HOME | DD
Pupaveg β VV40: Happy exploitation (2)
by-nc-nd
Published: 2016-05-01 21:43:56 +0000 UTC; Views: 1465; Favourites: 22; Downloads: 2
Redirect to original
Description
More about "happy exploitation":
ξ¦
Mature Content
Humane slaughter
The standard legal form of slaughter for animals is for them to be "stunned" and then have their throats slit. For chickens and pigs, the stunning is generally done with an electric shock, and for other animals a pneumatic bolt pistol projects a metal rod into their forehead. It is claimed that this renders the animal 100% unconscious, but if you actually look into the facts, slaughterhouse workers will admit that there is no way to verify that this is the case for every single animal, and indeed the process doesn't always work, isn't followed routinely, and indeed, the "stun" can wear off while the animal is being killed.
But regardless of the fashion of execution, there isn't a justification for taking the life. It is still taking the life of a sentient being, for your enjoyment ultimately. If somebody killed your companion animal, I doubt you'd say "that's fine because you did it humanely" as described above.
Grass-fed, organic, free-range etc
Regardless of the nature of their lives before slaughter, farmed animals get sent to slaughter. There is a misconception that animals get to "live out their lives" and then get killed. Animals get killed as soon as their purpose is served, or as soon as they reach a profitable size, which is at a fraction of their potential lifespan. The very definition of grass-fed/organic/free-range animals is actually very loose and can vary wildly. It doesn't mean that the animals have any kind of quality of life necessarily, it just means the farm has to meet some arbitrary requirements to earn that title. That's not to say that every single farmer treats their animals dreadfully while they live - some actually do give their animals a fair standard of life before sending them to have their throats slit. But it's ignorant to think it's the norm in the first place.
Killing animals for no reason is wrong, but if you have a reason it's fine
The reason for killing animals in modern society is for the enjoyment of eating their dead body. That surely is not a justification for taking life. If somebody killed your companion animal, I doubt that you'd say "It's fine as long as you eat them".
~ Vegan Sidekick
Related content
Comments: 52
Some sure are. Thankfully the amount of openminded ones is increasing.
π: 0 β©: 1
If you mean bullied by those like you who wanna feel morally superior to others then yes, the amount of openminded ones is increasing.
π: 0 β©: 1
If you think that telling people to stop harming the weak and defenseless is "bullying", you are delusional.
π: 0 β©: 1
LOL, weak and defenseless. How arrogant. Quite the predator mentality when you think about it. Then again, we're pack animals, so we mostly rely on numbers or elaborate infrastructure to hunt, so I'd love to see you when you're closed in with a cow that's pissed off at you and bet how long you last (I think I'd bet a minute, tops).
Also, if eating meat is harmful to animals, then eating fruits and vegetables is harmful to plants. As proven before, we do need to eat meat to live sustainable, healthly lives, contrary to your bullshit. I've got education and science on my side, and all you have is confirmation bias and ignorance on yours.
π: 1 β©: 2
yes, plants have such complicated emotions and a high developed nerve system.
π: 1 β©: 0
You seem to be stuck in your own web of delusion and willful ignorance, so I think we're done here.Β
π: 0 β©: 1
Medical science housemate here.
Y'know, I wonder who you're speaking of here; your accusations far more accurately match yourself than me. Like I said: get a science degree, and then you'll know the difference between pseudoscience based on confirmation bias and actual science. You'll learn about concepts such as Occam's Razor, and the understanding that correlation does not equate to causation. You'll learn about statistical analysis methods, statistical power and beta, and other concepts that will show you precisely how flawed every one of your reference sources is and precisely why.
Don't argue science with a scientist; you'll lose.
π: 0 β©: 1
Like I said, I have nothing more to add.
π: 0 β©: 1
You never had anything to add except meaningless tripe made for the express purpose to feel superior to others.
π: 0 β©: 1
Yes, because NOT killing other beings is "feeling superior". Makes sense! You, sir, do not seem to be equipped to have a logical discussion.
π: 0 β©: 1
Except you are killing other living beings, they just don't have faces is all. Your only justification for doing so is because we need to. But going by that logic, we don't need to eat plants and can subsist entirely on meat.
According to you, we can all live happily on only plants, and eat only plants like deer do. Except, they don't eat only plants; they'll eat eggs, baby birds and even lumps of meat if they're thrown their way. As per the video I sent you. And that deer isn't unique; there's a whole island where the deer eat baby birds every hatching season. Because the soil is poor in calcium and phosphorus on that island, and bones are almost pure calcium phosphate. Mmmmmm.
