@loveandpeaceFTW: No that is like like saying why are you claiming to save concentration camp inmates when you simply don't own a concentration camp. -_- Freeing the camp inmates and making sure something that that didn't happen again is helping, saying I don't dill animals (on purpose) and thus save them is like saying I save murder victims.
you have no understanding of economics. to say boycotting is futile, is absurd. veganism is boycotting an unethical industry. if more people became vegan, we could end factory farming. Rather than oppose vegans, look in the mirror.
@SuperAnimalDrummer: Actually I said that you don't save animals because even if only one person was eating animals, animals would still be born and killed and you can't save a life when no life existed. You also can't save a life when it is killed. Saying vegs help animals is like saying you save murder victims.
Supporting the ethical and humane farms is what I say to do. It harms the bad ones, helps the good ones, and gives incentive to change.
@BLHProductions dude.. that is like saying lets not kill hitler because.. ya know, people are gonna die anyway.. lets just make sure they dont suffer to much when he kills them in the millions.
you said in 1 of your videos being vegetarian doesnt save animals. you were half right. if you eat an animal it doesnt kill the animal, obviously it was already dead. but now another animal must be slaughtered to replace it on the shelf. youre fat and smelly lookin so you cant be pushing dietary advice on a nutritional level.. whats your deal ugleh? i doubt these ads even made 10$ total.. u bored? not good at anything but talkin about eating meat? youre fat lmao
@7Trisanaty7: I never said that eating animals save animals. Yes, if you eat animals you will kill them, but if you don't eat animals you do not save them. In the long run a few less are born, but you can't save animal lives that don't exist. That would be like me saying if I don't have kids, I'll save an infinite number of animals.
OK, I'm fat and? It has no basis on intelligence. In fact, I likely know more since I would not be pulled toward a diet because it's a fad or "moral."
@BLHProductions wow. you're arguments are really absurd. the vegan movement is all based on economics. supply and demand. there is no arguing that lessening demand, will lessen supply. this is a fact as much as gravity. you're entire point is based on a lack of understanding of basic economics. Study up pal. Supply and demand. economies of scale.
@SuperAnimalDrummer: I thought it was based on saving animals, which can't be done when you don't actually save animals.
Yes, supply and demand does have a bearing on it. But unless you change the system, you'll just have 1 million animals dying in a factory farm instead of 300 million.
The overall goal is to help animals. The best way, to me, that you can help is to eat humanely raised and slaughter meat. Helps the good, harms the bad, and gives incentive for change.
@SuperAnimalDrummer: The moment that you say you are never going to eat meat (even humanly raise and slaughtered meat) is the moment when you do not matter, at least from a business perspective. After all, if you sell video games, would you listen to people who hate video games and will never buy them or the people who buy video games, but only if the quality is good?
From an economics standpoint, what I say is better and can attract more supporters than "no meat forever."
@BLHproductions im not stupid for one mistake you were being ignorant while trying to continue an argument you eat dead animals i dont im leaving it at that if you continue arguing it shows how you have no life going out of your way to prove people wrong...
@crimses: Actually I was responding to what you were saying. I accepted that you were saying sorry, but I was saying that your terminology wasn't really correct.
See, you come off as condescending when you are saying "I'm sorry, I'm just trying to prevent the horrible things you do."
Yes, I eat dead animals. And?
You keep coming back to my channel, I'm just responding to you.
ok im sorry for previous hateful comments but...i think the whole point for vegs is that they don't want to FUND the murder...so we don't, we are all entitled to our opinions and facts sooo...yeah
@crimses: Murder isn't really a correct term since it implies malicious aforethought. I don't kill animals because I hate them and want them dead or for the sake of killing them.
Facts are facts. The facts are that saying you help animals by not eating them is like you don't pay people to murder other people so you help murder victims. If you really want to help animals, then actually help animals.
If you just don't want to eat meat, then don't eat meat, but don't cross the two.
@BLHProductions well it is murder if you kill something against it's will...either way as you can tell im trying to prevent arguments so we are entitled to our own opinions ok? there end of story, your a human whom makes their own descisions as am i. And i respect that good day and better tomorow.
@crimses: It is murder to kill someone because it is against the law. Killing a person in cold blood, that is, killing maliciously with aforethought, is murder. If you kill accidentally or indirectly, it is manslaughter and not considered murder. If you wish to apply what you said legally, it isn't murder to kill animals since it isn't against the law. If you want to apply it more broadly, then animals killing animals is also murder, since the other animals don't want to die.
Animals that are consumed for food by humans (chickens, cows, pigs, etc) would not exist without humans. Make your choice, you useless stupid fucks: extinction for those species of animals, or their continued existence because humans use them for food.
@Xiphos0292: A good number of species wouldn't exist without us. But don't be insulting. Ass soon as you're insulting people won't listen to you.
Though those species were OK before we domesticated them, the domestication process just made them less likely to survive without us. Kind of like what would happen if you dropped an average American in Africa.
@DetractMedia: Perhaps a better analogy for you then? I don't murder people. Taking the logic that many vegs use, by me not murdering people, I have thus saved a murder victim. Of course I haven't. I just simply haven't added to the murder victim rate. I would then have to go on, and say I am a better person because I help murdered people, because I don't murder them. However, I have done nothing, but give myself an ego trip.
@BLHProductions but murdering someone is not a business, its an act of violence. Converting Animals into Animal products is a business and so there is supply and demand. If you reduce the demand, you reduce the supply. If you reduce the supply, eventually the business is no longer viable.
@DetractMedia: You're deflecting. The main idea still applies. If you have that much of a problem with it, then simply apply it with hunting, which isn't a business if you use it for food.
Look at the current veg population. It is not very large yet have their own niche products. So even if the tables were reversed, assuming meat wasn't outlawed, people eating meat would still have meat, or could hunt, which is always viable.
Even with reduced supply, you don't save animal lives.
@BLHProductions If the majority of people didn't agree to eating Animal products, hunting would most likely become illegal with Animals having rights applied to them. Look at anything throughout history, as soon as the majority find a subject, such as slavery, an immoral and unnecessary violence towards an exploited group; It was deemed no longer lawful to do so and so Human rights for these people were applied.
@AHEP1978: Actually that isn't true. Many people are OK with it, although many people don't think about it.
If one hunts or raises animals, one is less likely to become a veg, though it is possible.
The problem with this, is that although we have made changes that forbid things, like slavery, we also have accepted things, like scientific theories.
Saying that eating animals will become illegal is like saying incest and bestiality will become legal because homosexuality is legal.
@BLHProductions 'Even with reduced supply, you don't save animal lives.' You maybe will not save the lives of the individuals already in the system but you reduce the amount of individuals going through the system. If you were to replace non-human animals with humans, I think most 'decent' people would fight to reduce and end that system.
@AHEP1978: You cannot save theoretical lives. -_- That would be like me saying that I can eat all the animals I want because I won't have kids so I will not have countless generations that will eat animals in the long run so I've saved more than a veg who has or will have kids. -_-
Yes very likely, but in replacing animals with humans you completely change the situation. I'm sorry, but an animals is different from a human and humans consciously and subconsciously react differently.
@BLHProductions but people who advocate against Animal exploitation believe that Animals should be given rights to protect them from unnecessary harm regardless of their level of awareness or consciousness.
Just as we wouldn't exploit a mentally retarded person and use them e.g for experiments, we shouldnt use Animals.
@AHEP1978: People who advocate against homosexuality believe that homosexuality is a sin. People who advocate for separation of races believe that racial mingling harms the races, usually there own more. But belief in something doesn't make it right or true.
The animal rights movement would be fine in my book if they wanted to protect animals from needless harm, but needless harm for them tends to include eating animals and everything except that they don't have a problem doing.
@AHEP1978: Which is why people who say they are better than you for whatever reason are usually ignored because they are being supremacists. This applies to homophobes, racists, vegetarians, vegans, omnivores, theists, and atheists.
The only thing worse than someone who "knows they are right" is someone who changed what they believe because they tend to be several times more preachy and set in their mind because they think they are better than other people because they changed.
@AHEP1978: No, I have said in other videos and in other comments that I what I say is my belief. I don't know that it is OK to eat animals, but I believe it is OK. Now health is more concrete, but for the most part, diets are all equal to one another, although the rank from healthiest to least healthiest (although the difference isn't that much) is: Pescetarian, some omnivores and vegetarians, and finally the rest of the omnivores and vegans.
@AHEP1978: The problem with this is that animals are not humans. This isn't a specialist statement though. We have more responsibility and familiarity with humans. That is usually why we care about them over animals in general. However, I would rather save a dog from a burning building than a human who has murdered other humans. They no longer are my responsibility.
We also don't spay and neuter the mentally retarded, but even PETA supports that for animals.
@BLHProductions I dont agree with a lot of what PETA says & does. I take an Abolitionist stance which aims for Animals to be left alone and to be given rights that mean they cannot be exploited for our own entertainment, this includes pets.
So you would save the Dog but you would eat the Pig? This is logically incoherent but because you are led to believe that Dogs are more intelligent than Pigs (which isnt true btw), you eat them without a 2nd thought.
@AHEP1978: Uh huh. So my dog who we tried to get to move on, she randomly showed up one day, and on the 3rd attempt to leave here somewhere away from our house actually made it home before my step dad means she is being exploited?
And exploitation might work for entertainment like a circus, but it won't for zoos, preserves or even eating animals. I don't think you can eat something and exploit it.
@BLHProductions Animals have never given consent to be 'used' by humans. Therefore it is exploitation. If you have to fence Animals in; it is exploitation. If you have to keep pets in cages it is exploitation. If you have to build a slaughterhouse with channels with high walls and use poles, boards and stunning devices to get that Animal to surrender; its exploitation. The whole thing is Man over beast and it is all exploitation.
@AHEP1978: And? That honestly doesn't matter. A zebra doesn't give consent to be eaten by a shark. A plant doesn't give consent to be eaten by humans. Most organisms would, if they could communicate this, prefer not to be eaten.
That is a completely backwards way of thinking about things. You can't always impose human logic on reality.
No, it's to protect them and keep them from wondering around. Cows got out of our neighbors field and simply came into our yard.
@AHEP1978: Your idea would mean that all life exploits all life. So if "exploitation" is that common, it wouldn't matter. Of course, it is simply your arbitrary interpretation.
Honestly, please don't use this argument. It's weak and you will get mocked for using it by many people.
@BLHProductions It is exactly that kind of attitude that you appear to be opposed to.
Of course exploitation exists in all life but we humans have applied morals to most of our actions or society would not exist. Why should Animals fall outside that moral community?
@AHEP1978: I am opposed to the attitude that we can do what ever we want to animals because we have a "right" to or to save money and well as opposed to the attitude that everyone has to not eat meat in order to be a moral, environmental, intelligent, caring person.
To use life for the benefit of life is part of Life (the big picture) Vegs often get stuck on the small picture and can't see the big picture. We have no right to say Life is wrong because we have qualms with it.
@AHEP1978: Actually it world. A dog, for example, doesn't believe it is wrong to go on the carpet, but if the dog does, the dog will get punished. You can be against, and make laws, against things like murder and rape, without applying morals to them. Even if do apply morals, it's all subjective.
Because morality is a human construct, or if you wish to believe in a higher power, is not something that was given to animals, at least not yet while they live with instinct.
