon. Petroleum makes the government money, so they aren't concerned about making alternative methods.
watch?v=32IDVdgmzKA
TheRuindragon 8 months ago
@TheRuindragon How does mistreating of animals mean eating meat? Does a guy who beat his dog do so because he's going to eat him? Are all animals who are eaten mistreated before their death? No to both? Then obviously, it is not necessarily so that eating meat is bad just because people mistreat animals. Deforestation and killing jungles and cropping land is bad, but you apparently don't mind eating vegetables. Assuming that eating meat is bad because people mistreat animals is a non sequitur...
lagurash 8 months ago
@TheRuindragon Continued from previous post:
"...abuse common..."
Are you trying to say that the only way to eat meat is to abuse animals because that's how things currently are done? Is-ought problem, non sequitur, appeal to numbers.
"And so what..."
One instance of animal mistreating not taking place discredits any rationale that all meat that's eaten by man is brought about due to animal abuse, which shows that your connection between "eating meat IS bad" and "animal abuse" is a non sequitur.
lagurash 8 months ago
@lagurash So how come vegetarians eat meat or eat something that has been in contact with meat become violently ill? Because its natural rejection, people aren't supposed to eat meat. Its an extremely ignorant and destructive habit. Yes. If you eat meat now you are abusing animals. You are talking as if there is no such thing as animal abuse. Too bad there is. The only way to supply meat fast is to abuse animals profusely. You eat meat and you ARE abusing animals. Stupid ignorant bastard.
TheRuindragon 8 months ago
@TheRuindragon "So how come..."
You'd be surprised what symptoms your body will manifest or erase just because of your mind. Besides, does it matter? Their (and vegetarians are hypocrites for not being vegans due to the abuse required for dairy products) physical response to eating something has no impact on the universal moral implications of eating that something.
"Because..."
Then why do we have an omnivorous arrangement of teeth?
"Its an..."
So are your dogmatic claims without evidence...
lagurash 8 months ago
@lagurash You sound like the world is going to change and everything is okay. The problem with you meat eaters is you surround yourselves with ignorance and think that as long as they don't see it happen it never happened. We have an omnivorous arrangement of teeth because the primitive ancestors of us 1-6 million years ago occasionally ate dead carrion. We have evolved from that, and if you look at the jaw structure of an older ancestor you can see the canines are much larger.
TheRuindragon 8 months ago
@TheRuindragon That means if human flesh was put on your plate and told you that it was pork that you are HIGHLY likely to eat it and believe its pork. You are completely blind to your taste buds. You disgusting creatures are zombies honestly. The amount of grain that feeds the meat industry could feed every starving person IN THE WORLD. But instead, you guys NEED your meat. So actually, if you eat meat, you are killing people. Do you enjoy the fact that your steak starved a child to death?!
TheRuindragon 8 months ago
@TheRuindragon Now if you really think that eating meat is still okay then give a BIG smile and say: "Im glad I eat meat because I am killing starving children and my lifespan will be significantly shorter because of the bad decisions I have been taught to believe it right that are actually quite wrong and disgusting."
TheRuindragon 8 months ago
@lagurash Percentage of Central American children under the age of five who are undernourished: 75
Area of tropical rainforest consumed in every quarter-pound of rainforest beef: 55 square feet
Current rate of species extinction due to destruction of tropical rainforests for meat grazing and other uses: 1,000 per year
TheRuindragon 8 months ago
@TheRuindragon "bad decisions....that are actually quite wrong and disgusting."
Again, unproven claims, and attempts at poisoning the well, as well as general ad hominems. You think it's wrong, but you're both a hypocrite (as vegetarians still ingest dairy, which requires animal abuse) and fallacious in this line of thinking.
For meat grazing? Where are you getting this stuff? As for the undernourished, do you think companies would reduce produce prices to poor countries? Capitalism is the prob.
lagurash 8 months ago
@lagurash Unproven, opinions yes, but logical. I am neither fallacious or a hypocrite. I already said that if people didn't eat meat then the milking cows and the egging hens wouldn't be treated like SHIT and then killed for meat. Actually yes they would, with the extreme amount of extra produce, since there is no cattle to food, people will eat. An the "stuff" just branches out from the facts I posted.
TheRuindragon 8 months ago
@TheRuindragon "Unproven, opinions yes, but logical."
Sorry, but to prove statements of fact, evidence must be presented. Even if you had a well reasoned argument (which I haven't seen you present one yet), having it based on opinions doesn't prove your assertions that eating meat is bad, or that eating meat means one is responsible for killing another human for that meat.
"I am neither fallacious or a hypocrite."
Yes, you are both. Easily correctable, though, so come back when it's corrected.
lagurash 8 months ago
@TheRuindragon "If you eat meat..."
Non sequitur. There's nothing inherent to eating meat that constitutes abusing animals. Further, even if it weren't a non sequitur, you've provided nothing to support your claims.
"You are..."
In previous post: "Then obviously, it is not necessarily so that eating meat is bad just because people mistreat animals." So, where do I make the speak as if there's no abuse? The sentence, "One instance of animal abuse..." acknowledges that animal abuse occurs.
lagurash 8 months ago
@lagurash Continued from last comment. Our canines are gradually receding. It's just like how our adult front incisors have points on them as they grow in. To easily slide through the gum line and become placed in allignment. And even if vegetarians promote the abuse of animals it wouldn't happen if people didn't eat meat. Once milk/egg production becomes to slow they slaughter the animals. If I had my own farm I would treat the mothers like queens. Same with the hens.
TheRuindragon 8 months ago
@lagurash How can you say my statements are non sequitur? They aren't! I have provided a multitude of evidence to prove that if you eat that steak then that cow was abused its entire life and it was probably separated from its children a few times before it was slaughtered. You act like everything is okay, and that it just never happened. Well guess what, it did! You are zombies. Really, you are. You are 80 percent less likely to have a heart attack if you rid of meat from your diet.
TheRuindragon 8 months ago
@TheRuindragon How can you possible say that eating meat is natural? If its so unhealthy for you body wouldn't you get it by now? Its NOT NATURAL. You eat meat for pleasure and taste. There is nothing in the meat world that can't be found in the vegetarian world. Starving people in south korea had to resort to cannibalism. They said that it tastes like sweet pork. Human flesh was sold on the market as pork. It was purchased and ACCEPTED as pork.
TheRuindragon 8 months ago
@lagurash Cause of global warming: greenhouse effect
Primary cause of greenhouse effect: carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels
Fossil fuels needed to produce meat-centered diet vs. a meat-free diet: 3 times more
Percentage of U.S. topsoil lost to date: 75 Percentage of U.S. topsoil loss directly related to livestock raising: 85
Number of acres of U.S. forest cleared for cropland to produce meat-centered diet: 260 million
TheRuindragon 8 months ago
@TheRuindragon "Cause of global warming"
Or all of the waste spewed into the air by factories that have a bunch of air pollution, such car making, or paper making. Oddly enough, not so much from meat processing.