It ain't me who isn't equipped to have a logical discussion.
π: 0 β©: 1
Plants have feelings
First of all, if you're really serious about this and no amount of scientific evidence will sway you - then it purely comes down to numbers. If a blade of grass is of the same importance to you as a dog, then it makes no sense to feed up livestock on millions and millions of plants, and then kill the animal to eat. This would result in far more plant casualties, which you'd surely want to avoid as a dedicated plants-rights activist. Better to minimize those plant casualties by just feeding yourself on them, rather than feeding many times more to animals, right?Β But let's be sensible - plants lack brains and lack anything else that neuroscientists know to cause sentience. Some studies show plants to have input/output reactions to certain stimulation, but no study suggests sentience or an ability to "feel emotions". You can plainly understand the difference between a blade of grass and a dog. Comparisons between the two are completely absurd.
Humans can't thrive on just meat. This will make us deficient and result in premature death. As a "health expert" you should have known this.
Some herbivores will consume meat if food is scarce.Β Whether they kill on instinct or are aware of their predicament is irrelevant, we are not in their situation. If you live in modern society and have access to crops, vegetables, fruit, grains etc, then you have no obligation or need for animal products. Also, deer exhibit all kinds of behaviour that you would seek to avoid, for instance, violent and fatal fights between two males, rape and kicking others in the face when they don't like something. Deer are not good ethical role models.
π: 0 β©: 1
"First of all, if you're really serious about this and no amount of scientific evidence will sway you - then it purely comes down to numbers. If a blade of grass is of the same importance to you as a dog, then it makes no sense to feed up livestock on millions and millions of plants, and then kill the animal to eat. This would result in far more plant casualties, which you'd surely want to avoid as a dedicated plants-rights activist. Better to minimize those plant casualties by just feeding yourself on them, rather than feeding many times more to animals, right?Β But let's be sensible - plants lack brains and lack anything else that neuroscientists know to cause sentience. Some studies show plants to have input/output reactions to certain stimulation, but no study suggests sentience or an ability to "feel emotions". You can plainly understand the difference between a blade of grass and a dog. Comparisons between the two are completely absurd."
Y'know, for someone who's getting on about me being rude to you, you certainly seem to be purposely ignoring my point.
It was never about any plant's feelings, it was merely a counter to your argument. You argue that we don't need to eat animal products to live and live healthy, therefore we shouldn't because we're killing and stealing from animals. I countered that by stating we don't need to eat plants as much as we don't need to eat animal products. As omnivores, we can subsist entirely on meat or a purely vegan diet, but neither is ideal. A truly healthy diet for us is a mix of both, as stated by a medical scientist who is far more educated on the subject than you or I. Therefore, if you say it's wrong to eat animal products because animals have precious fee-fees and we don't need to eat them, then going by that logic we shouldn't eat plants either because they're living beings too and we don't need to eat them.
It never came down to numbers or the feelings of plants, it just came down to the simple fact that we need both to live properly.
"Humans can't thrive on just meat. This will make us deficient and result in premature death. As a "health expert" you should have known this."
First off, I ain't the medical scientist, my roommate is, he just comments from time to time. Second, he nor I ever said it was healthly to live on just meat, just that it was possible to, just like it's possible to live on a vegan diet, but it's not healthly either.
"Some herbivores will consume meat if food is scarce. Whether they kill on instinct or are aware of their predicament is irrelevant, we are not in their situation. If you live in modern society and have access to crops, vegetables, fruit, grains etc, then you have no obligation or need for animal products."
Well, if you don't care to live a healthly life then yes, you don't need to eat animal products.
π: 0 β©: 1
Meat has zero fiber, zero vitamin C, zero B12 on its own (unless the animals receive supplements) etc. And because our bodies aren't biologically designed for it, it clogs our arteries and is the leading cause of heart disease, kidney disease, the most common types of cancer and diabetes, along with dairy and eggs. Therefore the shortest living populations are those who consume mostly meat.Β You can meet all your requirements on a plant-based diet without all the harmful stuff, there is nothing to fear. Indeed, many athletes take up a plant-based diet specifically because of the benefits.