@BLHProductions it is necessary for a Carnivorous Animal to eat the flesh etc of another Animal. It is totally unnecessary for Humans to eat Animal products, therefore it is an unnecessary violence.
If we didn't eat cows, we wouldn't fence them in. There wouldn't be domesticated cows and therefore any cows would be wild.
@AHEP1978: It is also unnecessary for a carnivorous animal to eat more than it need to or for an omnivorous animal to eat meat when plants are available for it. However, ability to not do something isn't an actual reason to not do something. You could stop eating and save animal and plant lives, but you are not required to.
Some people do claim to be obligate omnivores after years of a meatless life. One veg on YouTube quit after 20 years.
@AHEP1978: I would save the dog over the pig, pig over the murder, likely my dog over a stranger, and a child over an adult.
No, this shows that I have a preference. As I just said, I would save a child over an adult, even though the adult is likely smarter than the child. Preference, responsibility, and familiarity.
@AHEP1978: Not really. We should take care of the animals we raise because we have a more responsibility to them because we raise them for food.
Familiarity to animals makes it so we care more about them then animals we don't.
Logically incoherency would be to say that it is speciesist to treat animals differently than humans and then to support spaying and neutering of animals is OK but not to do the same to humans.
@BLHProductions the spaying and neutering of Animals is like chopping at the branches and not at the root. I dont agree with it.
I practise what I preach; I am Vegan and I rescue Animals rather than buy from Breeders. Do you practise what you preach? Do you take care of the Animals you raise for food responsibly?
@AHEP1978: I do not yet raise animals for my food. However, I have been hunting, seen deer after they are gutted and dripping blood, and consciously have eaten deer meat products and enjoyed them.
Besides fish, some of which have been wild that I caught with a net, my pets have been rescues, actually, they more chose me or my family than the other way around with my cat and my dog. My cat put his paw out to me as a child and my dog kept coming to out place after randomly showing up.
@AHEP1978: There was a test where tribes were given pigs to raise to eat. When ti was time to slaughter them though, they kept the pigs they raised, but still killed other pigs. This is because familiarity comes into play with humans.
Of course, I could always eat dogs instead of not eating meat, but my argument does just as well of a job to explain away what you perceive as logical incoherence
@BLHProductions but 'Meat' is the flesh of an Animal. Dogs are Animals, so are cows, so are sheep, so are pigs and so are Humans. To treat one as 'mans best friend' and the others as a food source is logically incoherent.
@AHEP1978: No, it shows preference. But you do know that people have raised animals as a pets and also eaten the same animal right? This shows preference for the animal that is more familiar to you. If I has a chance to eat dog meat, I likely would, but I wouldn't eat my dog.
Having a preference for your own child, doesn't mean you don't care about other children. To say that about animals is logically incoherent.
if you choose not to eat an animal, you help that animal. your logic is weak dude. you've prob got bacon grease clogged in your brain. try fasting for a couple weaks and then try to think.
@1imesub: First of all, that is a personal attack and doesn't make me wrong. But I wasn't giving dietary advice in this video. I was saying that just because you go veg doesn't mean you save animals. It's like saying I don't murder people while not helping solve the problem and thinking you helped somehow.
@1imesub: Actually it is. If you were in a wheel chair and I said, you're in a wheel chair so you can't know anything about X subject, I would be attacking you based on how you look (I could also use your actions) and not the substance of your argument. This would be a personal attack. It doesn't defeat anything what you said, it just tries to discredit.
I can be fat and be an expert on nutrition. Perhaps a hypocrite, but that means I am a hypocrite, not wrong.
@BLHProductions You're not a hypocrite if you live what you preach. The problem is what you believe is incorrect, which is why you're in the shape you're in now. If you were eating the diet your body was designed to eat, you wouldn't carry around so much extra weight and be at such a high risk for diabetes, heart attack and cancer.
@1imesub: Meat can be healthy. Of course if you eat bacon fried fat back everyday you can be unhealthy. But there have been studies that show that vegetarians and vegans are about equal to omnivores, though fewer omnivores are equal to vegetarians and pescetarians were healthiest. They even smoked and drank less in the study. You get fat because of calories. Fat has more calories in it, saturated fat has even more.
Diabetes happens on any diet and vegs get cancer due to their diet too.
@BLHProductions Not on a whole foods plant based diet, Cancer and diabetes come from eating refined, processed foods. If you're living on sugary cereals, sweetened soy milk, chocolate bars, potato chips etc. you could most definitely get diabetes, but not eating a whole foods plant based diet. Same with heart disease and cancer. Avoiding animal products and refined, processed foods alone won't protect you, you must eat a whole foods plant based diet; that's the key to superior health.
@1imesub: Actually diabetes comes from genetics, receptor fatigue, the good you eat, and environmental conditions. Cancer is caused by mutations. Nothing "causes" cancer except mutations. Things you eat or come into contact with can cause mutations though, which ranges from food to the sun.
Everything you eat gets turned into glucose, so anything can cause diabetes.
People have eating good vegan diets and still have had problems. I'm sorry, it isn't the cure for any and everything.
@BLHProductions It is the cure for most diseases, and the best way to possibly eat. You're wrong about genetics, they only set you up with predispositions. It's your dietary choices that make all the difference.
Diabetics do well eating whole foods plant based. Cut out the fat and eat whole plant foods (fruits and veg. are great) and diabetes reverses.
@1imesub: No it's not. Food can effect health, but the vast majority of diseases are wear and tear, random mutations, bacteria, or poor diet. If you have a poor diet you will be worse off, but simply not eating meat doesn't help you that much. Most of the benefits come from fewer calories from fat and being more active, both of which are possible while eating meat.
That's what I was refering too, being more or less likely to get certain diseases or being born with them/
@1imesub: Again, it really isn't. I could eat junk food and loose weight if I ate less calories and I can lead a long and healthy life while eating meat.
You also realize that humans need fat in our diets rights? I'm not saying to go out and eat fat back, but we do need some fat.
No, you still have diabetes, you just keep it controlled. My grandfather has it, and keeps it controlled with healthy food and exercise, he also eats meat.
@BLHProductions Fat is found in most plant foods. Our bodies are capable of creating fat from carbohydrates whenever necessary. There is no daily requirement for dietary fat.
These are the kind of false beliefs that keep you in the unhealthy condition you're in.
@1imesub: I'm aware that fat is in some plants, namely nuts. However, what you said was to cut out fat. I was saying that humans need fat and that having no fat is not a good idea. You can cut out bad fat, lean meat and fish is a great way to cut down on saturated fats.
There actually is. If you don't eat fat you can loose the fat pads holding your kidneys. Also, our bodies make carbs and protein, along with fat too. But eating it is better since we cannot make essential nutrients.
@1imesub: Ah, so now we get the weighted language arguments?
I have some news for you, when you eat plants, the parts you eat are either dead or killed when you eat them. Because of the nature of plants, they are dying/maturing, so you are eating death too
Mostly because you typically have no problems getting enough fat by eating food.
I do not have a moral issue eating animals. To me, eating plants is no more moral than eating animals. So I could ask you to leave plants alone.
@BLHProductions If you have no moral conscience and you cannot understand how to eat and live a healthful life, why are you even making videos like these? Just trying to spread your ignorance I guess. You're an arrogant fool.
@1imesub: Again with the weighted language? Must be wearing thin your bag of comebacks.
It is a common fallacy to think that if someone disagrees about you with morality that they must have no morality. It is also a common fallacy to think that people with no morality must be bad people. I personally have morality I believe in, I just understand that morals as we know them right now are only subjective, not objective as many vegs claim.
@BLHProductions You're an obese, sickly human being. You need to take the blinders off and take a good look at yourself in the mirror.
I have excellent health because I eat the way the human body was designed to eat. If you were smart, you'd listen to those getting good results. They've figured it out whereas you clearly have not.
@1imesub: Now we have another personal attack. Face it kid, you're at the end of your rope here.
BTW, you might have a case if everyone who ate meat was fat, but not everyone who eats meat is fat nor unhealthy. So it's more how I do it rather than the meat and due to the small amount of meat I actually eat, I'm fat because I don't exercise enough and eat a lot of high calorie food that would be considered vegan or vegetarian.
@1imesub: Humans are omnivores, if we weren't we wouldn't be able to eat meat in place of plants and we wouldn't get sick when we ate more plants rather than meat, as some vegs do, despite eating a healthy vegan diet.
I've tried a vegetarian diet and didn't like it. I'll work on my weight the right way, by eating a balanced diet, cutting down on calories, and exercising more, which is why a veg diet make you healthier, your omnivore diet was simply poor.
@1imesub: You can be healthy while eating meat, you can be a good person while eating animals or a bad person while being a vegetarian or vegan, you can think that it is OK to eat animals and not be a bad person, and you can disagree with vegetarians and not be ignorant or arrogant.
I make videos like this because people like you exist who think it is a moral imperative to think it is wrong to eat animals and that you can only be healthy by not eating meat. Both are not true.
This video is so dumb. And your a stupid idiot. Why would u want to b apart of eating animals that have been slaughtered. And some just put in a bag to suffocate.
@malikah14otrew: I can respect your opinion, but not when you call me an idiot and use the incorrect version of you're. That seems to make you the idiot. Just saying.
Because I understand that disgust =/= morality and I don't have a problem eating meat. I mean I don't particularly like the idea of two guys have butt sex, but I don't think it is wrong.
Most of the problems you speak of are because of factory farms.
@KangoeroeSkippy: Yes and they can detect things in their environment. An amoeba moves and doesn't have nerve or brain cells (seeing as it is a single celled organism) but it catches and eats food. It doesn't randomly absorb things. It "knows" what to do. Animals "know" to avoid certain things. Plants "know" how to grow. Humans "know" how to breath.
@KangoeroeSkippy: But all life has a "will" to live. They have defenses to avoid death and can adapt more or less to a variety of different situations.
A will not to die doesn't mean that it is concrete. A murderer doesn't want to die, a rapist does (likely) want to be raped. A thief doesn't want to be jailed. A child doesn't want to clean their room. Want is good for somethings, but not for others. And if a human wants to eat an animal and an animal doesn't want to get eaten, what happens?
@KangoeroeSkippy: But a dog can reason that if it shits on the carpet it will get its nose rubbed in it. The dog doesn't want that to happen so it doesn't shit on the carpet. Is this no reason? If I do A, B will happen. I don't want B to happen. I don't do A.
Some do not all. Most don't find killing to be wrong so they do if it suits them.
@KangoeroeSkippy: Yes, but that is part of an organism that has a function. A plant has a lot higher functions then a sperm cell. Bacteria move to eat and do what they do. They cannot see and don't really have too as they can climb on anything and have other ways of detection.
Actually they will grow around the obstacle, depending on the plant. Never seen a vine before?
@KangoeroeSkippy: But evolutionarily speaking, being able to feel pain is a result from being able to move. Plants don't move so they don't need it, if they can grow where they are at then they are fine, but an active organism needs to know not to run full speed into a tree or off a cliff so pain and other adaptations are used.
But if animals are more then organic machines then again, why can they eat animals even when they don't have a life or death need if humans morally can't?