"Primary cause..."
Fossil fuels which also help transport how much produce?
"Percentage of U.S. topsoil"
And how much is destroyed from the massively used monoculture?
"Number of acres"
How many for farming? Citation for these "facts"?
lagurash 8 months ago
@lagurash READ the facts. #1 cause = greenhouse. #1 cause for greenhouse = meat. Very little, considering the fact that mostly all vehicles aren't being used to transport produce. So very little pollution actually. Lost, considering the demand for produce from meat farms. I cant post the source because youtube wont allow html code. Don't whine at me.
TheRuindragon 8 months ago
@TheRuindragon "READ the facts"
Aye, the fact that correlation does not mean causation, and you have only just asserted causation due to assertions of correlations.
"Very little,"
You mean the transport for pesticides, transported soil, nutrient inserts, planting, harvesting, distributing. Yep, very little. >.>
"Don't whine at me."
Sounds like you're the one whining. "You're abusing animals cuz you like meat. *cry*"
"I cant post the source..."
Go to bit. ly (remove space) shrink URL, add spaces.
lagurash 8 months ago
@lagurash bit. ly/763n6O. I mean compared to the consumption of fuel compared to transportation. Anyways, yes, it does use some oil. But compared to the wasteful and avoidable consumption from the meat industry, its a fraction. Really? You think that a sentient being like being abused? Pigs have about the intelligence of a 3 year old child. You're saying that you would be okay with locking up and abusing a 3 year old?! "Read the facts" = Read all of my older posts.
TheRuindragon 8 months ago
@TheRuindragon Are you kidding me? Using arguments like "Largest meat eater that ever lived: Tyrannosaurus Rex (Where is he today?)"??? Not very sound...
A vegetarian athlete is an argument? How many eat meat? This argument isn't as compelling as you think it is. Just because one guy can be a good athlete while being a vegetarian (which is still hypocritical due to the abuse of milking cows for dairy) doesn't mean that we all should be at least vegetarians. Scientific studies for these "facts"?
lagurash 8 months ago
@lagurash It was a joke................... and it was to prove that you dont need meat to be an athlete. By the way, I'm a raw food vegan now...
TheRuindragon 7 months ago
@TheRuindragon Where's the scientific study that says that pigs have the intellect of 3 year old children? Further, what makes you assume that farm animals are sentient (meaning being considered aware)? More baseless assertions, or assertions as evidence for your assertions.
"You're saying that you would be okay with locking up and abusing a 3 year old?!"
Straw man (misrepresenting an opponent's position then knocking down the misrepresentation without actually refuting their argument).
lagurash 8 months ago
@lagurash watch?v=ymhawjNU4gs Pig facts. How can you say farm animals aren't sentient... they see... they smell, they taste, they hear, they feel, they love etc etc. I'd say that is considered aware... And I was trying to prove that its pretty much what people are paying for when they buy animal products...
TheRuindragon 7 months ago
@TheRuindragon "How can you say farm animals aren't sentient."
Straw man. I never said that they are or are not sentient. I said that there hasn't been enough, or any as far as I'm aware, that conclusively determine that animals are aware. If you have cases of this, please cite them, otherwise it's another baseless claim.
What does having senses have to do with sentience? Can you prove that they feel (I assumed you meant emotional, not physical)? Bacteria/plants react to environment, they int?
lagurash 7 months ago
@lagurash Definition of aware: 1. Obsolete on one's guard; vigilant 2. knowing or realizing; conscious; informed. And I already giving you a link of the so important awareness of pigs. Emotions are the byproduct of the brain... plants don't have brains. Animals do.
TheRuindragon 7 months ago
@TheRuindragon "Emotions..."
So? You listed senses (sight, hearing, etc), which aren't emotions. How do you know that plants don't have emotions? Have there been studies on this? Did they conclusively prove no emotions in plants, or just that we can't notice certain responses? What about fly traps that react to damage and prey?
More importantly, do you have a scientific study determining animals are sentient? Do reactions mean awareness?
Why do livestock fail mirror tests if sentient?
lagurash 7 months ago
@lagurash The are senses. Yes. Sentience meant to follow your senses thus being aware. Emotions are by products of the brain, since plants don't have brains... they don't disapprove of us killing them. Plus, picking a tomato isn't killing the plant. The tomato is more like the hair/fingernails of the plant. Raspberries have seeds in their fruits... so an animal comes up and eats the berry then poops it out a mile away. That's actually helping the plant.
TheRuindragon 7 months ago
@TheRuindragon "Sentience meant to follow your senses thus being aware."
Awareness isn't based on senses, noticing that something is aware is based on senses and their reactions based on those senses. If you were just a living brain in a jar, would you be less sentient because you'd be numb to the surrounding world, or couldn't communicate the fact that you think and are aware of yourself? That's another non sequitur...you like coming to unconnected conclusions, don't you? You do it enough...
lagurash 7 months ago
@lagurash You can't be a brain in a jar without being dead... you need a circulatory system digestive system etc to survive so it could never happen. And even if you didn't know what was around you, would you approve of being killed? Again if you argue plants = taking a tomato isn't killing it.
TheRuindragon 7 months ago
@lagurash Just because an animals can't see itself in the mirror doesn't mean it isn't self aware. How are you even sure that the animal ISNT seeing itself in the mirror? Can you tell when the cow will say "Ohh I look good!" So how can you prove that the cow didn't see itself? What about eyesight? How are you sure that cows can percieve such complicated images such as themselves. They use other senses smell touch taste etc. How does a mirror prove they are/arent self aware?
TheRuindragon 7 months ago
@TheRuindragon "Just because an animals"
That's an idiotic straw man...the test isn't to determine if they can see themselves, the test is to determine if they are aware enough to determine that the reflection is just a reflection of themselves and not another creature.
"Can you tell"
Appeal to ridicule, and a ridiculous one at that, since it's based on the idiotic straw man of the mirror test.
"...can percieve...themselves."
That's the entire point of the test, to help determine if they can.
lagurash 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lagurash "That's an idiotic straw man...the test isn't to determine if they can see themselves, the test is to determine if they are aware enough to determine that the reflection is just a reflection of themselves and not another creature."
So the test isn't about determining if they can see themselves but to determine if they can see themselves?
TheRuindragon 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lagurash God, you are so stupid if you cant even read my previous posts. The meat must be making you retarded.
TheRuindragon 8 months ago
@TheRuindragon "The only way..."
