meat

Your absurdity is outstanding.

Plants do not feel pain for they have no brain, nor central nervous system.

And if you really feel for plants, then you would be vegan. For the vegan diet is responsible for far fewer plants being grown and 'killed', than the meat based diet. Yes, that is right. Meat eaters actually consume more plants than vegans, just not in a direct way.


"It's bizarre, really: You take a crop like soy, oats, corn, or wheat, products high in fiber and complex carbohydrates, but devoid of cholesterol and artery-clogging saturated fat. You put them into an animal and create something with no fiber or complex carbohydrates at all, but with lots of cholesterol and saturated fat. It makes about as much sense to take pure water, run it through a sewer system, and then drink it."


--- Bruce Friedrich, director of vegan outreach, PETA
in his essay, Veganism in a Nutshell

 

Please define higher life? And then, please justify its actions regarding animals.

I do not know wherether or not PETA are liars. But what I do know is that the video they made is highly accurate. Only a deluded moron, or a disingenuous psychopath would dismiss it as untruthful.

 

I have sad news for you:

Cows, chickens, sheep, pigs, fish, they are all sentient. They all feel pain. They are all capable of suffering. Do not try to excuse the actions of their killers and exploiters through lies.

These creatures are in fact mostly more conscious than infant humans. Do you think it is acceptable to farm babies for the slaughter house, and your plate?


"All the arguments to prove man's superiority cannot shatter this hard fact: in suffering the animals are our equals."

- Peter Singer.

 

I am not talking about torture at all. I believe in total freedom, that's all. I think chickens deserve freedom whether they can appreciate it or not. Them not being able to process emotion just means that they can't bitch.

 

No, vegans kill more plants than the omnivore, vegetables and crops (generally speaking) actually die. Plants like fescue used for grazing do not die, they go dormant meaning they are still actually alive. Like you said plants feel no pain, the grazing animal only trims the plant back, not actually killing it.

Omnivores indirectly eat me is true, but so is it true that vegans indirectly eat meat. The millions (maybe billions - not sure) of animals killed annually by the combine, the disc, plow and planter. And what of the insects? I hope they taste good in your crackers. You can smell that death on your fruit.

Hold on there just a minute. A couple sentences there, but maybe you should find the other premise. What does sentient mean again?

That’s sick, and you’re sick for saying it. You have more compassion for for a pig than an infant, I don’t even know why I’m even responding to this, you’re to far gone....out into the big blue sky.

Peter Singer is an absolute disgrace to mankind. He’s nothing but a run of the mill knee-jerk reactionist radical who probably gets paid more than anyone on this forum (I recommend you stick that in your pipe).

 

Just as I would expect from a catholic, yours is the babbling of fools. I deal with real life, not aeriform dogmatism. I am concerned only with actuality, not unsubstantiated beliefs. Facts and real evidence is what defines my rationale, not your brand of illogical make-believe crap.


Come forth from behind your veil which covers your eyes from the truth and behold that which constitutes actuality.


Whether there are plants which ruminants graze on is irrelevant. You seem to be trying to prove a point of pointlessness. Animals have for them specially grown crops which are harvested and fed to them. Far more plants are grown specifically for the animals, and thus killed, than would be grown to directly feed humans in order to provide the equivalent amount of energy. Fact. If you can disprove that, then prey do.


And killing a plant is the equivalent of killing bacteria, or destroying millions of skin cells every time you scratch your arm. They are not sentient.

You are missing the point here. No surprise.

My ways are the ways of one whom follows a principal of least harm. One whom seeks to live well without leaving unnecessary piles of victims in their wake, would be vegan.

I advocate reform regarding intensive arable farming. I only buy organically grown foods. Once again, more creatures are killed in the blades of combine harvesters for the meat eater, because more plants are grown for the meat eater.

I have written on this topic previously, for a different forum:

---------------------------------------------------------------

"The least harmful human diet with regards to the welfare of animals, to the environment, and to ones personal health is a vegan diet.


If it were true that many more animals would be killed out in the arable fields to feed every human on Earth, if every human were vegan, than are currently killed in slaughter houses, then the answer would be quite simple.


The answer is not to eat more animals, that sounds ludicrous because it is ludicrous. The animals deliberately killed for human consumption do not exist on a diet of grass alone. They have a specifically farmed plant based diet. Their food has to be grown by arable farmers in fields. They eat far more plants than vegans. The equivalent amount of food derived from an animal for a meat eater in comparison to a plant based meal for a vegan, would have required more energy to have been produced. More energy equals more pollution. It would have required the growing of many more plants from which the animal gained its alimentation in the first place. So many more animals would have met their end in arable fields in the production of food for animals destined for the plates of humans.


If a vegan was to have grown their own organic food in their own greenhouse, then no animals whatsoever would have been disturbed or killed in its production. Plants can also be grown via hydroponics. This requires no plowing, no fields, not even any outside exposure. Many plant based foods can be harvested from trees and long established bushes etc. Such foods include apples and other fruits for example, so no disturbance to the Earth would be necessary, and no disturbance to wild animals or their habitats would have resulted following the establishment of such flora. In fact many arable farmers are increasing the use of poly tunnels for crop growing. These prevent access to surface living wildlife.