@KangoeroeSkippy: The same in what you are trying to say. It doesn't mean they are self-aware or are always suffering or suffer exactly like us, it's all speculation. What I meant is that besides things like heat and cold, animals on a humane farm don't have much to worry about.
Again, depends on the trip to a slaughterhouse (if their is one). Being killed would be highest , but that can be reduced, not zero pain, but perfection is not possible.
@KangoeroeSkippy: Perhaps not, but all organisms have defenses and drives for survival of themselves and their own species, which can trump personal survival.
Then would you consider bacteria and other single celled organisms as having will since they do actively move and search for food?
Not saying plants have will (wanting to not be eaten doesn't matter), just that they didn't evolved to be a source of food.
And couldn't animals be organic robots too? They simply have instinct & movement.
@KangoeroeSkippy: Neither are they in the wild, or the plants you eat, or the countless microorganisms that are killed when you clean yourself. No organism wants to die, but it's simply how Life is. This is why organisms pass on their genes, the individual dies but the species lives on.
The closest to "consensual death" are plants that use their death or fruit to spread seeds. But that is evolution to take advantage of death, not consenting to die.
@KangoeroeSkippy: Those would be humane farms, for example the farm beside where I live feed cows a diet of grass and hay. The only possible stresses are minute durring the time they are their (I won't say that life is always carefree) and then going to get killed and being killed would be the largest, although I doubt they are getting transported hundreds of miles away.
Infallible slaughter devices are no more impossible then living cruelty free or death free. Improving, not perfection.
@Riketh: No, less animals would be born. If half the US went veg right now, then about half our meat would go bad (and be really cheap), then fewer animals would be killed, and finally fewer would be born. However, all the animals are killed (eventually) the amount and frequency simply would slow down.
The problem is that you aren't saving animal lives you're causing fewer births (again in the long run).
Then you buy veg products from companies which the companies you hate buy stock in.
@Riketh: The problem in that logic is that animals are not always tortured, it's only factory farming that is wrong, which is caused by cheap corn being fed to animals.
Interesting that you bring that up, because if animals being killed by humans even with a good life is grounds for them not being born, then wouldn't it be humans who you should be trying to get to not breed? After all, a human can suffer at least as much as a cow.
Less killed by humans....can't save what isn't born though.
@Riketh: In case that last bit wasn't clear, the reason why animals are mistreated is greedy capitalism (which leads to the cheap corn that they are fed) and the veg solution is to buy veg products, that aids greedy capitalism, and those companies' stocks are being bought by the companies that lead the animals (and food) being a commodity.
@BLHProductions Yes, and that is a shame. However by not eating meat the demand for meat is lowered.
Let's say hypothetically that almost everyone went vegan. That means that the factory farming wouldn't be very profitable and that means those companies would make vegan products instead because that would be more the more profitable option.
Same evil companies but at least they aren't killing animals anymore.
Not from the US but I'm sure the Swedish companies do the same thing as you described.
@Riketh: Lower, but some people can't stop eating meat and the companies will simply continue what they are doing. A better way is what I said, buying humanly raised meat, that way the smaller farms that are humane are helped and the factory farms start to realize they can spend more money to make conditions for animals humane and still make money
There would still be the cruelty from cutting costs though, and still no animals would be saved. The few million vegs have niche products you know.
@KangoeroeSkippy: Most companies don't allow people to own more of the companies then the founders, owners, and CEO's. Although you only need to make sure you always own at least 51%.
The point is that factory farming is caused by greedy capitalism and the veg solution to this is to aid greedy capitalism.
It's like wanting to give or sell cheap grain to poor countries, it sounds like a good idea, but it just makes things worse.
@KangoeroeSkippy: Doesn't stop the fact that I've had a Morning Star Farms Black Bean Burger and a regular hamburger on the same bun before though, or that I've eaten Chickpeas and rice with a pita bread gyro.
@KangoeroeSkippy: The thing about meat is that it's caused by corn being so cheap which in turns makes meat cheap. Corn prices are lower the the price to produce.
Also be assured that many veg companies have stock holders from the same companies they hate (McDonalds is one).
@KangoeroeSkippy: Well, the healthy thing is a self-satisfying prophecy, if you go veg for health reasons you'll likely make other healthy decisions. However, the fact remains that any omnivore can eat more and many do, just look at David Zimmerman, he's eaten things from all over the world and likely beats us combined, and it's not like I don't try new foods (even veg foods), although a lot of what you eat is likely a form of soy.
Of course, you can combine many meats and plants too.
@KangoeroeSkippy: You know what it was like for you. I won't deny it tastes good, however that means that humans like to eat it, not that we do it only for taste. There tends to be a reason why animals like what they eat.
@KangoeroeSkippy: How do you figure that when I can always eat whatever you eat? The argument that vegs are forced to get the most out of what they eat doesn't matter if an omnivore eats foods they eat or does the same thing. 5x4x3x2 is more then 4x3x2 every time. Even limiting one food group makes it impossible for you to have more choices, you may try more, but omnivores still have more.
@KangoeroeSkippy: So what stops the independent organ form being corrupt? PETA members have been known to injure animals themselves and neglect animals they were suppose to take care of for the job they were hired to do while undercover.
@KangoeroeSkippy: It also is on the far side of the spectrum, like the pelo-diet you disagree with.
Wouldn't limiting your food groups be making what you eat less interesting then eating all the food groups? After all, anything a vegetarian or vegan makes I can eat too.
@KangoeroeSkippy: Yes, everyone believes that their diet is the best. Every once in a while though, you get someone who actually thinks and says that both sides are right and wrong about things. In the end, it tends to be about even in regards to drawbacks and benefits.
@KangoeroeSkippy: Right, but the exposures, at least what we get now, are the ones that show the worst that they are using to represent all slaughterhouses. I've never heard them say anything about the system that Temple Graindin developed that causes cows to become relaxed so they aren't fearful when they are killed being used by about 50% of US slaughterhouses.
And on the flip side the meat industry won't say anything bad they do.
@KangoeroeSkippy: Well, the part of the meat industry that feeds cows corn (slowly killing them) could feed them hay the last 5 days of their life to kill harmful strands of E.coli but they don't. It never works to trust industry with fixing their own problems, especially when it costs money.
@KangoeroeSkippy: That would be changing the planet based on what humans think is best based on human needs. That has never worked and leads to more death. Instead of cows, why not raise buffalo?
@KangoeroeSkippy: That would be changing the planet based on what humans think is best based on human needs. That has never worked and leads to more death. Instead of cows, why not raise buffalo?
@KangoeroeSkippy: Only works if you never realized that to go from a living animal to a steak that the animal has to be killed, gutted, and processed.
Although, we use most parts of animals, that why most people can't have a vegan lifestyle, from book binding to crayons, animal by-products are used.
@KangoeroeSkippy: Even better if you can raise your own animals and produce. A store bought ear of corn can't hold up to one home grown. More time and effort spent.
@KangoeroeSkippy: Only if you think its immoral to hunt. The thing is that humans keep populations down and help the animals. This is best demonstrated by Africa. People going on safari hunts mean that jobs are available for the people whose only other job would be poaching, the money for tags helps preserve the land, and the animals aren't poached which has actually helped their numbers.
Again, poaching is cut down on when people hunt, both because they can hunt and you have more eyes.
@KangoeroeSkippy: Unless you live out west, the soil there was poor in B12 even before humans got there.
Crop rotation and raising animals for food and their resources (milk and eggs) is the best way to do it as long as they are native. Trying to raise cattle in the dessert is just a bad idea when native animals are better adapted.
@KangoeroeSkippy: That's fine for you, but there are those who want total animal liberation, meaning not even pets.
What about these people. It then becomes you vs them, with them saying they are more moral then you instead of you saying I am immoral for eating meat (although not so directly).
The problem is that you have to obtain the minerals, the best way is manure, but if not they are either mined in some way or they are
Trees only work if they are native. You have to do crop rotation.
@KangoeroeSkippy: Again, a big reason why I don't subscribe the the meatless diet mentality is that all the way to breathtarian (they think humans don't have to eat and unfortunately they do exist) they say they are healthier then the last who eats too much, and if you can't do their diet you're doing it wrong.
@KangoeroeSkippy: Yes, but I am someone who still enjoys the food groups they gave up while sacrificing more. As I said, they go from feeling neutral about eating meat to feeling neutral about being a vegetarian/vegan.
@KangoeroeSkippy: A bit one sided. Fewer vegetarians who watch what they eat vs more omnivores who tend not to (at least in western countries).
Wouldn't healthy omnivore vs healthy vegetarian vs healthy vegan vs healthy frutatarian, vs healthy freegan vs healthy raw food vegetarian vs healthy raw food vegan vs healthy raw food omnivore vs healthy raw food frutatarian is a better way of thinking of it?
@KangoeroeSkippy: Then, logically, wouldn't an omnivore buying local humanly raised animals and produce have even more influence on the treatment of animals? After all, if you are not using a product and never will, what does a greedy corporation care if you think they are immoral?
@KangoeroeSkippy: I may be the minority among them, but I am with the majority of society in thinking eating meat isn't immoral. So how are they going to sway society if they act that way towards me when I (at least in part) agree with them?
Perhaps more ethical in my opinion and even yours, but it's still opinion vs opinion.
@KangoeroeSkippy: Yes, despite the fact that we disagree, you're not an asshole. However, it still would be the majority would not like it, and they would likely want to take it farther then I would like, because most animal rights people who don't eat meat what total animal liberation. No pets, no milk, no eggs. Of course, how they expect to feed the soil while not using animals and growing annuals is beyond me.
Organic doesn't matter much if fossil fuels are used to shit it 500 miles though.
@KangoeroeSkippy: Prohibition. You simply can't outlaw eating meat. What are people going to do, keep animals they can't sell? They will either kill them all (or most) to save money, or ignore the laws. Now you have a black market in meat, animals are kept in worst conditions then they were before, and of course, the people who have to eat meat because they are unable to be healthy on a vegetarian diet.
Reverse it, what if you were forced to eat meat? Meat does more then taste good.
@KangoeroeSkippy: Do you know why though? Animal Rights first has a bad image because of the extremists, besides that, if I were to join an animal rights group and they found out I eat meat, they would either lecture me to no end or kick me out because they believe you can't eat animals and want to better their conditions. So its humanly raised and local, which everyone should be doing anyway.
Laws to protect wildlife are also funded by actual hunters who pay to hunt.
@KangoeroeSkippy: Fighting for animal rights saves animals from needless harm. I'm not against it being illegal to shoot an animal in the leg and leave it to die. That part can save lives, but simply not eating them won't. What can is improving conditions, which again I support, of the animals being raised. Less deaths from bad conditions.
Again, the argument isn't against political change (as I said this was the best way to do it while allowing people to eat meat) it's simply not eating them.
@KangoeroeSkippy: I'm pro-animal rights, however, I also think humans are not immoral for eating meat if they choose to.
Even 1 person eating meat, if a gradual reduction took place, would not mean animals were actually saved. Unless you buy a cow and let it live out it's days (perhaps as a natural fertalizer) you haven't saved any because what you don't eat either spoils or the market adjusts and fewer animals are born, no lives saved when they didn't begin.
@KangoeroeSkippy: Not really. There are about 5 -10 million vegetarians and vegans (or like dieted people) in the US. They have their food, clothes, and cosmetics. So if it was reversed, people could still eat meat and wear leather if they so chose.