I showed you a vid that proves that's false. That shows you know of the case. It's not the only case, but it disproves your statement of "only way". Remember, just because things, like plant farming, are popularly done one way (like monoculture) doesn't mean that it's the right or best way to do it. Simpletons like you think it's only the current way or no way. So, that's a false dichotomy, another empty claim, then an ad hominem. Yep, sound arguments...
lagurash 8 months ago
@lagurash Number of people worldwide who will die as a result of malnutrition this year: 20 million
Number of people who could be adequately fed using land freed if Americans reduced their intake of meat by 10%: 100 million Percentage of corn grown in the U.S. eaten by people: 20Percentage of corn grown in the U.S. eaten by livestock: 80 Percentage of oats grown in the U.S. eaten by livestock: 95 Percentage of protein wasted by cycling grain through livestock: 90
TheRuindragon 8 months ago
@lagurash How frequently a child dies as a result of malnutrition: every 2.3 seconds
Pounds of potatoes that can be grown on an acre: 40,000
Pounds of beef produced on an acre: 250
Percentage of U.S. farmland devoted to beef production: 56
Pounds of grain and soybeans needed to produce a pound of edible flesh from feedlot beef: 16
TheRuindragon 8 months ago
@lagurash Source for the ACTUAL FACTS : Source = "Diet For A New America" by John Robbins
TheRuindragon 8 months ago
@TheRuindragon Ah, a book that blames those who eat a product for the actions of those who produced it. While demand has some responsibility for supporting those who acquired or manufactured a product by unethical means, that does not necessarily mean that people who eat meat are abusing animals. That's a non sequitur, and thus is irrational. As I've said before, currently common methods are deplorable, but that doesn't mean everyone is bad for eating meat. Monoculture for herbivores harms, too.
lagurash 8 months ago
@lagurash No, its a book that proves that eating meat is not essential for the human body. It's actually harmful. And have you read any of my previous comments? If you eat meat you kill people. And yourself. Well maybe if people stopped eating meat so much the supplier would realize that they need to cut supply and after the supply becomes so low the ethical treatment will follow. So yes, it is your fault. You are the most ignorant person I have ever met. You don't have a response to my posts.
TheRuindragon 8 months ago
@TheRuindragon Cont. You don't have a response to my posts because you know I'm right. Directing the conversation towards another issue if a sign of ignorance and weakness. Face it, I'm right. And you will probably post a "non sequitur" comment that is "non sequitur" to my previous posts. You sure love those two words huh? Oh well, even if I don't get through to you which is highly probably because of your extreme ignorance, I guess my lifespan will be my victory.
TheRuindragon 8 months ago
@TheRuindragon "You don't have a response..."
argumentum ex silentio...
"Directing the conversation..."
That's an outright lie and an attempt at poisoning the well. What's the other issue that I'm trying to redirect the conversation?
"Face it, I'm right."
Hardly...
"And you will..."
You sure love committing that logical fallacy. Your arguments are fallacious, which is why I keep making note of your fallacies. Your case cannot be considered true if it doesn't logically hold up to scrutiny.
lagurash 8 months ago
@lagurash Teeth structure, personal farms etc. My "fallacies" aren't real fallacies. You honestly think that anyone in the world is going to have perfect arguments? My case can be true even if the way I display it doesn't appeal to you.
TheRuindragon 8 months ago
@TheRuindragon "extreme ignorance"
Ad hominem...
"No, its a book..."
I doubt that, since our body requires meat, and since our body has various functions specifically for eating meat.
"And have you read..."
I missed some of them due to multiple replies and because of YT's notification system only informing of one response.
"If you eat meat you kill people."
That's an illogical, and unsupported, claim.
"Well maybe..."
There are suppliers changing with current demand, so this is unsupported, too.
lagurash 8 months ago
@lagurash Again, nothing in the meat world can't be found in the vegetarian world. So your argument is false. You made a fallacy. HAHA! Lets make fun of eachothers' arguments! Well now that you are aware of precious comments I suggest you go read them. It IS logical because its true. I'm sure somebody has come up with a number on how many people you actually kill with a omnivore diet. I don't feel like looking for one, I'm just proving you are wrong. Supply is always changing. Destruction doesnt
TheRuindragon 8 months ago
@TheRuindragon "...nothing in the meat world..."
Straw man, as I didn't make such an argument.
"You made a fallacy."
Hardly...
"It IS logical because its true."
Circular reasoning. You're assuming it's true to attempt to rationalize that it's logical, which is to be used to prove that it's true.
"I'm sure somebody..."
So?
"I don't feel like looking for one, I'm just proving you are wrong."
Shifting burden of proof (fallacy). How are you going to prove without evidence? With logic? Doubtful...
lagurash 8 months ago
@lagurash You didn't have to make an argument about it. I'm just showing you that you can get the same amount of nutrients from a vegetarian diet as omnivore. I'm simply showing you that eating meat is very wasteful and harmful, and the only reason you do it is because meat tastes good. But really, its disgusting... the smell of cooked ham is similar to a rotting human corpse. If you put that into perspective you might start drooling if somebody was burnt alive. "What smells like bacon?!"
TheRuindragon 8 months ago
@TheRuindragon "But really, its disgusting..."
Disgusting to you, not to everyone else, and to assume that your views should be pushed onto others is just as controlling, abusive, and disrespectful as you view the meat industry is to the meat.
"he smell of cooked ham"
Have you smelled a rotting human corpse? If you had, you wouldn't make a false statement like this...
"If you put"
You finished off this post with a "slippery slope" combined with an "appeal to ridicule"...quoted for easy searching
lagurash 8 months ago
@lagurash Okay, well how then how come I can't eat meat now even if I tried? I get sick. It's a natural rejection to a foreign food. And yes they did studies in korea they showed that humans indeed taste like pork.
TheRuindragon 7 months ago
@TheRuindragon "...I can't eat..."
Possibly it's operant conditioning. What does this matter? So, because you get an upset stomach when you eat a particular type of food, the human body isn't meant to process it? That's quite a hasty generalization.
"...taste like pork."
So? Red herring...
"wasn't an assumption"
It was a question that had an assumption at the root of it...so, "Omfg... dude you are an idiot"...which is an ad hominem as well. Terribly fallacious arguments for your no-meat case.
lagurash 7 months ago
@lagurash No. Iv'e talked to many vegans and vegetarians they have eating things that have come into contact with meat (Such as freshly removed pepperoni from a pizza). They all reporting becoming violently ill. Go try human flesh... see what you think. You seem to be okay with other meats... why not try human? See what happens then. You'll probably get locked up as a psychopath and everyone will think your a zombie. And i said omfg dude your an idiot because you are...
TheRuindragon 7 months ago
@TheRuindragon "Iv'e talked to many vegans"
Do you know what operant conditioning is? Not to mention that getting used to new foods is exceptionally common, and if you refrain from eating certain foods, or just don't have them available for long enough, it may cause discomfort to consume them. That doesn't mean that you are no longer able to process meat, or that eating meat is wrong.