Those are just a few of many examples which destroy the 'meat being the least harmful dietary choice' argument.


I have walked through many arable fields ready for harvest. I have not seen much evidence of nesting wildlife at all. It is incorrect for the assumption to be made that a certain number of creatures are killed in every single arable field, based purely on a tiny highly localized survey. Those findings simply are not relevant throughout the world, or even the US in which it was carried out. So the number given for the deaths of wild creatures as a result of arable farming is at best dubious.


But, assuming that the numbers are correct. What then would be the diet which is least harmful to animals and wildlife?


Firstly, fishing would end. billions of fish are murdered each year under extremely painful conditions for them. They effectively suffocate and inaudibly [to human ears], they scream in agony as they slowly die out in open air on the deck of a boat. Not to mention the other creatures who are commonly caught in fishing nets such as dolphins etc.


Poultry farming would end. The suffering they endure is beyond the comprehension of most.


And all other types of animal, insect, bird, and fish, etc. farming would cease.


Intensive farming practices would need to be revised. Obviously now that there are no farm animals to feed, plant food production could be reduced slightly. Fields would need to be closed off to vulnerable wildlife. Measures would need to be taken to deter them, many high tech solutions could be introduced. Mole deterrents could be deployed around field perimeters. If they are electronic, they could be solar powered. When harvesting, the farmer could first scare away any creatures which are in fields before the combine has a chance to kill them. Woodland should be established and protected to provide cover for any creatures who did make it into the field only to be scared away come harvest time. Pesticides and other chemicals would be banned. This would end the poisoning of plants which wild creatures feed from, water ways, and wildlife itself.


Those are but a few ideas. Experts could come up with many other methods of finally ending the unintentional deaths of wild creatures during production of plant crops for human food, if they cared. Of course, the most simple and effective solution is to end human procreation. Fewer humans, less need for intensive arable farming. The fewer the number of people in the world, the less environmental damage shall occur, and the more animals shall be spared."

------------------------------------------------------------------------

sen·tient (snshnt, -sh-nt)

adj.

1. Having sense perception; conscious.

2. Experiencing sensation or feeling.


Now, why could you not just have looked it up yourself in a dictionary?

I am sick for saying that? Why? You assume I have more compassion for a pig than for an infant, why? What did I write that made you think that?


You only read what your feeble mind projects. You only see what you want to see, not the truth. And if you had any grasp of reality whatsoever, you would realize that it is actually less cruel to kill an incognizant infant human than it is to kill a cognizant pig, but you are unable to comprehend such an obvious fact because your mind is held sway by irrational emotion and specious untruths. You are a slave to fallacy.

You dislike Peter Singer because he speaks of the truth and a deluded paralogist like yourself cannot handle the truth. That is why you cower behind the bullshit of Catholicism.

You are an absolute disgrace to logic.

 

What??? Uh, yeah, no guilt here, and you're why I am pissed off...
Please go eat a steak...
Why dont you go live off the land and become the animals king.. You can learn their language and everything. And you can be their ruler and their master...

 

Gee, good come-back moron. Go get yourself a life, Miss 2,790 posts since May.

 

hahahaha, its early..
hehe that was actually pretty funny...

 

so, what about that chicken they kept alive for months after they cut its head off? fed it with an eyedropper straight to the gullet opening. it walked around and pretty much acted like a regular chicken. to me, absence of a HEAD and still able to function pretty much puts its brain more on a disposable item. and it did not noticably act sick, or in pain during this time.

i do agree that animals can feel pain though. 'facts' are not necessary, just personal observations can show you that. i'm still eating ribs for lunch though, that pig wouldn't have hesitated to bite me if he had a chance.

 

What about it? You tell me.

You are confusing pigs with with hungry Lions. Pigs are nice and friendly creatures, the ones I have encountered and observed certainly are.

 

Ananova: Pigs bite off man's ear, testicle and part of his scalp

A Romanian pig farmer lost an ear, part of his scalp and a testicle when his herd attacked him.

The 69-year-old was cleaning out the pigs' sty when they attacked.

One of his pigs knocked him to the ground and several others mauled him.

Gheorghe Miscoiu, who lives near the city of Arad, around 340 miles north-west of Bucharest, was knocked unconscious in the attack.

Doctors say his condition isn't life-threatening. They originally thought his brain might have been damaged in the attack.

Dr Anca Baizat of the local hospital's plastic surgery department said: "I haven't ever seen anything quite like it."

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_214001.html?menu=news.latestheadlines


Pig castrated for killing a man
Murderous boar escapes the death sentence after owner apologises to family and pays funeral costs. ANDRE JURGENS

AROGUE pig that killed a man when it savaged his private parts has been given a painful dose of its own medicine by the grieving residents of a tiny Eastern Cape town.

The farming community of Clarkson, near Kareedouw, is still mourning the bizarre death of Petrus Williams.

Williams, 32, known as Connie, bled to death within minutes of being attacked by a neighbour's large pig last Saturday.