And the point is that no animals are saved. Even in the long run, the amount of animals born is the only thing that drops, but you can't save what isn't born.
And if you do get rid of the animals, what will the soil eat? How will you grow plants?
If people eat animals, they still die, just at a slower rate, so vegs don't save animals, they just don't lead to anymore deaths.
This is why accepting that people are going to eat meat even if you don't want to and asking them to eat humanely is better then trying to get people to go vegan or vegetarian because of your personal morals.
You'll find that most people care about animals, even if they eat them.
@monsteriousrainbows: To show that you don't help animals by not eating them. None are saved. It's best to improve conditions and then work on getting people to not eat meat, because then, the people who will always eat meat and won't care will be eating humanely killed meat
The idea in your ethics is not to cause unnecessary harm (pain, fear, distress). we know that plant based food production causes much less harm than the current livestock practices (even in organic farming). So eating meat (financially supporting people who harm others) is a violation of the least harm principle. It's perhaps not impossible in theory, but in our current agriculture system it is impossible to eat meat that satisfied the least harm principle. So we have 2 arguments against meat
@stijnbruers: We also know that you can humanely raise and kill animals quickly. We know that problems can happen on a non-meat diet, and we know that meat is not as unhealthy as many vegs like to say it is. So if you try your best you will reduce pain, fear, and distress as best you can.
We also know the problems that agriculture, that you help fund, also harms the planet and kills species and individual animals, as well as the soil and isn't cruelty free.
If you say an arm is not sentient although it has the capacities you mentioned, it means that the capacities you mentioned do not necessarily imply sentience. If you eat meat, you first had to kill a sentient being.
But ok, even if you don't grant sentient beings the basic right, but only say that you shouldn't cause negative feelings to sentient beings, you should become vegan in our current society. Because all animals suffered due to a human cause, and you financially supported that.
@stijnbruers: That is because an arm is part of a being, not the being. Although an arm can react to pain, protect itself, and has a nervous system, this pretty much covers what you say matters as sentience.
And I do not think that killing a sentient organism is in itself, wrong. You do, and you don't eat animals, I don't and I do.
I give them the basic right to to be needlessly harmed that is what feeling pain means, it doesn't mean they have an absolute right to life.
Here's my phylosophy: living beings have interests and therefore deserve respect by giving them the right not to be killed for luxury ends. Sentient beings not only have interests, but can subjectively feel them, and therefore get a stronger right not to be used as merely means to all our ends.
About the self healing property: my arm can do the same; Even if I give it anaesthetics, this injury gets healed; my arm reacts to the injury. Does my arm have its own feelings then? Is my arm sentient?
@stijnbruers: No offense, but your philosophy is good only to you and people who think similarly.
The problem with what you said beyond that is that plants, bacteria, and protazoa are infact living beings. So they deserve respect too, as I said. Now you say that they shouldn't be killed for luxury ends, however this doesn't mean they can't still be killed for food or for housing or because of protection right? Respect means respect and sentience means don't needless harm.
@stijnbruers: Well, this applies to animals eating animals to. So why is so different about us and animals? I'm guessing you will insist that we don't need to eat it, though we don't exactly NEED to eat fruit either, their are other sources to the vitamins in them, but you wouldn't argue the good fruit can do, the same with meat, and this is assuming you are able to not eat meat with no ill affects to your health and many ex-vegans have.
Your arm is part of a whole. You are made up of cells.
@stijnbruers: The problem with using your own is that it is part of a sentient organism. An arm isn't sentient on it's own, neither are legs, your intestines, nervous system, or brain.
If you use this argument, then you can say you don't eat sentient animals, as meat is not sentient even if you say the animal is.
It's not just having hormones that matter. it is how those hormones react, what they do, and then infer on obesrvational evidence. For example: I am injured, I react in some way, you give me hormones, and I react differently. If we see a similar thing happening in other beings, that adds one part of the evidence to say that individual is sentient. And if we'd then look at the neurofysiology...
@stijnbruers: Um, but the same happens with plants. In fact they can take one chemical and metabolize it differently to have many different functions.
Do you know that sweet small after a rain storm? That is a something plants use to attract insects to eat their competition.
I just think that you should show respect to all life, and respect doesn't mean that you can't eat it. Do not Native Americans show respect to animals they eat?
I agree that it is not obvious to couple the ability to feel (pain, fear, stress) with the deontological basic right not to be used as merely means (the dignity account). But I think that beings who are able to feel, have a consciosuness, a wel-being, and those are the most basic things that we think are relevant in ethics. So we can make a consistent ethics by coupling sentience to dignity. I think that is better than your coupling of an arbitrary biological criterion to dignity.
@stijnbruers: And what if you over exert yourself and animals are nothing more then complex versions of plants that are fueled by the activities of their bodies and the instincts that they are taught? Plants mearly don't move and don't get taught, they just do 100% through function. A cat won't chase mice it it isn't taught, but shown once by another it will. It's simply how animals learn.
It's still limited by science, the same science that makes arbitrary groups that you disagree with.
@stijnbruers: Can a plant heal itself and detect when it is being touched or injured? Yes, they can. So the real difference is that plants react and talk through chemicals. Animals have nerves and vocal cords. And isn't a sign of sentience a movement in reaction to a negative stimuli? Um, plants can't move, well, most can't. Do they feel pain? No, I would hope not, but do they feel? Yes, even if it is different.
Why not just treat all life with dignity even if you eat it? That's more constant.
If we'd give plants the benefit of the doubt, it implies that we risk a lot, namely cannibalism. But in order to justfy the toleration of cannibalism, we need much stronger evidence. So we should give beings the benefit of the doubt only if the evidence is strong enough. For example insects: giving them the benefit of the doubt, and hence not eating them, is not a big problem for us. But giving plants the benefit of the doubt implies suicide or cannibalism, and both are difficult for us.
@stijnbruers: Not really. It means that all organisms are deserving of respect and that you have to acknowledge that for you to live, bacteria, plants, protozoa, and animals are going to die, but life goes on. Only individuals are sacrificed, but the species lives on.
I'm sorry, but the world isn't going to bend to how you want it to be. Your life causes death, even eating plants, animals have to die for you. Just accept this as a part of life and you'll be fine.
Look at science! How do we now that a being is sentient? Answer: neurology, hormones, fysiology, reactions, etc... the more of those criteria are satisfied within a being, the more likely it is able to feel. So: vertebrates have all criteria satiesfied, except being able to say "I feel pain". But we claim that baby's can feel, although they can't talk. But plants: almost no criteria are satisfied.
@stijnbruers: OK, so what are hormones? Chemicals mostly. What do plants use? Chemicals. What do these chemicals do? Cause reactions. Some plants act like they have nerves too like venus fly traps.
All life can feel though. A plant being brushed against will stiffen the best it can while alerting other plants to do the same.
But, all that aside, what does the ability to feel pain mean? Does it mean don't eat them? No, it means, don't allow them to suffer. You can still eat sentient animals.
@loveandpeaceFTW: No that is like like saying why are you claiming to save concentration camp inmates when you simply don't own a concentration camp. -_- Freeing the camp inmates and making sure something that that didn't happen again is helping, saying I don't dill animals (on purpose) and thus save them is like saying I save murder victims.
BLHProductions 1 hour ago
you have no understanding of economics. to say boycotting is futile, is absurd. veganism is boycotting an unethical industry. if more people became vegan, we could end factory farming. Rather than oppose vegans, look in the mirror.
SuperAnimalDrummer 1 month ago
@SuperAnimalDrummer: Actually I said that you don't save animals because even if only one person was eating animals, animals would still be born and killed and you can't save a life when no life existed. You also can't save a life when it is killed. Saying vegs help animals is like saying you save murder victims.
Supporting the ethical and humane farms is what I say to do. It harms the bad ones, helps the good ones, and gives incentive to change.
BLHProductions 1 month ago
@BLHProductions dude.. that is like saying lets not kill hitler because.. ya know, people are gonna die anyway.. lets just make sure they dont suffer to much when he kills them in the millions.
loveandpeaceFTW 3 hours ago
you said in 1 of your videos being vegetarian doesnt save animals. you were half right. if you eat an animal it doesnt kill the animal, obviously it was already dead. but now another animal must be slaughtered to replace it on the shelf. youre fat and smelly lookin so you cant be pushing dietary advice on a nutritional level.. whats your deal ugleh? i doubt these ads even made 10$ total.. u bored? not good at anything but talkin about eating meat? youre fat lmao
7Trisanaty7 1 month ago
@7Trisanaty7: I never said that eating animals save animals. Yes, if you eat animals you will kill them, but if you don't eat animals you do not save them. In the long run a few less are born, but you can't save animal lives that don't exist. That would be like me saying if I don't have kids, I'll save an infinite number of animals.
OK, I'm fat and? It has no basis on intelligence. In fact, I likely know more since I would not be pulled toward a diet because it's a fad or "moral."
BLHProductions 1 month ago
@BLHProductions wow. you're arguments are really absurd. the vegan movement is all based on economics. supply and demand. there is no arguing that lessening demand, will lessen supply. this is a fact as much as gravity. you're entire point is based on a lack of understanding of basic economics. Study up pal. Supply and demand. economies of scale.
SuperAnimalDrummer 1 month ago
@SuperAnimalDrummer: I thought it was based on saving animals, which can't be done when you don't actually save animals.
Yes, supply and demand does have a bearing on it. But unless you change the system, you'll just have 1 million animals dying in a factory farm instead of 300 million.
The overall goal is to help animals. The best way, to me, that you can help is to eat humanely raised and slaughter meat. Helps the good, harms the bad, and gives incentive for change.
BLHProductions 1 month ago
@SuperAnimalDrummer: The moment that you say you are never going to eat meat (even humanly raise and slaughtered meat) is the moment when you do not matter, at least from a business perspective. After all, if you sell video games, would you listen to people who hate video games and will never buy them or the people who buy video games, but only if the quality is good?
From an economics standpoint, what I say is better and can attract more supporters than "no meat forever."
BLHProductions 1 month ago
@BLHproductions im not stupid for one mistake you were being ignorant while trying to continue an argument you eat dead animals i dont im leaving it at that if you continue arguing it shows how you have no life going out of your way to prove people wrong...
crimses 1 month ago
@crimses: Actually I was responding to what you were saying. I accepted that you were saying sorry, but I was saying that your terminology wasn't really correct.
See, you come off as condescending when you are saying "I'm sorry, I'm just trying to prevent the horrible things you do."
Yes, I eat dead animals. And?
You keep coming back to my channel, I'm just responding to you.
BLHProductions 1 month ago
ok im sorry for previous hateful comments but...i think the whole point for vegs is that they don't want to FUND the murder...so we don't, we are all entitled to our opinions and facts sooo...yeah
crimses 1 month ago
@crimses: Murder isn't really a correct term since it implies malicious aforethought. I don't kill animals because I hate them and want them dead or for the sake of killing them.
Facts are facts. The facts are that saying you help animals by not eating them is like you don't pay people to murder other people so you help murder victims. If you really want to help animals, then actually help animals.
If you just don't want to eat meat, then don't eat meat, but don't cross the two.