"violently ill"
Diarrhea/vomiting is a common response to unaccustomed food. Brother reacts same to Chinese...
lagurash 7 months ago
@lagurash I'm trying to show that you are unnecessarily doing damage to the world around you and yourself when there are preventable and satisfying alternatives to your diet. What is so wrong with that?
TheRuindragon 8 months ago
@TheRuindragon "I'm trying to show that you are unnecessarily doing damage to the world around you and yourself when there are preventable and satisfying alternatives to your diet. What is so wrong with that?"
Eating meat isn't unnecessary, and there are some people who have certain deficiencies (including but not limited to iron and zinc) which require a decent amount of meat intake.
There's nothing wrong with eating as you please, but infringing rights by forcing others to do the same is.
lagurash 8 months ago
@lagurash Buddy. There is NOTHING in the meat world that can't be found in the vegetarian world. There are other ways to get those nutrients. 2 tablespoons of pumpkin seeds = 8.6mg of iron. Firm tofu 3 ounces = 8.5mg of iron. Sufficient amount of iron needed per day = 15-30 (Depends if you are deficient). And plus... the requirement are much lower when switching to a vegan diet because the intake changes.
TheRuindragon 7 months ago
@TheRuindragon "There is NOTHING"
So, because there are alternative options, it's wrong to go with this option? There are alternatives to heterosexual intercourse, does that mean that heterosexual intercourse is wrong? Obviously, no...
"eating meat isn't necessary at all"
Eating (consumption by mastication) isn't necessary at all, given the fact of feeding tubes that put nutrient filled solutions into you....and saline to keep you hydrated. Does that mean that eating anything is wrong? ...
lagurash 7 months ago
@lagurash So really, eating meat isn't necessary at all. Plus people are only in need of higher iron when they are anemic and they usually are given supplements for... so it isn't the norm. Really how can you say that? There is everything wrong with eating as you please. People before civilization ate meat for survival. But now we are in no need for it. If you think you still need meat then go ahead, get naked, run out into the forest, and sniff everyones butts.
TheRuindragon 7 months ago
@TheRuindragon "so it isn't the norm"
So? It was a risk assessment, one in which has higher occurrence in athletes. The idea of presenting it was to present the other side to your "eating meat is wrong" concept.
"There is everything wrong with eating as you please."
If you mean over indulgence, or eating based on whims and not exercising, or eating based on miseducation or bad habits, then I absolutely agree. However, if using one's brain, getting educated, and taking care of themselves, then no
lagurash 7 months ago
@lagurash Plus... what about cannibalism? Are you saying that it's okay to go out and kill people to eat their flesh because it tastes good? You never see people doing that... because its unnecessary and you would get arrested before it because its wrong. So how is it okay to do it to animals? They are sentient too. Humans aren't much different from animals. We all want food, sex, recreation. We all have ears, eyes, a nose, a brain, blood, arms, legs...
TheRuindragon 7 months ago
@TheRuindragon "Are you saying that it's okay to go out and kill people to eat their flesh because it tastes good?"
Straw man. It was never my argument that people should eat meat because it tastes good. Stop assuming that I'm saying these random things simply because I don't buy the claims you're selling.
"So how is it okay"
0.o Making the same sentience claim with no evidence to back that up (and no, that video doesn't prove they're sentient...). We aren't too different, but are enough.
lagurash 7 months ago
@lagurash Then why do you eat meat. Because otherwise people don't need it. You can get all the nutrients from meat from plants. Does it give you special super powers? No, it just lowers your life span. And I already asked... what about babies? They aren't as smart as us... so its okay to eat them! That's your whole argument in a sentence.
TheRuindragon 7 months ago
@TheRuindragon "Then why do you eat meat."
The meat I do it is for taste and benefit. I usually only ever eat pork or beef if I have protein cravings, and that's not often. Like I've said before, I usually just eat chicken (and they've failed to show that they come anywhere close to sentient by scientific standards). Regardless, I do not make a moral value claim on it, you are. You're saying that it's necessarily wrong to eat meat, but provide fallacious arguments and no scientific evidence.
lagurash 7 months ago
@lagurash Benefit? How can you benefit yourself or the world around you with dumping unhealthy substances into your body and ruining the environment. And see you just proves it was because of taste. How can you prove that eating meat isn't moral? When damaging yourself and the environment is it really a good moral?
TheRuindragon 7 months ago
@TheRuindragon "unhealthy substances"
So, now you've determined that meat is unhealthy? Another baseless assumption with absolutely no evidence to support it...
"ruining the environment"
The thing that's ruining the environment is the fossil fuels used, not the meat processing itself. Powered by hydroelectric dams and such ruin wouldn't be an issue.
"When damaging"
Again, baseless claims. Do you bother looking up information, or just making broad assertions without much evidence or logic?
lagurash 7 months ago
@lagurash Cholesterol Vs. Nutrient rich plants. You need plants. You don't need meat. The thing is is htat it will never change. As long as there is a demand companies are not going to waste their time finding alternative resources. Again... Cholesterol.
TheRuindragon 7 months ago
@lagurash They'll cry if you hurt them they'll get excited when you play with them... The only thing different between humans animals that is really remarkable is intelligence... is intelligence the shield from consumption? What about disabled people or babies? Should we eat them too because we think their not intelligent enough so they wont care?
TheRuindragon 7 months ago
@TheRuindragon "They'll cry if you hurt them they'll get excited when you play with them"
Again, this doesn't even come close to proving sentience. Bacteria move away from things that harm them, too, are they sentient?
"remarkable is intelligence"
This statement of yours requires me to ask what you mean by sentience because, for many, intelligence is a prerequisite....
"intelligence the shield"
A lion would eat us, so no, not a shield.
"What about..."
Why do you go to cannibalism? Slippery slope
lagurash 7 months ago
@lagurash Bacteria don't comfort you when you are sad. Sentience is intelligence... so is awareness. I'm interested. Does bacteria really move away from things? But that brings up a good point. Plants don't move away when they are hurt. So I am againt killing bacteria unless necessary (same with living in the wild) I dont even kill insects. (voluntarily of course, you can't avoid stepping on an ant once in a while) My point is its better to follow the most moral path. Which is ending slaughter.
TheRuindragon 7 months ago
@TheRuindragon "Bacteria don't comfort you when you are sad."
Plants, chickens, horses, cows, even most other people don't comfort me when I'm sad, what's your point? This sounds an awful lot like the argument from emotions fallacy...
"Does bacteria really move away from things?"
Sarcasm: No, survival doesn't entail avoiding danger or harm...
"Plants don't move"
Some fly traps do. 0.o
"I dont even kill insect"
Which definitely aren't sentient, by our tests, and are also high in various nutirents
lagurash 7 months ago
@lagurash My cats purr when im upset. That's the only experience I can show. And don't call me a hypocrite for having cats because I give them vegetarian cat food which actually will extent their lifespans. You got me on that one, fly traps do indeed move. But does that prove they are self aware? I don't believe in killing any living thing. I think that this is the most moral lifestyle this way and we all should strive to live a more moral life.