Check out Julieanna Hever, a vegan dietitian
plantbaseddietitian.com/
Check out Dr Greger, a physician
www.veganmd.org
As for plants: so by your logic cutting a dog's throat is on par with mowing the lawn? The Yulin Dog meat festival is just as horrific as picking apples is? Would you take a school of small children to a strawberry harvest and a slaughterhouse just as easily? I hope you are joking, otherwise I am very concerned about your mental health. Eating plants is not about "being alive", it is about sentience. Even most meat eaters think the plants tho argument is absurd and seriously, it's getting old. But if you insist that picking strawberries (non-sentient) out of nessecity is on par with beating the shit out of your dog or your kid (sentient) WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE TO, I suggest you seek mental help in your local area as soon as possible, because then there's obviously something wrong with you. (No trying to be rude here, but unless you are joking or seeking a desperate argument against veganism, your argument is kind of psychopatic, I hope you realize. You can use that poor argument for everything violent!) My argument narrows down to that we should stop senseless violence and the leading cause of the planet's destruction. Your argument narrows down to that we should all commit suicide by not eating anything because "apples are crying". Who is the reasonable one here? Even every sane meat eater would find it absurd.
You keep saying that you and your friend know it better because your friend is a MD (which I doubt, because it's 2017 and no educatd MD would still claim that humans need processed corpse to stay alive, since the contrary has been proven countless of times over). ButΒ have you actually realized that my information comes from widely respected and recognized medical experts who have published hundreds of peer-reviewed articles and won many prizes with them? They don't ask a single penny for people to read their information, unlike the money-hungry meat and dairy industries. And their advice has saved millions of people all over the world who reversed their disease by going on a wholefood plantbased diet without even paying so much of a penny to medicines, surgery, doctors etc. Who is the more reliable source?
π: 0 β©: 1
Medical scientist housemate here.
"But if you insist that picking strawberries (non-sentient) out of nessecity is on par with beating the shit out of your dog or your kid (sentient) WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE TO, I suggest you seek mental help in your local area as soon as possible, because then there's obviously something wrong with you."
No, my dear; there is something seriously wrong with YOU if you think that that comparison is in any sense what was said. Your behaviour is analogous to a Nazi: you claim false attributions towards others' statements in order to demonize them for views you claim, wilfully and fraudulently, that they hold. Your language is viciously emotive rather than rational and sound, and despite your claims, you have yet to produce a single shred of evidence for any of it. One doctor making a statement means nothing in the face of the statements of 98+% of the medical profession; for your one doctor and dietitian, I can easily refer you to a hundred who will honestly declare that necessary supplementation means dietary inadequacy; to numerous vets who will confirm that ruminants and many other animals produce their own B12; and to palaeontologists who will confirm beyond any shadow of a doubt that humankind evolved eating meat.
You are a non-expert in any of these fields; this is evident by the false information you have supplied about all such areas. As an uneducated individual, you are daring to speak as if your knowledge and the few people you have been able to find who will tell you exactly what you want to hear outweigh the conclusions of the majority of members of multiple scientific disciplines. This classifies you as an ignorant, arrogant fool with a vicious streak of hostility towards anyone who dares challenge you for your dangerous ideas and the damage they will inevitably cause to yourself and any poor uneducated teenagers who innocently rely upon them.
Your dogged insistence on this vitriolic comparison of anyone who disagrees with your nonsense to the worst kinds of animal and human abusers reveals one of two things: either you are psychotic and in need of anti-psychotic medications and sequestering from society in a psych ward; or you are sociopathic, and have no regard for the feelings or wellbeing of anyone other than yourself, and thus feel freeΒ to fill your site with vitriolic and highly offensive cartoons that say far more about your own mental health issues than they ever could about the people you're trying (and failing) to demonize.
Either way, you have long since lost any moral high ground. And the only reason you haven't lost the scientific high ground is because you never possessed it.
π: 0 β©: 1
Your behaviour is analogous to a Nazi
That's really ironic, coming from you.Β Don't Nazis kill millions of innocents and justify it by saying "they are different"?Β
As for your other arguments about health: I have already debunked them in my comics and have cited over 250 sources per 50 comics, so I have nothing more to add. I'm sorry, but as a neutral author, I have to stick with peer-reviewed research (which, unlike your meat industry funded propaganda, has already saved millions of people's lives by reversing their lifestyle diseases + spared many innocent lives of our fellow earthlings) I hope you understand that. I know people like me are a threat to your conscience and all, but calling sources you haven't even bothered to look at "stupid" and "ignorant" and "false" just shows your own willful ignorance and desperation. The same applies to calling me a "sociopath" or"having no regard for the feelings or wellbeing of others" for advoacting NON-violence and acting as if systematic violence and the destruction of the planet can be justified with a lame "agree to disagree". Do you have any idea how ironic that is, coming from someone who only advocates violence, torture and destruction on a page AGAINST violence?