BLHProductions 1 month ago
@BLHProductions well it is murder if you kill something against it's will...either way as you can tell im trying to prevent arguments so we are entitled to our own opinions ok? there end of story, your a human whom makes their own descisions as am i. And i respect that good day and better tomorow.
crimses 1 month ago
@crimses: It is murder to kill someone because it is against the law. Killing a person in cold blood, that is, killing maliciously with aforethought, is murder. If you kill accidentally or indirectly, it is manslaughter and not considered murder. If you wish to apply what you said legally, it isn't murder to kill animals since it isn't against the law. If you want to apply it more broadly, then animals killing animals is also murder, since the other animals don't want to die.
BLHProductions 1 month ago
@BLHProductions holy fucking shit stop debating you ignorant waste of oxygen!
crimses 1 month ago
@crimses: Oh, so you say condescending things? You must be really intelligent.
BLHProductions 1 month ago
Animals that are consumed for food by humans (chickens, cows, pigs, etc) would not exist without humans. Make your choice, you useless stupid fucks: extinction for those species of animals, or their continued existence because humans use them for food.
Xiphos0292 1 month ago
@Xiphos0292: A good number of species wouldn't exist without us. But don't be insulting. Ass soon as you're insulting people won't listen to you.
Though those species were OK before we domesticated them, the domestication process just made them less likely to survive without us. Kind of like what would happen if you dropped an average American in Africa.
BLHProductions 1 month ago
Your theory is ridiculous! There isn't a limited amount of Animals like the amount of water in that bottle. Animals are bred and farmed for food.
If you were to put a hose on the end of the bottle and leave the tap on then you might understand better.
DetractMedia 1 month ago
@DetractMedia: Perhaps a better analogy for you then? I don't murder people. Taking the logic that many vegs use, by me not murdering people, I have thus saved a murder victim. Of course I haven't. I just simply haven't added to the murder victim rate. I would then have to go on, and say I am a better person because I help murdered people, because I don't murder them. However, I have done nothing, but give myself an ego trip.
BLHProductions 1 month ago
@BLHProductions but murdering someone is not a business, its an act of violence. Converting Animals into Animal products is a business and so there is supply and demand. If you reduce the demand, you reduce the supply. If you reduce the supply, eventually the business is no longer viable.
DetractMedia 1 month ago
@DetractMedia: You're deflecting. The main idea still applies. If you have that much of a problem with it, then simply apply it with hunting, which isn't a business if you use it for food.
Look at the current veg population. It is not very large yet have their own niche products. So even if the tables were reversed, assuming meat wasn't outlawed, people eating meat would still have meat, or could hunt, which is always viable.
Even with reduced supply, you don't save animal lives.
BLHProductions 1 month ago
@BLHProductions If the majority of people didn't agree to eating Animal products, hunting would most likely become illegal with Animals having rights applied to them. Look at anything throughout history, as soon as the majority find a subject, such as slavery, an immoral and unnecessary violence towards an exploited group; It was deemed no longer lawful to do so and so Human rights for these people were applied.
AHEP1978 1 month ago
@AHEP1978: Actually that isn't true. Many people are OK with it, although many people don't think about it.
If one hunts or raises animals, one is less likely to become a veg, though it is possible.
The problem with this, is that although we have made changes that forbid things, like slavery, we also have accepted things, like scientific theories.
Saying that eating animals will become illegal is like saying incest and bestiality will become legal because homosexuality is legal.
BLHProductions 1 month ago
@BLHProductions 'Even with reduced supply, you don't save animal lives.' You maybe will not save the lives of the individuals already in the system but you reduce the amount of individuals going through the system. If you were to replace non-human animals with humans, I think most 'decent' people would fight to reduce and end that system.
AHEP1978 1 month ago
@AHEP1978: You cannot save theoretical lives. -_- That would be like me saying that I can eat all the animals I want because I won't have kids so I will not have countless generations that will eat animals in the long run so I've saved more than a veg who has or will have kids. -_-
Yes very likely, but in replacing animals with humans you completely change the situation. I'm sorry, but an animals is different from a human and humans consciously and subconsciously react differently.
BLHProductions 1 month ago
@BLHProductions but people who advocate against Animal exploitation believe that Animals should be given rights to protect them from unnecessary harm regardless of their level of awareness or consciousness.
Just as we wouldn't exploit a mentally retarded person and use them e.g for experiments, we shouldnt use Animals.
AHEP1978 1 month ago
@AHEP1978: People who advocate against homosexuality believe that homosexuality is a sin. People who advocate for separation of races believe that racial mingling harms the races, usually there own more. But belief in something doesn't make it right or true.
The animal rights movement would be fine in my book if they wanted to protect animals from needless harm, but needless harm for them tends to include eating animals and everything except that they don't have a problem doing.
BLHProductions 1 month ago
@BLHProductions We live in a progressive society not a dictatorship made up of supremacists.
AHEP1978 1 month ago
@AHEP1978: Which is why people who say they are better than you for whatever reason are usually ignored because they are being supremacists. This applies to homophobes, racists, vegetarians, vegans, omnivores, theists, and atheists.
The only thing worse than someone who "knows they are right" is someone who changed what they believe because they tend to be several times more preachy and set in their mind because they think they are better than other people because they changed.
BLHProductions 1 month ago
@BLHProductions but that is exactly what you are doing here.
AHEP1978 1 month ago
@AHEP1978: No, I have said in other videos and in other comments that I what I say is my belief. I don't know that it is OK to eat animals, but I believe it is OK. Now health is more concrete, but for the most part, diets are all equal to one another, although the rank from healthiest to least healthiest (although the difference isn't that much) is: Pescetarian, some omnivores and vegetarians, and finally the rest of the omnivores and vegans.
BLHProductions 1 month ago
@BLHProductions Im really sorry but you couldn't be more wrong in the 'ranking'. More research needed there im afraid.
AHEP1978 1 month ago
@AHEP1978: That tends to be the truth, of course, omnivore diets are extremely varied.
This was a meta study, but the vegetarians and vegans smoked and drank less.
BLHProductions 1 month ago
@AHEP1978: The problem with this is that animals are not humans. This isn't a specialist statement though. We have more responsibility and familiarity with humans. That is usually why we care about them over animals in general. However, I would rather save a dog from a burning building than a human who has murdered other humans. They no longer are my responsibility.
We also don't spay and neuter the mentally retarded, but even PETA supports that for animals.
BLHProductions 1 month ago
@BLHProductions I dont agree with a lot of what PETA says & does. I take an Abolitionist stance which aims for Animals to be left alone and to be given rights that mean they cannot be exploited for our own entertainment, this includes pets.
So you would save the Dog but you would eat the Pig? This is logically incoherent but because you are led to believe that Dogs are more intelligent than Pigs (which isnt true btw), you eat them without a 2nd thought.
It is all unnecessary & should end.
AHEP1978 1 month ago
@AHEP1978: Uh huh. So my dog who we tried to get to move on, she randomly showed up one day, and on the 3rd attempt to leave here somewhere away from our house actually made it home before my step dad means she is being exploited?
And exploitation might work for entertainment like a circus, but it won't for zoos, preserves or even eating animals. I don't think you can eat something and exploit it.
BLHProductions 1 month ago
@BLHProductions Animals have never given consent to be 'used' by humans. Therefore it is exploitation. If you have to fence Animals in; it is exploitation. If you have to keep pets in cages it is exploitation. If you have to build a slaughterhouse with channels with high walls and use poles, boards and stunning devices to get that Animal to surrender; its exploitation. The whole thing is Man over beast and it is all exploitation.
AHEP1978 1 month ago
@AHEP1978: And? That honestly doesn't matter. A zebra doesn't give consent to be eaten by a shark. A plant doesn't give consent to be eaten by humans. Most organisms would, if they could communicate this, prefer not to be eaten.
That is a completely backwards way of thinking about things. You can't always impose human logic on reality.
No, it's to protect them and keep them from wondering around. Cows got out of our neighbors field and simply came into our yard.
BLHProductions 1 month ago
@AHEP1978: Your idea would mean that all life exploits all life. So if "exploitation" is that common, it wouldn't matter. Of course, it is simply your arbitrary interpretation.
Honestly, please don't use this argument. It's weak and you will get mocked for using it by many people.
BLHProductions 1 month ago
@BLHProductions It is exactly that kind of attitude that you appear to be opposed to.
Of course exploitation exists in all life but we humans have applied morals to most of our actions or society would not exist. Why should Animals fall outside that moral community?
AHEP1978 1 month ago
@AHEP1978: I am opposed to the attitude that we can do what ever we want to animals because we have a "right" to or to save money and well as opposed to the attitude that everyone has to not eat meat in order to be a moral, environmental, intelligent, caring person.
To use life for the benefit of life is part of Life (the big picture) Vegs often get stuck on the small picture and can't see the big picture. We have no right to say Life is wrong because we have qualms with it.
BLHProductions 1 month ago
@AHEP1978: Actually it world. A dog, for example, doesn't believe it is wrong to go on the carpet, but if the dog does, the dog will get punished. You can be against, and make laws, against things like murder and rape, without applying morals to them. Even if do apply morals, it's all subjective.
Because morality is a human construct, or if you wish to believe in a higher power, is not something that was given to animals, at least not yet while they live with instinct.
BLHProductions 1 month ago
@BLHProductions it is necessary for a Carnivorous Animal to eat the flesh etc of another Animal. It is totally unnecessary for Humans to eat Animal products, therefore it is an unnecessary violence.
If we didn't eat cows, we wouldn't fence them in. There wouldn't be domesticated cows and therefore any cows would be wild.
AHEP1978 1 month ago
@AHEP1978: It is also unnecessary for a carnivorous animal to eat more than it need to or for an omnivorous animal to eat meat when plants are available for it. However, ability to not do something isn't an actual reason to not do something. You could stop eating and save animal and plant lives, but you are not required to.
Some people do claim to be obligate omnivores after years of a meatless life. One veg on YouTube quit after 20 years.
Wild like deer. We could still hunt them.
BLHProductions 1 month ago
@AHEP1978: I would save the dog over the pig, pig over the murder, likely my dog over a stranger, and a child over an adult.
No, this shows that I have a preference. As I just said, I would save a child over an adult, even though the adult is likely smarter than the child. Preference, responsibility, and familiarity.
.
BLHProductions 1 month ago
@BLHProductions Preference is the key point in everything you say because the rest is in fact logically incoherent.
AHEP1978 1 month ago
@AHEP1978: Not really. We should take care of the animals we raise because we have a more responsibility to them because we raise them for food.
Familiarity to animals makes it so we care more about them then animals we don't.
Logically incoherency would be to say that it is speciesist to treat animals differently than humans and then to support spaying and neutering of animals is OK but not to do the same to humans.
BLHProductions 1 month ago
@BLHProductions the spaying and neutering of Animals is like chopping at the branches and not at the root. I dont agree with it.
I practise what I preach; I am Vegan and I rescue Animals rather than buy from Breeders. Do you practise what you preach? Do you take care of the Animals you raise for food responsibly?
AHEP1978 1 month ago
@AHEP1978: I do not yet raise animals for my food. However, I have been hunting, seen deer after they are gutted and dripping blood, and consciously have eaten deer meat products and enjoyed them.
Besides fish, some of which have been wild that I caught with a net, my pets have been rescues, actually, they more chose me or my family than the other way around with my cat and my dog. My cat put his paw out to me as a child and my dog kept coming to out place after randomly showing up.