TheRuindragon 7 months ago
@TheRuindragon "upset"
Appeal to emotion. The truth of claims are not determined by how fuzzy they may or may not make us feel. Teddy bears make tons of people feel better, but that doesn't mean real bears are something to walk up and hug, or even that everyone should necessarily have a teddy bear. 0.o
"hypocrite for having cats"
I wouldn't have called you a hypocrite, but you should know that cats are more carnivorous than we are (ya know, since they're carnivores...). 0.o
"I don't believe"
So?
lagurash 7 months ago
@TheRuindragon "My point is its better to follow the most moral path. Which is ending slaughter."
What do you mean by slaughter? Just the killing definition? Gotta kill something to eat...and you chose plants. Or do you mean butchering livestock? By butchering do you mean dress for the market? Plants are dressed for market. Or do you mean "barbarous" killing? In which case, the killing modern killing methods are much more humane and civilized than classic methods, despite the bloody result.
lagurash 7 months ago
@lagurash Ending slaughter... slaughter I mean by torturing the lives of animals and ending their lives way before it's their natural time. Plants dont feel discomfort when they are put near eachother and they don't feel pain/torture. The point is animals are self aware. Plants aren't.
TheRuindragon 7 months ago
@TheRuindragon "natural time"
You mean if they lived out in the wild without human interference? ...where predators and diseases cull herds? ...simply idiotic...and another appeal to nature.
"Plants don't"
How do you know? You assume that a brain much like animal brains are required for discomfort. If a venus fly trap flinches away from being pricked, does it not feel discomfort? It may not realize that's the case, but it's still discomfort.
"animals are self aware"
Evidence? Again, none...
lagurash 7 months ago
@TheRuindragon "So yes, it is your fault."
0.o More insults...
"most ignorant person"
Again, why do you feel you need ad hominems if your argument is supposedly so valid? ...
"You don't..."
Lack of response does not denote lack of ability to respond.
"Now if you really..."
Eating meat doesn't kill starving children, nor significantly reduce one's lifespan. Over indulgence in meat can reduce lifespan, but eating meat at all doesn't. I guess you wouldn't like any studies that supports meat, though
lagurash 8 months ago
@lagurash Then please respond, give an argument, I'm interesting in what you have to say. Yes it does, can't you read? These facts ARE true. So yes, you really are killing starving children. You need to break yourself away from your bubble of ignorance. The extreme amounts of cholesterol from a "normal" meat diet significantly reduced the lifespan. Starting vegetarianism at age 20, people live on average an extra 5-7 years. And please, tell.
TheRuindragon 8 months ago
@TheRuindragon "Yes it does, can't you read?"
You are asserting that they are facts, with no citations.
"So yes, you really are killing starving children."
Another assertion. You make assertions as premises to prove a conclusion, without any evidence at any point. To paraphrase Hitchens, anything asserted without evidence can be equally dismissed without evidence.
"You need to..."
Another ad hominem.
"The extreme..."
Extreme and normal? As defined by?
"Starting vegetarianism..."
Actual studies?
lagurash 8 months ago
@lagurash I may be assertive but you can't deny that its staring you in the face. You can't deny that because of the extreme waste from animal farming it could be used to feed starving children. So give up steak, and take pride knowing that you could have prevented the death of a starving child... or whistle and sweep it under the mat. It's not going away. I'm not saying that it IS happening... I'm saying that its HIGHLY LIKELY that it's happening.
TheRuindragon 8 months ago
@TheRuindragon "You can't deny"
Who said that I'm denying any fact that's "staring me in the face"?
"So give up steak..."
Quite a bit of an assumption there, as I don't often eat steak (maybe once or twice a year, assuming that I even go to a steak house...). How is not eating a steak preventing the death of a starving child? Another non sequitur, and unwarrantably prideful.
"or whistle and sweep it under the mat."
Nice creating a false dichotomy there...
"HIGHLY LIKELY"
Based on what?
lagurash 8 months ago
@lagurash By the way, the consequences of a vegetarian diet vs a omnivore diet is MUCH less destructive. We wouldn't NEED to be clearing out the rain forest if there wasn't a demand for meat. The land that was wastefully used for meat can be use to produce MUCH more food (vegetarian) than the meat raising land did. That would end hunger in the ENTIRE WORLD and we would save the rainforest. You are ignorant to the destruction your diet is causing.
TheRuindragon 8 months ago
@TheRuindragon "...consequences of a vegetarian diet..."
argumentum ad consequentiam, and monoculture (and the land cleared for it) is having just as much of a destructive impact on the environment and our future food security. Are you assuming that the rain forests and land clearing is only for raising meat? That'd be absurd, considering the demands for produce.
As for land usage, both could be accomplished without the current destructive methods, but that still doesn't make eating meat wrong.
lagurash 8 months ago
@lagurash Hey guess what, the reason most of the land that will grow plants will be FED to the livestock. So yes, they are being cleared for meat. So yes, it does make eating meat wrong.
TheRuindragon 8 months ago
@TheRuindragon "So yes, it does make eating meat wrong."
Another assertion. In order to avoid produce's contribution, you are asserting that essentially the majority of produce is made for feeding to-be-slaughtered animals. Any evidence of that?
"My "fallacies" aren't..."
They are if they fit the definition of fallacies, which I've explained that they do and how, so yes, they are fallacies.
"You honestly..."
P1: All dogs are mammals. P2: I have a dog. Conc: My dog is a mammal.
Perfect argument.
lagurash 8 months ago
@lagurash Yep. If you read my older posts you would know the wasteful amounts of produce being used for meat. And if my arguments are such fallacies please be specific on how they are so invalid. I am basing my arguments on the evidence supplied to me by the source... which ARE true, so how are my arguments false? Now I want your opinion. If you are willingly slaughtering animals inhumanely, polluting horrendously, promoting hunger, and shortening your lifespan... is taste really worth it?
TheRuindragon 8 months ago
@TheRuindragon Aye, I know that you say that there are a bunch of wastefulness going on, but that doesn't necessarily mean that we should eat non-meat either (just another non sequitur...).
"please be specific"
So, I have to tell you what the definitions of the fallacies are, too? Fine... Non sequitur means "does not follow" and a case of it is when someone makes a conclusion that doesn't follow from the premises...
"I am basing"
You've used unconfirmed data to make fallacious conclusions...
lagurash 8 months ago
@lagurash It's true that there are other ways to cut down on waste, but meat is a big one. So if you REALLY do need your meat... I'd suggest cutting down and eating more organic foods. It's more healthy, moderation is good.
Yep. I used non sequiturs. Sometimes you need to to make a point.