He had joined a chase through the isolated town, which has two streets, to catch three runaway pigs.

Using a stick, Williams shooed the rogue animals back to the gate of their pen.

Martha Goede, owner of the boar, said: "I heard people screaming. My four-year-old pig turned around suddenly and bit Connie in the groin."

Its powerful jaws severed an artery and tore open Williams's private parts.

"Connie walked a few steps and fell on the ground. There was blood everywhere. He died so quickly, it was tragic," said a tearful Goede.

The pig was pelted with rocks as it went for Williams again as he lay on the ground.

The incident was described as one of the most tragic in the town's 160-year history.

Angry residents threatened to kill the beast, but it was saved when Goede, 32, who rears up to 25 pigs in her backyard and sells them for slaughter, apologised to Williams's parents, Johanna and Petrus, and agreed to have the pig castrated .

Townsfolk gathered to witness the bizarre "eye-for-an-eye" settlement when the castration and teeth-sawingwas conducted by a veterinarian on Thursday.

"We had its teeth cut so it could not bite anyone else," said Goede.

She has contributed to Williams's funeral costs and promised to slaughter the pig soon.

The veterinarian, who did not wish to be named, said the animal's aggressive male hormones would disappear after the operation. Its meat would also become more tender, he said.

Williams's emotional father said: "I still cannot believe my son is dead. "What's done is done, but I will always love him."

http://www.suntimes.co.za/1999/02/21/news/news03.htm


not only do pigs bite, they go straight for the testicles!!!!!

 

If I so chose, I could post here thousands of similar cases involving humans.

What you have done is in fact provided another link between the human and pig species. We are not so dissimilar after all.


Labeling an entire species as dangerous, or aggressive, or out for your blood, on the basis of a few isolated incidents concerning a small number of individuals, is not a particularly proficient method of achieving accuracy. This is especially so as the whole truth surrounding your examples of violent behavior in pigs, is not included within the short articles which you posted.

And I say once again, the pigs I have observed were placid and wholly non-violent. But even if all pigs were prone to violent spats, that still does not justify abusing and killing them, for they remain sentient creatures who experience pain just as humans do.


To these animals, all humans are Nazis. The meat industry shits all over the holocaust.

 

And you're the reason we veg*ns dislike some meateaters ( not all, but some.Like you for instance.), you start hating people like Ideologue for speaking truth, which you try to hide from ( and can't accept knowing that...ahem, Veg*ns have REASONS to not eat meat.)

 

what the hell is up with veg*ns, is that the new cool way to spell vegan, or you just dont know how to spell it...
Can I join the cool club and spell veg*n that way...

 

It means both, vegetarien and vegan, that way you can put veg*n as a substitute for vegetarien and vegan.

 

that made absolutely no sense at all...

 

what I mean is you substitute the etarie(vegetarien) and a(vegan) for *.

If you're talking to (or about) BOTH, vegetarien and vegan, people often say veg*n instead of vegetarien and vegan.

example: Veg*ns don't eat meat. (vegetariens and/or vegans don't eat meat)

Now do you understand?(don't blame you if you don't,since I know I'm terrible at explaining stuff....)

 

Yeah I typed up some big response and lost it all on Word "Perfect", but whatever, I'm not going to do it again because Ideologue has figured out all the answers, he is all knowing, actually what I mean to say is that you are a complete asshole, you have no room for anyone's ideas but your own. Go out and find Utopia buddy, somewhere over the rainbow.......anyway I'll be back....

 

What is his problem with saturated fat? A vegan diet is not necessarily void of saturated fat and even if it was it would not necessarily be any more healthy.A vegan diet is dangerous anyway.
.With the exception of dairy products that contain no polyunsaturated fat, all fats contain a mixture of saturated , monosaturated and polyunsaturated fats in varying degrees.If you think that olive oil is only monounsatrated and butter is only saturated, think again.Olive oil has a higher percentage of monosaturated fat than say butter of lard but still contains some saturated and polyunsaturated fat.Butter and lard contain a higher percentage of saturated fat but still cntain a percentage of mono unsaturated fat and some poly unsaturated fat in the case of lard.
As many vegans will tell you, coconut oil is nuitritious ( and it is) but they do not mention that it is 92% saturated fat.
Many people buy polyunsaturated margarine beleiving it to be more nuitritious than butter because no saturated fat and they have heard that polyunsaturated fat is better for you.Firstly the polyunsaturated fat is omega 6 that people get too much of not omega 3 that that people do not get enough of. Fact: all margarines contain saturated fat.If there was none the margarine would still be liquid at room temperature.

Where did this guy get the idea that saturated fat causes blocking of the arteries? (Not a medical term I am sure) The only research I have come up with is a nutty Russian scientist in the 1950'2 who heated some fat the very high temperatures and added it to rabbit food.He later killed the rabbits and found plaques of fat in the arteries. Hence the birth of a myth, that has been aided by newspapers making money out of hysteria.BTW when margarine is made , the oil/fat is also heated to very high temperatures.It goes black at one point in the processing.