BLHProductions 1 month ago
@BLHProductions: *our not out.
I also start a volunteer internship at an ASPCA location soon.
BLHProductions 1 month ago
@AHEP1978: There was a test where tribes were given pigs to raise to eat. When ti was time to slaughter them though, they kept the pigs they raised, but still killed other pigs. This is because familiarity comes into play with humans.
Of course, I could always eat dogs instead of not eating meat, but my argument does just as well of a job to explain away what you perceive as logical incoherence
BLHProductions 1 month ago
@BLHProductions but 'Meat' is the flesh of an Animal. Dogs are Animals, so are cows, so are sheep, so are pigs and so are Humans. To treat one as 'mans best friend' and the others as a food source is logically incoherent.
AHEP1978 1 month ago
@AHEP1978: No, it shows preference. But you do know that people have raised animals as a pets and also eaten the same animal right? This shows preference for the animal that is more familiar to you. If I has a chance to eat dog meat, I likely would, but I wouldn't eat my dog.
Having a preference for your own child, doesn't mean you don't care about other children. To say that about animals is logically incoherent.
BLHProductions 1 month ago
if you choose not to eat an animal, you help that animal. your logic is weak dude. you've prob got bacon grease clogged in your brain. try fasting for a couple weaks and then try to think.
yohijua 2 months ago
You are way too fat/unhealthy to be giving dietary advice
1imesub 2 months ago
@1imesub: First of all, that is a personal attack and doesn't make me wrong. But I wasn't giving dietary advice in this video. I was saying that just because you go veg doesn't mean you save animals. It's like saying I don't murder people while not helping solve the problem and thinking you helped somehow.
BLHProductions 2 months ago
@BLHProductions It's not a personal attack if it's true.
1imesub 2 months ago
@1imesub: Actually it is. If you were in a wheel chair and I said, you're in a wheel chair so you can't know anything about X subject, I would be attacking you based on how you look (I could also use your actions) and not the substance of your argument. This would be a personal attack. It doesn't defeat anything what you said, it just tries to discredit.
I can be fat and be an expert on nutrition. Perhaps a hypocrite, but that means I am a hypocrite, not wrong.
BLHProductions 2 months ago
@BLHProductions You're not a hypocrite if you live what you preach. The problem is what you believe is incorrect, which is why you're in the shape you're in now. If you were eating the diet your body was designed to eat, you wouldn't carry around so much extra weight and be at such a high risk for diabetes, heart attack and cancer.
1imesub 2 months ago
@1imesub: Meat can be healthy. Of course if you eat bacon fried fat back everyday you can be unhealthy. But there have been studies that show that vegetarians and vegans are about equal to omnivores, though fewer omnivores are equal to vegetarians and pescetarians were healthiest. They even smoked and drank less in the study. You get fat because of calories. Fat has more calories in it, saturated fat has even more.
Diabetes happens on any diet and vegs get cancer due to their diet too.
BLHProductions 2 months ago
@BLHProductions Not on a whole foods plant based diet, Cancer and diabetes come from eating refined, processed foods. If you're living on sugary cereals, sweetened soy milk, chocolate bars, potato chips etc. you could most definitely get diabetes, but not eating a whole foods plant based diet. Same with heart disease and cancer. Avoiding animal products and refined, processed foods alone won't protect you, you must eat a whole foods plant based diet; that's the key to superior health.
1imesub 2 months ago
@1imesub: Actually diabetes comes from genetics, receptor fatigue, the good you eat, and environmental conditions. Cancer is caused by mutations. Nothing "causes" cancer except mutations. Things you eat or come into contact with can cause mutations though, which ranges from food to the sun.
Everything you eat gets turned into glucose, so anything can cause diabetes.
People have eating good vegan diets and still have had problems. I'm sorry, it isn't the cure for any and everything.
BLHProductions 2 months ago
@BLHProductions It is the cure for most diseases, and the best way to possibly eat. You're wrong about genetics, they only set you up with predispositions. It's your dietary choices that make all the difference.
Diabetics do well eating whole foods plant based. Cut out the fat and eat whole plant foods (fruits and veg. are great) and diabetes reverses.
1imesub 2 months ago
@1imesub: No it's not. Food can effect health, but the vast majority of diseases are wear and tear, random mutations, bacteria, or poor diet. If you have a poor diet you will be worse off, but simply not eating meat doesn't help you that much. Most of the benefits come from fewer calories from fat and being more active, both of which are possible while eating meat.
That's what I was refering too, being more or less likely to get certain diseases or being born with them/
BLHProductions 2 months ago
@1imesub: Again, it really isn't. I could eat junk food and loose weight if I ate less calories and I can lead a long and healthy life while eating meat.
You also realize that humans need fat in our diets rights? I'm not saying to go out and eat fat back, but we do need some fat.
No, you still have diabetes, you just keep it controlled. My grandfather has it, and keeps it controlled with healthy food and exercise, he also eats meat.
BLHProductions 2 months ago
@BLHProductions Fat is found in most plant foods. Our bodies are capable of creating fat from carbohydrates whenever necessary. There is no daily requirement for dietary fat.
These are the kind of false beliefs that keep you in the unhealthy condition you're in.
1imesub 2 months ago
@1imesub: I'm aware that fat is in some plants, namely nuts. However, what you said was to cut out fat. I was saying that humans need fat and that having no fat is not a good idea. You can cut out bad fat, lean meat and fish is a great way to cut down on saturated fats.
There actually is. If you don't eat fat you can loose the fat pads holding your kidneys. Also, our bodies make carbs and protein, along with fat too. But eating it is better since we cannot make essential nutrients.
BLHProductions 2 months ago
@BLHProductions What is your obsession with eating death? Just leave the animals alone and eat plants instead. No dietary requirement for fats.
1imesub 2 months ago
@1imesub: Ah, so now we get the weighted language arguments?
I have some news for you, when you eat plants, the parts you eat are either dead or killed when you eat them. Because of the nature of plants, they are dying/maturing, so you are eating death too
Mostly because you typically have no problems getting enough fat by eating food.
I do not have a moral issue eating animals. To me, eating plants is no more moral than eating animals. So I could ask you to leave plants alone.
:D
BLHProductions 2 months ago
@BLHProductions If you have no moral conscience and you cannot understand how to eat and live a healthful life, why are you even making videos like these? Just trying to spread your ignorance I guess. You're an arrogant fool.
1imesub 2 months ago
@1imesub: Again with the weighted language? Must be wearing thin your bag of comebacks.
It is a common fallacy to think that if someone disagrees about you with morality that they must have no morality. It is also a common fallacy to think that people with no morality must be bad people. I personally have morality I believe in, I just understand that morals as we know them right now are only subjective, not objective as many vegs claim.
BLHProductions 2 months ago
@BLHProductions You're an obese, sickly human being. You need to take the blinders off and take a good look at yourself in the mirror.
I have excellent health because I eat the way the human body was designed to eat. If you were smart, you'd listen to those getting good results. They've figured it out whereas you clearly have not.
1imesub 2 months ago
@1imesub: Now we have another personal attack. Face it kid, you're at the end of your rope here.
BTW, you might have a case if everyone who ate meat was fat, but not everyone who eats meat is fat nor unhealthy. So it's more how I do it rather than the meat and due to the small amount of meat I actually eat, I'm fat because I don't exercise enough and eat a lot of high calorie food that would be considered vegan or vegetarian.
BLHProductions 2 months ago
@1imesub: Humans are omnivores, if we weren't we wouldn't be able to eat meat in place of plants and we wouldn't get sick when we ate more plants rather than meat, as some vegs do, despite eating a healthy vegan diet.
I've tried a vegetarian diet and didn't like it. I'll work on my weight the right way, by eating a balanced diet, cutting down on calories, and exercising more, which is why a veg diet make you healthier, your omnivore diet was simply poor.
BLHProductions 2 months ago
@BLHProductions You're an idiot.
1imesub 2 months ago
@1imesub: You can be healthy while eating meat, you can be a good person while eating animals or a bad person while being a vegetarian or vegan, you can think that it is OK to eat animals and not be a bad person, and you can disagree with vegetarians and not be ignorant or arrogant.
I make videos like this because people like you exist who think it is a moral imperative to think it is wrong to eat animals and that you can only be healthy by not eating meat. Both are not true.
BLHProductions 2 months ago
This video is so dumb. And your a stupid idiot. Why would u want to b apart of eating animals that have been slaughtered. And some just put in a bag to suffocate.
malikah14otrew 3 months ago
@malikah14otrew: I can respect your opinion, but not when you call me an idiot and use the incorrect version of you're. That seems to make you the idiot. Just saying.
Because I understand that disgust =/= morality and I don't have a problem eating meat. I mean I don't particularly like the idea of two guys have butt sex, but I don't think it is wrong.
Most of the problems you speak of are because of factory farms.
BLHProductions 3 months ago
@KangoeroeSkippy: Yes and they can detect things in their environment. An amoeba moves and doesn't have nerve or brain cells (seeing as it is a single celled organism) but it catches and eats food. It doesn't randomly absorb things. It "knows" what to do. Animals "know" to avoid certain things. Plants "know" how to grow. Humans "know" how to breath.
BLHProductions 6 months ago
@KangoeroeSkippy: But all life has a "will" to live. They have defenses to avoid death and can adapt more or less to a variety of different situations.
A will not to die doesn't mean that it is concrete. A murderer doesn't want to die, a rapist does (likely) want to be raped. A thief doesn't want to be jailed. A child doesn't want to clean their room. Want is good for somethings, but not for others. And if a human wants to eat an animal and an animal doesn't want to get eaten, what happens?
BLHProductions 6 months ago
@KangoeroeSkippy: But a dog can reason that if it shits on the carpet it will get its nose rubbed in it. The dog doesn't want that to happen so it doesn't shit on the carpet. Is this no reason? If I do A, B will happen. I don't want B to happen. I don't do A.
Some do not all. Most don't find killing to be wrong so they do if it suits them.
BLHProductions 6 months ago
@KangoeroeSkippy: Never seen a healthy plant regulate the growth of it's roots and stem/leaves to adapt to it's environment?
BLHProductions 6 months ago
@KangoeroeSkippy: Yes, but that is part of an organism that has a function. A plant has a lot higher functions then a sperm cell. Bacteria move to eat and do what they do. They cannot see and don't really have too as they can climb on anything and have other ways of detection.
Actually they will grow around the obstacle, depending on the plant. Never seen a vine before?
BLHProductions 6 months ago
@KangoeroeSkippy: But evolutionarily speaking, being able to feel pain is a result from being able to move. Plants don't move so they don't need it, if they can grow where they are at then they are fine, but an active organism needs to know not to run full speed into a tree or off a cliff so pain and other adaptations are used.
But if animals are more then organic machines then again, why can they eat animals even when they don't have a life or death need if humans morally can't?
BLHProductions 6 months ago
@KangoeroeSkippy: The same in what you are trying to say. It doesn't mean they are self-aware or are always suffering or suffer exactly like us, it's all speculation. What I meant is that besides things like heat and cold, animals on a humane farm don't have much to worry about.
Again, depends on the trip to a slaughterhouse (if their is one). Being killed would be highest , but that can be reduced, not zero pain, but perfection is not possible.