TheRuindragon 7 months ago
@TheRuindragon "It's true"
So, because eating meat is a relatively wasteful process, it's wrong? Compared to photosynthesis, consumption of plants are relatively wasteful. So, by your logic, maybe we should stop eating anything?
"it was to prove..."
You also can have a diet of protein shakes, raw eggs, and vitamins and be an athlete. It's an irrelevant, fallacious argument known as a red herring.
lagurash 7 months ago
@TheRuindragon "Now I want your opinion. If you are willingly..."
Straw man (misrepresenting an opponent's position then knocking down the misrepresentation without actually refuting their argument), and it assumes unproven presuppositions.
"I'm simply showing"
No, you're asserting that. You're also assuming that the current state of meat processing is the only possible state, which is why you think eating any meat is wrong. This non sequitur assumes an "is-ought problem" (at least wiki it...)
lagurash 8 months ago 2
@lagurash It wasn't an assumption. It was a question... Omfg... dude you are an idiot. Yes I am aware that some people but very few give a little tiny shit about their animals but still it's not much of a difference. The demand is way too high and the money is flowing in way too fast for companies to change their ways.
TheRuindragon 7 months ago
@TheRuindragon "I am aware"
Are you also aware that one occurrence that contradicts an "always" claim (that is to say a claim that states something must always be the case, or must necessarily be so) invalidates said "always" claim?
"The demand is..."
So? Again, you assume that the current conditions are the only conditions for mass meat eating, which is an is-ought fallacy, then you make an argument from consequences fallacy to claim that eating meat is wrong. Terribly fallacious once again...
lagurash 7 months ago
@lagurash I never said its the ONLY conditions. I told you that there are other practices which very few people follow because they can make more money mass producing.
TheRuindragon 7 months ago
@TheRuindragon "I never said its the ONLY conditions"
You implied that the common practice is the only way that mass meat eating would be viable, and I even think one of your earlier posts agreed with this summary of your position (since I can't recall which one, I won't hold this part against you).
"make more money"
So? Their preferred method being wrong means their method is wrong, not that eating meat is wrong because their method is wrong. Non sequitur...again...
lagurash 7 months ago
@lagurash Please provide some links to said well-conditioned farms. Prove that animals can be mass produced without torture or discomfort. Again. Yes, just because a method of producing is wrong doesn't mean the product is wrong. I want to see these said farms.
TheRuindragon 7 months ago
@TheRuindragon "Please provide some links to said well-conditioned farms."
You mean the link to the YT video of that farmer who migrated his livestock? ...trying to just ditch the evidence I've given thus far? It doesn't torture them, nor give discomfort, and every livestock farmer can do it, it just hasn't been popularized. It's possible, and profitable, just not popular. You insinuating that the fact that it's not popular mean that it's less credible? That'd be an argument from numbers...
lagurash 7 months ago
@lagurash Anything. And I don't remember any link... Post again please :3. How are you sure that the animals are comfortable? Are they in large pastures eating grass out of the ground? Or fenced in side to side standing in mud and their own waste and forced to eat corn and wheat which is unnatural because its cheaper...
TheRuindragon 7 months ago
@TheRuindragon "And I don't remember any link"
...that's it, I'm done. You're a fallacious troll with no concept of rationality or proof. It's all based on how you feel, when it comes down to it, and that's not sufficient, or logical, enough to make truth statements. You've found all these things to make you feel more moral, but it's apparent that you haven't researched the validity of such claims, or the lack of research and evidence supporting them. You believe in God and homeopathy, too? 0.o
lagurash 7 months ago
@lagurash You have to admit the evidence is against you. As for god and homeopathy, nope.
TheRuindragon 7 months ago
@TheRuindragon What evidence? My entire point this entire time is that there isn't evidence presented to support these claims. I don't believe your crap because you have not given any evidence, let alone sufficient evidence, for such claims. On top of this, you've done absolutely nothing but make baseless assertions and fallacious arguments.
Just remember that assuming you're right because I'll no longer respond after this post would be the argument from silence fallacy, but logic surpasses you.
lagurash 7 months ago
@lagurash I was going to suggest posting in messages. It's getting annoying to comment on this video. As for fallacies and evidence... I can say that there is a pimple on your face. But you will tell me that I didnt provide enough evidence to show that there is a pimple on your face. You require such miniscule points that dont even really matter for you to agree with me. I need to show you a mirror then take you to the doctor just to prove that there is a pimple on your face...
TheRuindragon 7 months ago
@lagurash One last thing... If you really need the evidence then go watch the documentary earthlings. wwwdotearthlingsdotcom they give lots of evidence.
TheRuindragon 7 months ago
@lagurash I feel sorry for you actually. I'm trying to improve your life for the better and extend your lifespan and all your doing is pushing me away. Meat is the drug, I am the intervention. The drug might seem like you need it, but once you realize what it has done to you and the world around you, you will think otherwise.
TheRuindragon 7 months ago
@TheRuindragon I love you. Like all living things. :)
TheRuindragon 7 months ago
@lagurash I don't believe in something so unstable as god. As for veganism, its healthy and beneficial. The world will never find peace until we stop this was between species.
TheRuindragon 7 months ago
@lagurash I also have to admit that you made a more stable argument than other omnivores. "god put animals on this earth for us to eat" Oooh then it MUST be right. ahah
TheRuindragon 7 months ago
@lagurash I quoted normal because what is accepted to be normal by the majority really isn't a normal level for what your body needs.
TheRuindragon 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheRuindragon "I quoted normal because what is accepted to be normal by the majority really isn't a normal level for what your body needs."
Normal levels for what one's body needs vary from person to person, so making claims of what the normal is happens to be based on some average statistic (assuming that you got it from a statistic) which aren't exactly accurate either. And yes, popular opinion on what's normal doesn't dictate what is normal, as such would be an appeal to numbers fallacy.
lagurash 8 months ago
I am not a vegan, but i find this to be a short but very good video response. Thank you for sharing your opinions in a very respectful and thoughtful way, unlike many others share their own.
therunningpianist42 10 months ago
regarding the pigs... worse things happen in indonesian prisons.
waltaburge 10 months ago
also are society does not do this to animals because they are just animals. It does it to feed the mouths of millions and millions of humans who live on the planet earth. Yes some of the ways we treat animals it outrageous and in some instances people should be punished...however some of these ways are to try and ensure that everyone has food and not everyone does. The way that they process meat now is the only way to prevent it from going up in price cause so much is needed.
chaos3nigma 11 months ago
ok...your argument for being a vegan is healthy is that yea vegans do have bad things happen to them but it CAN be healthy? Thats like saying yea cigarettes cause cancer but not all people who smoke get cancer. You can argue that being vegan does increase the chance that you will be an appropriate rate for your body size and that people who are healthy physically are less likely to develop illnesses such as diabetes or get heart attacks...but instead you go with the "duh some people are healthy!
chaos3nigma 11 months ago
I can tell you that they kill the animals in slaughter houses in a way that does not cause the animal pain. Like in some they use a pin that goes through the back of the animals head killing them instantly with no suffering. Therefore this is no longer cruelty because if it was they would simply beat the animal to death
anom2lol 1 year ago
This is a decent video but one thing that stuck out to me was your first point. Just because babies are not self aware they will become self aware at some stage in their life. This is not the same for some animals. So that one argument that you propose is flawed. Otherwise good video. I'm not a vegan but I hate factory farming and I actually only eat fish and chicken that is wild. I was vegetarian for a time but it didn't work out for me.
bugninja80 1 year ago
Personally I am all for ending animal cruelty, its disgusting. But I the I also really hate PETA they are a horrible organization, they spend so much money on campaigns and harassing people who eat meat and they murdered 97% of the animals they had in their care instead of trying to find them homes or actually caring for them. Instead of wasting money trying to get everyone to stop eating meat (which is impossible) they could actually save animal lives!