Except plants growing shorter when touched...
BLHProductions 6 months ago
@KangoeroeSkippy: Perhaps not, but all organisms have defenses and drives for survival of themselves and their own species, which can trump personal survival.
Then would you consider bacteria and other single celled organisms as having will since they do actively move and search for food?
Not saying plants have will (wanting to not be eaten doesn't matter), just that they didn't evolved to be a source of food.
And couldn't animals be organic robots too? They simply have instinct & movement.
BLHProductions 6 months ago
@KangoeroeSkippy: Neither are they in the wild, or the plants you eat, or the countless microorganisms that are killed when you clean yourself. No organism wants to die, but it's simply how Life is. This is why organisms pass on their genes, the individual dies but the species lives on.
The closest to "consensual death" are plants that use their death or fruit to spread seeds. But that is evolution to take advantage of death, not consenting to die.
BLHProductions 6 months ago
@KangoeroeSkippy: Those would be humane farms, for example the farm beside where I live feed cows a diet of grass and hay. The only possible stresses are minute durring the time they are their (I won't say that life is always carefree) and then going to get killed and being killed would be the largest, although I doubt they are getting transported hundreds of miles away.
Infallible slaughter devices are no more impossible then living cruelty free or death free. Improving, not perfection.
BLHProductions 6 months ago
@KangoeroeSkippy: Sounds like a hush puppy to me.
BLHProductions 6 months ago
Is this a joke? Surely no one could be this incredibly stupid.
If someone ate meat before but then became vegan less animals would need to be killed than before because there would be less demand.
Less demand for meat = Less livestock would have to be raised = Less animals killed. Simple. Fucking. Logic.
Riketh 6 months ago
@Riketh: No, less animals would be born. If half the US went veg right now, then about half our meat would go bad (and be really cheap), then fewer animals would be killed, and finally fewer would be born. However, all the animals are killed (eventually) the amount and frequency simply would slow down.
The problem is that you aren't saving animal lives you're causing fewer births (again in the long run).
Then you buy veg products from companies which the companies you hate buy stock in.
BLHProductions 6 months ago
@BLHProductions Of course. I do get that we aren't saving the animals that are alive right now.
However as you said less animals are born and therefore less animals are tortured and then killed.
Not saying that we'll save any of those alive right now.
I'd rather not be born than be tortured my whole life and then be killed.
Less animals are born, less animals are killed.
I would say though that vegans do save animals from a shitty life by not "demanding" that they're born.
Riketh 6 months ago
@Riketh: The problem in that logic is that animals are not always tortured, it's only factory farming that is wrong, which is caused by cheap corn being fed to animals.
Interesting that you bring that up, because if animals being killed by humans even with a good life is grounds for them not being born, then wouldn't it be humans who you should be trying to get to not breed? After all, a human can suffer at least as much as a cow.
Less killed by humans....can't save what isn't born though.
BLHProductions 6 months ago
@Riketh: In case that last bit wasn't clear, the reason why animals are mistreated is greedy capitalism (which leads to the cheap corn that they are fed) and the veg solution is to buy veg products, that aids greedy capitalism, and those companies' stocks are being bought by the companies that lead the animals (and food) being a commodity.
BLHProductions 6 months ago
@BLHProductions Yes, and that is a shame. However by not eating meat the demand for meat is lowered.
Let's say hypothetically that almost everyone went vegan. That means that the factory farming wouldn't be very profitable and that means those companies would make vegan products instead because that would be more the more profitable option.
Same evil companies but at least they aren't killing animals anymore.
Not from the US but I'm sure the Swedish companies do the same thing as you described.
Riketh 6 months ago
@Riketh: Lower, but some people can't stop eating meat and the companies will simply continue what they are doing. A better way is what I said, buying humanly raised meat, that way the smaller farms that are humane are helped and the factory farms start to realize they can spend more money to make conditions for animals humane and still make money
There would still be the cruelty from cutting costs though, and still no animals would be saved. The few million vegs have niche products you know.
BLHProductions 6 months ago
@Riketh: Most of the companies are global.
BLHProductions 6 months ago
@KangoeroeSkippy: What, don't like Black Bean Burgers from Morning Star?
BLHProductions 6 months ago
@KangoeroeSkippy: Most companies don't allow people to own more of the companies then the founders, owners, and CEO's. Although you only need to make sure you always own at least 51%.
The point is that factory farming is caused by greedy capitalism and the veg solution to this is to aid greedy capitalism.
It's like wanting to give or sell cheap grain to poor countries, it sounds like a good idea, but it just makes things worse.
BLHProductions 6 months ago
@KangoeroeSkippy: Doesn't stop the fact that I've had a Morning Star Farms Black Bean Burger and a regular hamburger on the same bun before though, or that I've eaten Chickpeas and rice with a pita bread gyro.
BLHProductions 6 months ago
@KangoeroeSkippy: The thing about meat is that it's caused by corn being so cheap which in turns makes meat cheap. Corn prices are lower the the price to produce.
Also be assured that many veg companies have stock holders from the same companies they hate (McDonalds is one).
BLHProductions 6 months ago
@KangoeroeSkippy: Well, the healthy thing is a self-satisfying prophecy, if you go veg for health reasons you'll likely make other healthy decisions. However, the fact remains that any omnivore can eat more and many do, just look at David Zimmerman, he's eaten things from all over the world and likely beats us combined, and it's not like I don't try new foods (even veg foods), although a lot of what you eat is likely a form of soy.
Of course, you can combine many meats and plants too.
BLHProductions 6 months ago
@KangoeroeSkippy: You know what it was like for you. I won't deny it tastes good, however that means that humans like to eat it, not that we do it only for taste. There tends to be a reason why animals like what they eat.
BLHProductions 6 months ago
@KangoeroeSkippy: And I'm sure that the pelo group also eat eco-freindly dairy, fruits, and veggies. They limit carbs, but it's not meat only.
BLHProductions 6 months ago
@KangoeroeSkippy: How do you figure that when I can always eat whatever you eat? The argument that vegs are forced to get the most out of what they eat doesn't matter if an omnivore eats foods they eat or does the same thing. 5x4x3x2 is more then 4x3x2 every time. Even limiting one food group makes it impossible for you to have more choices, you may try more, but omnivores still have more.
BLHProductions 6 months ago
@KangoeroeSkippy: OK, did he include the good farms or just the ones where people complained or talked bad about it?
Another good book is Meat: A Benign Extravagance.
BLHProductions 6 months ago
@KangoeroeSkippy: I've seen the random gauntlet of videos and also Earthlings.
Of course, depending on who he interviews would count. He may be more reliable, but did he include those who said animals weren't tortured?
BLHProductions 6 months ago
@KangoeroeSkippy: So what stops the independent organ form being corrupt? PETA members have been known to injure animals themselves and neglect animals they were suppose to take care of for the job they were hired to do while undercover.
BLHProductions 6 months ago
@KangoeroeSkippy: It also is on the far side of the spectrum, like the pelo-diet you disagree with.
Wouldn't limiting your food groups be making what you eat less interesting then eating all the food groups? After all, anything a vegetarian or vegan makes I can eat too.
BLHProductions 6 months ago
@KangoeroeSkippy: You mean in the video...that you watched or when I commented...to your comment?
BLHProductions 6 months ago
@KangoeroeSkippy: Yes, everyone believes that their diet is the best. Every once in a while though, you get someone who actually thinks and says that both sides are right and wrong about things. In the end, it tends to be about even in regards to drawbacks and benefits.
BLHProductions 6 months ago
@KangoeroeSkippy: Right, but the exposures, at least what we get now, are the ones that show the worst that they are using to represent all slaughterhouses. I've never heard them say anything about the system that Temple Graindin developed that causes cows to become relaxed so they aren't fearful when they are killed being used by about 50% of US slaughterhouses.
And on the flip side the meat industry won't say anything bad they do.
BLHProductions 6 months ago
@KangoeroeSkippy: Well, the part of the meat industry that feeds cows corn (slowly killing them) could feed them hay the last 5 days of their life to kill harmful strands of E.coli but they don't. It never works to trust industry with fixing their own problems, especially when it costs money.
BLHProductions 6 months ago
@KangoeroeSkippy Then why should I listen to your arguments when you say it's immoral to eat meat? XD
Your fine as long it is in sync with your morals, the same for me and everyone else.
BLHProductions 6 months ago
@KangoeroeSkippy: That would be changing the planet based on what humans think is best based on human needs. That has never worked and leads to more death. Instead of cows, why not raise buffalo?
BLHProductions 6 months ago
@KangoeroeSkippy: That would be changing the planet based on what humans think is best based on human needs. That has never worked and leads to more death. Instead of cows, why not raise buffalo?
BLHProductions 6 months ago
@KangoeroeSkippy: No, fanatics always were and will be fanatics. From extreme beliefs to terrorism and mudrder.
It's just the degree of there beliefs x how fast they want things to change x what they are willing to do.
Of course, ALF freeing animals causing them to either starve to death, being eating, to becoming an invasive species.
BLHProductions 6 months ago
@KangoeroeSkippy: Only works if you never realized that to go from a living animal to a steak that the animal has to be killed, gutted, and processed.
Although, we use most parts of animals, that why most people can't have a vegan lifestyle, from book binding to crayons, animal by-products are used.
BLHProductions 6 months ago
@KangoeroeSkippy: Even better if you can raise your own animals and produce. A store bought ear of corn can't hold up to one home grown. More time and effort spent.
BLHProductions 6 months ago
@KangoeroeSkippy: Only if you think its immoral to hunt. The thing is that humans keep populations down and help the animals. This is best demonstrated by Africa. People going on safari hunts mean that jobs are available for the people whose only other job would be poaching, the money for tags helps preserve the land, and the animals aren't poached which has actually helped their numbers.
Again, poaching is cut down on when people hunt, both because they can hunt and you have more eyes.
BLHProductions 6 months ago
@KangoeroeSkippy: Unless you live out west, the soil there was poor in B12 even before humans got there.
Crop rotation and raising animals for food and their resources (milk and eggs) is the best way to do it as long as they are native. Trying to raise cattle in the dessert is just a bad idea when native animals are better adapted.
BLHProductions 6 months ago
@KangoeroeSkippy: That's fine for you, but there are those who want total animal liberation, meaning not even pets.
What about these people. It then becomes you vs them, with them saying they are more moral then you instead of you saying I am immoral for eating meat (although not so directly).
The problem is that you have to obtain the minerals, the best way is manure, but if not they are either mined in some way or they are
Trees only work if they are native. You have to do crop rotation.
BLHProductions 6 months ago
@KangoeroeSkippy: Again, a big reason why I don't subscribe the the meatless diet mentality is that all the way to breathtarian (they think humans don't have to eat and unfortunately they do exist) they say they are healthier then the last who eats too much, and if you can't do their diet you're doing it wrong.
BLHProductions 6 months ago
@KangoeroeSkippy: Yes, but I am someone who still enjoys the food groups they gave up while sacrificing more. As I said, they go from feeling neutral about eating meat to feeling neutral about being a vegetarian/vegan.
BLHProductions 6 months ago
@KangoeroeSkippy: A bit one sided. Fewer vegetarians who watch what they eat vs more omnivores who tend not to (at least in western countries).