CRAYZIExDAYZIE 1 year ago
Great Video! Keep up the good work.
truthbeeeetold 1 year ago
I agree with you on the first one, all animals feel and think and should be treated with respect. But the example of the human baby is a far cry from the point. We don't go eat each other just because some of us happen to eat other animals. We preserve our own kind because we survive better in numbers, Nowadays it's a different story.
Wintercalypso 1 year ago
Human babies do pass self aware tests even in the whom even after 2 weeks of conception. That is why anti abortion activist have concerns about abortion.
TheMaximumoverload 1 year ago
i have to ask this question... Every animal thats made into human food - in this video, are living in small squared booths.
BUT! As the matter of fact, the industry, now more than every, is serving people animals, who have been out in the fields, for their whole lives. Not in a 2x1m booth.
Is that also in your eyes evil, or cruel?
you also never tell anything about home slaughtering, or animals who lives most theire lives outside.. is that evil and poluting too?
Just needed to know.
1MacCrack1 1 year ago
Many people rape, murder, practice slavery, sexism, kill people with different beliefs, and we're people, so shouldn't we get to do it too? I doubt that humans could prevent predation in the wild, but yes I'm sure that any animal you name could be raised vegan, though I wonder, what does that have to do with our diet or ethics? I addressed your point that we've been eating meat throughout our history in the post before yours.
axzsszxa 1 year ago
I think it is unethical to kill for food, of course it is better when the animal is allowed to spend it days('free-range' animals still spend nights in confinement) outside, whether they live in cages their whole lives or whether you go hunt them in the wild. Though I do wholeheartedly support hunting and free range meat for those who choose to eat meat, they are still an unethical practices.
axzsszxa 1 year ago
"In the U.S., only four companies produce most of the nation’s animal products, including 81 percent of cows, 73 percent of sheep, 57 percent of pigs and 50 percent of chickens." These corporate giants are all about efficiency and as is the case for many large businesses would often rather take a fine for illegal behavior than reduce profits.
axzsszxa 1 year ago
@1MacCrack1 Where are you getting your information, factory farming is on the rapid increase, and has been for decades, demand has shot up, and the control of the industry has been dramatically compartmentalized.
axzsszxa 1 year ago
@axzsszxa im getting my information from the danish health and food ministry.
and its a fact that we in europe is increasing the number of livestock living on free land rather than in booths
1MacCrack1 1 year ago
@1MacCrack1 I apologize, I made the mistake of assuming you were from the US and I am quite glad to hear that the situation is improving in Europe.
axzsszxa 1 year ago
@axzsszxa yea me too. I concern about animals, but i still enjoy eating them, as long as i know they have been given their right, to move freely, as much as they want outside.. Factory pigs, cows, chickens doesnt taste good, and THAT is animal cruelty. Outgoing animals, is as closest to the natural thing, as we get, maybe besides hunting.
1MacCrack1 1 year ago
gay
jparish62 1 year ago
Half of the nutrition that human beings need is in meat. So you're getting only half of what you need...unless you're popping pills everyday.
TheDeathOfChaos 1 year ago
@TheDeathOfChaos Cite a source.
axzsszxa 1 year ago
@axzsszxa How about this; Which seems more like what nature intended: eating meat that was given unto the earth, or popping pills made by human beings? I would say that eating meat sounds MUCH more natural of a way to get the proteins and nutrients you need rather than to pop pills. Lets see: Eat meat, or be addicted to pills?
TheDeathOfChaos 1 year ago
@TheDeathOfChaos Nature actually doesn't have intentions, it's just a word for what happens without human interference, and if you think you can call store-bought meat natural you clearly have no idea where it came from. Animals fed unnatural, unhealthy diets that cause ulcers, malnutrution and many other diseases, inconvenient appendages are cut off (beaks, tails horns,ect.), male cows are castrated by twisting and pulling of the scrotum. Chickens feet often grow around their wire cage's floor
axzsszxa 1 year ago
@axzsszxa because they are completely immobilized by overcrowding, 4 chickens to an area the size of a sheet of paper is common. If an animal has an infection or injury they are given antibiotics or killed. Animals are directed with 1000's of volts of electricity or with blunt instruments.Cancerous animals are ignored, not cured, euthanized, or removed from the meat. Hormones and genetic engineering are used to make them as big as possible, leading to many animals bones breaking under their own
axzsszxa 1 year ago
@axzsszxa weight, which is usually ignored beyond perhaps more antibiotics being administered. I can think of many adjectives that describe meat production but natural is certainly not one of them. No one gets protein from vitamins, the common things vegetarians/vegans ought to, depending on their diet and location, get from vitamins are b-12, iodine, d, and iron, which I can get in a single multivitamin. By your inaccurate use of the word addiction, both would be addictions.
axzsszxa 1 year ago
@axzsszxa Fine. I will go buy a gun, go into the woods, and shoot a fucking deer. Take pictures of me slaughtering it and send you them. Or I could go to the store and buy meat that's already been done for me. I've never went hunting, but I'll make it a first just for you.