Wouldn't healthy omnivore vs healthy vegetarian vs healthy vegan vs healthy frutatarian, vs healthy freegan vs healthy raw food vegetarian vs healthy raw food vegan vs healthy raw food omnivore vs healthy raw food frutatarian is a better way of thinking of it?
Healthy is healthy, if you can do it.
BLHProductions 6 months ago
@KangoeroeSkippy: Then, logically, wouldn't an omnivore buying local humanly raised animals and produce have even more influence on the treatment of animals? After all, if you are not using a product and never will, what does a greedy corporation care if you think they are immoral?
BLHProductions 6 months ago
@KangoeroeSkippy: I may be the minority among them, but I am with the majority of society in thinking eating meat isn't immoral. So how are they going to sway society if they act that way towards me when I (at least in part) agree with them?
Perhaps more ethical in my opinion and even yours, but it's still opinion vs opinion.
BLHProductions 6 months ago
@KangoeroeSkippy: Yes, despite the fact that we disagree, you're not an asshole. However, it still would be the majority would not like it, and they would likely want to take it farther then I would like, because most animal rights people who don't eat meat what total animal liberation. No pets, no milk, no eggs. Of course, how they expect to feed the soil while not using animals and growing annuals is beyond me.
Organic doesn't matter much if fossil fuels are used to shit it 500 miles though.
BLHProductions 6 months ago
@KangoeroeSkippy: Prohibition. You simply can't outlaw eating meat. What are people going to do, keep animals they can't sell? They will either kill them all (or most) to save money, or ignore the laws. Now you have a black market in meat, animals are kept in worst conditions then they were before, and of course, the people who have to eat meat because they are unable to be healthy on a vegetarian diet.
Reverse it, what if you were forced to eat meat? Meat does more then taste good.
BLHProductions 6 months ago
@KangoeroeSkippy: Do you know why though? Animal Rights first has a bad image because of the extremists, besides that, if I were to join an animal rights group and they found out I eat meat, they would either lecture me to no end or kick me out because they believe you can't eat animals and want to better their conditions. So its humanly raised and local, which everyone should be doing anyway.
Laws to protect wildlife are also funded by actual hunters who pay to hunt.
BLHProductions 6 months ago
@KangoeroeSkippy: Fighting for animal rights saves animals from needless harm. I'm not against it being illegal to shoot an animal in the leg and leave it to die. That part can save lives, but simply not eating them won't. What can is improving conditions, which again I support, of the animals being raised. Less deaths from bad conditions.
Again, the argument isn't against political change (as I said this was the best way to do it while allowing people to eat meat) it's simply not eating them.
BLHProductions 6 months ago
@KangoeroeSkippy: I'm pro-animal rights, however, I also think humans are not immoral for eating meat if they choose to.
Even 1 person eating meat, if a gradual reduction took place, would not mean animals were actually saved. Unless you buy a cow and let it live out it's days (perhaps as a natural fertalizer) you haven't saved any because what you don't eat either spoils or the market adjusts and fewer animals are born, no lives saved when they didn't begin.
BLHProductions 6 months ago
@KangoeroeSkippy: Not really. There are about 5 -10 million vegetarians and vegans (or like dieted people) in the US. They have their food, clothes, and cosmetics. So if it was reversed, people could still eat meat and wear leather if they so chose.
And the point is that no animals are saved. Even in the long run, the amount of animals born is the only thing that drops, but you can't save what isn't born.
And if you do get rid of the animals, what will the soil eat? How will you grow plants?
BLHProductions 6 months ago
@apocalist420: It's a demonstration.
If people eat animals, they still die, just at a slower rate, so vegs don't save animals, they just don't lead to anymore deaths.
This is why accepting that people are going to eat meat even if you don't want to and asking them to eat humanely is better then trying to get people to go vegan or vegetarian because of your personal morals.
You'll find that most people care about animals, even if they eat them.
BLHProductions 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Fuck you're ugly.
SNIP3Dz 8 months ago
@monsteriousrainbows: To show that you don't help animals by not eating them. None are saved. It's best to improve conditions and then work on getting people to not eat meat, because then, the people who will always eat meat and won't care will be eating humanely killed meat
BTW, it's point, not pint.
BLHProductions 8 months ago
@jeshopk: And I would think being an omnivore but not eating humans would be the second most consistent thing.
BLHProductions 8 months ago
@jeshopk: That would happen if meat was outlawed, worse the Prohibition.
BLHProductions 8 months ago
@jeshopk: Perhaps, but you would be eating something that gives no nutrients you can't make, that can eat everything you can, and it's illegal.
BLHProductions 8 months ago
The idea in your ethics is not to cause unnecessary harm (pain, fear, distress). we know that plant based food production causes much less harm than the current livestock practices (even in organic farming). So eating meat (financially supporting people who harm others) is a violation of the least harm principle. It's perhaps not impossible in theory, but in our current agriculture system it is impossible to eat meat that satisfied the least harm principle. So we have 2 arguments against meat
stijnbruers 8 months ago
@stijnbruers: We also know that you can humanely raise and kill animals quickly. We know that problems can happen on a non-meat diet, and we know that meat is not as unhealthy as many vegs like to say it is. So if you try your best you will reduce pain, fear, and distress as best you can.
We also know the problems that agriculture, that you help fund, also harms the planet and kills species and individual animals, as well as the soil and isn't cruelty free.
You can't raise and kill animals?
BLHProductions 8 months ago
If you say an arm is not sentient although it has the capacities you mentioned, it means that the capacities you mentioned do not necessarily imply sentience. If you eat meat, you first had to kill a sentient being.
But ok, even if you don't grant sentient beings the basic right, but only say that you shouldn't cause negative feelings to sentient beings, you should become vegan in our current society. Because all animals suffered due to a human cause, and you financially supported that.
stijnbruers 8 months ago
@stijnbruers: That is because an arm is part of a being, not the being. Although an arm can react to pain, protect itself, and has a nervous system, this pretty much covers what you say matters as sentience.
And I do not think that killing a sentient organism is in itself, wrong. You do, and you don't eat animals, I don't and I do.
I give them the basic right to to be needlessly harmed that is what feeling pain means, it doesn't mean they have an absolute right to life.
Free range organic.
BLHProductions 8 months ago
Here's my phylosophy: living beings have interests and therefore deserve respect by giving them the right not to be killed for luxury ends. Sentient beings not only have interests, but can subjectively feel them, and therefore get a stronger right not to be used as merely means to all our ends.
About the self healing property: my arm can do the same; Even if I give it anaesthetics, this injury gets healed; my arm reacts to the injury. Does my arm have its own feelings then? Is my arm sentient?
stijnbruers 9 months ago
@stijnbruers: No offense, but your philosophy is good only to you and people who think similarly.
The problem with what you said beyond that is that plants, bacteria, and protazoa are infact living beings. So they deserve respect too, as I said. Now you say that they shouldn't be killed for luxury ends, however this doesn't mean they can't still be killed for food or for housing or because of protection right? Respect means respect and sentience means don't needless harm.
BLHProductions 9 months ago
@stijnbruers: Well, this applies to animals eating animals to. So why is so different about us and animals? I'm guessing you will insist that we don't need to eat it, though we don't exactly NEED to eat fruit either, their are other sources to the vitamins in them, but you wouldn't argue the good fruit can do, the same with meat, and this is assuming you are able to not eat meat with no ill affects to your health and many ex-vegans have.
Your arm is part of a whole. You are made up of cells.
BLHProductions 9 months ago
@stijnbruers: The problem with using your own is that it is part of a sentient organism. An arm isn't sentient on it's own, neither are legs, your intestines, nervous system, or brain.
If you use this argument, then you can say you don't eat sentient animals, as meat is not sentient even if you say the animal is.
BLHProductions 9 months ago
It's not just having hormones that matter. it is how those hormones react, what they do, and then infer on obesrvational evidence. For example: I am injured, I react in some way, you give me hormones, and I react differently. If we see a similar thing happening in other beings, that adds one part of the evidence to say that individual is sentient. And if we'd then look at the neurofysiology...
stijnbruers 9 months ago
@stijnbruers: Um, but the same happens with plants. In fact they can take one chemical and metabolize it differently to have many different functions.
Do you know that sweet small after a rain storm? That is a something plants use to attract insects to eat their competition.
I just think that you should show respect to all life, and respect doesn't mean that you can't eat it. Do not Native Americans show respect to animals they eat?
BLHProductions 9 months ago
I agree that it is not obvious to couple the ability to feel (pain, fear, stress) with the deontological basic right not to be used as merely means (the dignity account). But I think that beings who are able to feel, have a consciosuness, a wel-being, and those are the most basic things that we think are relevant in ethics. So we can make a consistent ethics by coupling sentience to dignity. I think that is better than your coupling of an arbitrary biological criterion to dignity.
stijnbruers 9 months ago
@stijnbruers: And what if you over exert yourself and animals are nothing more then complex versions of plants that are fueled by the activities of their bodies and the instincts that they are taught? Plants mearly don't move and don't get taught, they just do 100% through function. A cat won't chase mice it it isn't taught, but shown once by another it will. It's simply how animals learn.
It's still limited by science, the same science that makes arbitrary groups that you disagree with.
BLHProductions 9 months ago
@stijnbruers: Can a plant heal itself and detect when it is being touched or injured? Yes, they can. So the real difference is that plants react and talk through chemicals. Animals have nerves and vocal cords. And isn't a sign of sentience a movement in reaction to a negative stimuli? Um, plants can't move, well, most can't. Do they feel pain? No, I would hope not, but do they feel? Yes, even if it is different.
Why not just treat all life with dignity even if you eat it? That's more constant.
BLHProductions 9 months ago
If we'd give plants the benefit of the doubt, it implies that we risk a lot, namely cannibalism. But in order to justfy the toleration of cannibalism, we need much stronger evidence. So we should give beings the benefit of the doubt only if the evidence is strong enough. For example insects: giving them the benefit of the doubt, and hence not eating them, is not a big problem for us. But giving plants the benefit of the doubt implies suicide or cannibalism, and both are difficult for us.
stijnbruers 9 months ago
@stijnbruers: Not really. It means that all organisms are deserving of respect and that you have to acknowledge that for you to live, bacteria, plants, protozoa, and animals are going to die, but life goes on. Only individuals are sacrificed, but the species lives on.
I'm sorry, but the world isn't going to bend to how you want it to be. Your life causes death, even eating plants, animals have to die for you. Just accept this as a part of life and you'll be fine.
BLHProductions 9 months ago
Look at science! How do we now that a being is sentient? Answer: neurology, hormones, fysiology, reactions, etc... the more of those criteria are satisfied within a being, the more likely it is able to feel. So: vertebrates have all criteria satiesfied, except being able to say "I feel pain". But we claim that baby's can feel, although they can't talk. But plants: almost no criteria are satisfied.
stijnbruers 9 months ago
@stijnbruers: OK, so what are hormones? Chemicals mostly. What do plants use? Chemicals. What do these chemicals do? Cause reactions. Some plants act like they have nerves too like venus fly traps.
All life can feel though. A plant being brushed against will stiffen the best it can while alerting other plants to do the same.
But, all that aside, what does the ability to feel pain mean? Does it mean don't eat them? No, it means, don't allow them to suffer. You can still eat sentient animals.
BLHProductions 9 months ago