TheDeathOfChaos 1 year ago
If you do hunt I certainly don't want pictures and do not condone it, but if you are going to don't use traps or buckshot and please try to make it's death as fast and painless as you can and if you do hunt it won't be for me, it will be because you value the taste of meat above the animals life.
axzsszxa 1 year ago
Can you really feel ethically sound doing that though, I'm sure if you've never shot before you won't be able to hit it in the head. You will have to watch it die, painfully, more frightened and confused than you have likely been in your whole life. Then you will have to slice open it' neck while it is still alive probably making a futile attempt at running away. Later you will have to separate it's organs from its muscles.
axzsszxa 1 year ago
Comment removed
axzsszxa 1 year ago
Comment removed
axzsszxa 1 year ago
Their suffering, and their experience in general, is no less important because they are not a member of our species. As abhorrent as I find the idea of stalking, shooting, and slicing open the neck of another, if you are going to eat meat then hunting seems to me to be the lesser of two evils. Though it's death may be more painful than that of a farm animal it's life will not be that of confinement, torture, mutilation, and abuse.
axzsszxa 1 year ago
@TheDeathOfChaos I want to make this very clear, I believe that killing another animal for food is completely unethical. Killing with the justification of flavor or the 'justification' that animals are not smart enough, which is entirely relative. If another animal, far more intelligent than humans, were to show up and begin eating us we would likely reapply such a principle. Not to mention that the same argument would apply to people with mental disabilities as well as to children.
axzsszxa 1 year ago
I left a main point, though to a degree it is implicit, which is that ethical considerations are not based on intelligence, familiarity, , but rather capacities for subjective experiences. The way I see it, put quite roughly, ethics are about minimizing the suffering and maximizing the happiness of conscious beings.
axzsszxa 1 year ago
@axzsszxa What is unehtical is killing anything for no purpose. Kicking a puppy just to laugh, or killing an elephant or deer just because it's 'sport' should be unethical. If there was an instance of worldwide epidemic and you met up with a wild animal, I doubt your theories and thoughts of ethics would become very useful to you, or even under the right circumstances.
TheDeathOfChaos 1 year ago
I can't honestly say for certain, it is quite possible that survival instinct would take over, but I don't believe I can justify it ethically and it has little relation to the situation you and I are in.
axzsszxa 1 year ago
My ethics aren't really all that useful now, that's not their purpose.
I believe the question at the root of what your saying is would I hunt
to save my life. If my survival depended on hunting repeatedly I would quite possibly kill myself to be morbidly honest, particularly if the world was falling to disease.
axzsszxa 1 year ago
@axzsszxa And the strong will keep surviving. The weak would drop like flies, you included, because you don't believe in keeping yourself alive is ethical enough to try if the circumstances arose to such a heightened significance.. I'll leave at that, lol.
TheDeathOfChaos 1 year ago
@TheDeathOfChaos You do essentially nothing without any purpose, to use your example, you may kick a puppy to satisfy a twisted sense of humor or hunt for a thrill or sense of conquering, the issue is whether the purpose justifies to actions. In the case of meat, does the pleasure justify the killing, let alone the mistreatment farm animals receive prior to death
axzsszxa 1 year ago
@axzsszxa You face a pack of wolves, and they glare at your wife and children, only you to protect them. People like you would let their family die, wouldn't they? You could get on one knee, after they've eaten into your family with their blood on their snares, looking at you. "It's not ethical!" you would scream, but only to but cut short by the puncture of a pack of wolve's sharp fangs digging into your flesh, and there so ends your life as well as your family because of 'ethics'.
TheDeathOfChaos 1 year ago
@TheDeathOfChaos No, for one I believe in self defense, I would do what I could to defend my family from wolves as well as from human attackers, though if I could reliably prevent the attack without resorting to harming them I would. I've never claimed that killing is always unjustifiable, but to kill to in extenuating circumstances is not the same as to kill for pleasure.
axzsszxa 1 year ago
@axzsszxa Or, ethics aside, you fight them off and because you have no weapons at hand, you have to kill them or they, themselves, would eat you and your family, so you do what you must do: you grab hold of their head, and snap their neck, your you grab a nearby rock and beat them until they stop moving. Your family is safe, but only at the cost of ending the life that threatened the lives of your wife and children.
TheDeathOfChaos 1 year ago
@axzsszxa To say that hunting animals to eat is unethical is denouncing every last thing that has brought civilization to where it stands to this day. Native Americans, when they had hunted, used every last bit of the animal and even praised nature for blessing them with the plentiful meat, hides, and bones they used to live, and the same to the rest of the civilizations of ancient times that brought us to where we are today. So go ahead and denounce them, you will be denouncing only yourself.
TheDeathOfChaos 1 year ago
The pyramids and the great wall are wondrous monuments, but that does not mean that the countless slaves that were worked to death making them were treated ethically. I am not my ancestors actions, heavily influenced by them though I may be, I can choose to act differently and feel and think differently than they did and that is precisely what constitutes any significant sense of self.
axzsszxa 1 year ago
Even in modern times many places are extremely sexist, racist, or divided by religion and the farther back you look generally the worse it was. You may think we have attained a good state through our civilizations actions, I would tend to disagree on many counts, but besides that it does not inherently say anything of the ethical nature of the actions that led to that state, bad actions can lead to good results and vice versa.
axzsszxa 1 year ago
Also, in the case of Native Americans it would have been much more difficult to maintain a vegetarian diet, not least because of how little they knew of nutrition and the modest scale and variety of the farming that did go on. Most civilizations practiced slavery up until a few hundred years ago.
axzsszxa 1 year ago
@TheDeathOfChaos The history of our society and civilization, as well as others, is filled with practices you and I would consider unethical. Native Americans doing something does not justify it. Many Native Americans were practicing cannibals that would attack other tribes and eat those they captured. The Aztec would capture people in wars and unprovoked raids and sacrifice them to the sun god, in a ceremony in which they removed the heart from the living person and ate it.
axzsszxa 1 year ago
@axzsszxa So if the choice was presented to you and I, you would most likely let your family and yourself be slaughtered because of a principle that ties you down, while I would be prolonging the life of my family, even if it meant that only I were to suffer injury or death in the process.
TheDeathOfChaos 1 year ago
@axzsszxa Though I hope you would get past your pathetic ideology and prolong the lives of your family at the cost of an animal's life rather than sacrifice your family as well as your own life for an idea that the attackers wouldn't even understand in the slightest bit, anyway. So, used side by side with my metaphorical situation, which is ethical? Choose saving your family, and vegitarians/vegans will call you a fake. Choose saving the animal, and you're a coward. Which would you sacrifice?
TheDeathOfChaos 1 year ago
Good video!!!!! Thanks!!!
Go vegan!!!
Visit: RespuestasVeganas . Org
respuestasveganas 1 year ago
Comment removed
jackhincham 2 years ago
So you put the poor mice outside and they will not come inside again?Mice has nothing to do with hygiene but with food.Humans stock food and that is a magnet for mice.A couple of mice have between 4/8 young 4/6 times a year.A typical field holds 100 mice/ha causing around 5 to12% destruction and you put them outside?They eat your food to.
What about rats?Put them outside?What about the euthanasation of cats and dogs in PETA shelters,is that ethical?OR is it because they do it?
celt130 2 years ago
I checked out your story ans as always with your people,lies.PETA have never done any campaign regarding wild rats and mice.They did campaign about laboratory rats and mice.They only true objective with this is hitting the laboratories who use animal experimentation and nothing else.You people are hypocrites and this is once again the proof.You only use "popular" animals not the other ones to make money and get sympathy .Draw your conclusions.