π: 0 β©: 2
Also, my dear, you might want to consider the fact that your historical revisionism reveals you to be rampantly dishonest and thus completely untrustworthy on all matters of factual analysis and actual facts. I've debunked your claims with solid science, including direct quotes from no less an authority than the World Health Organization, who have testified to the fact that B12 deficiency in strict vegetarians is known to cause severe complications in the children that they breast-feed. It's NOT a safe choice, a logical choice, or a choice based in any way on facts.
But since you insist on the "fact" that the Seventh-Day Adventists are proof that veganism leads to a longer, healthier life, let me offer you the evidence that debunks that claim.
Firstly, only 50% of Adventists are vegetarian; the other half eat meat, though from the restricted list of meats contained in Mosaic Law. Of the 50% who are vegetarian, roughly 10% are vegan, equalling about 5% of all Adventists who are vegan.
Secondly, Adventists cling to a collective Health Message according to the writings of a putative prophetess by the name of Ellen Gould White. She advocated the eating of cottage cheese as an extremely healthy dietary choice, and the use of a raw egg in grape juice as a nutritional pick-me-up. So she could hardly have been called an advocate for veganism.
Thirdly, that health message also includes such health advice as obtaining adequate rest, abstaining from stimulants such as chocolate, tea or coffee, adequate fresh air and exercise, adequate exposure to sunlight and adequate dietary fluid intake. Each of these factors is known to prolong life on its own; ergo, there are so many confounds to the claim that Adventist veganism is the cause of their long life that you can only be either stupid or ignorant and present such a claim with any thought that it should be taken seriously.
Fourth, as stated quite clearly, I do not advocate for violence, but rather for sound nutrition based on extensive nutritional and archaeological evidence of what this actually is. And being qualified in the field, I actually know what that is; as you clearly do not.
Time to grow up, little pupa: the world needs intelligent imagos, not ignorant, juvenile, self-righteous, bile-spitting little larvae. Don't bother to respond; I won't if you do. Because I've already presented more than enough evidence to sink every one of your arguments a dozen times over. And as a former vegan, I know exactly what every one of those arguments is, now don't I?
π: 0 β©: 1
Of course, dear. If that's what you truly believe, you are free to believe so. I just don't agree with your claims and therefore don't see the point of arguing with you any further. I thought about shippingΒ you a free copy of my new book, but you seem very close-minded and clearly haven't even bothered reading what I wrote at all, so I don't think you'll be open for information that falls outside of your dogmatic beliefs.Β I suggest we end it here and you go back to your pro-meat page while I continue to defend animals and the environment. Okay?
π: 0 β©: 1
How good can your book be when the arguments you've presented are complete shit?
Despite all your bluster over how fact and morality are on your side, you've proven the complete opposite. Your arguments have been disproven to the point where all you have left is nothing more than the simple claim that your opponent's are wrong because you claim they are, with lacings or snide remarks and claims of moral superiority.
In layman's terms, you've worn yourself out but you're too cowardly to back down, so all you've got is nothing more than empty claims for your side to justify your own continued belief in them to save face and because it's easier to keep the same beliefs you've been having rather than go through the arduous process of making new, better beliefs.
This however, is very unhealthy in the long-term because you're maintaining beliefs in spite of reality, but that's not my concern here. My concern is that you get several others to take up your false beliefs, usually by bullying them with empty claims of their immorality, which I'm not going to stand for.
You're a self-righteous asshole, and I'm treating you like one. Get ready for some more of this in the future ('course, you could block me, but then you'd only prove I'm right).
π: 0 β©: 1
Like I said, I do not agree with that. I have explained my point of view and have made clear that I am going to keep defending animals and the planet and won't change my mind about that. All I want is to do what is morally right. I am not spreading information written by me, but information written by the USDA, the industries themselves, award winning health professionals and statistics. If you have a problem with the information, you are free to complain to the USDA and the others I mentioned. After all, I'm not the one providing statistics and information: THEY are. It's ironic that you talk about me "bullying" you when you came to MY page and insist on harassing me until I stop drawing while simultanously calling me names. I'm not sure if you are with Maura and Veronica's gang of bullies, but if you are, please leave because I don't intend to quit.Β
π: 0 β©: 1
"Like I said, I do not agree with that. I have explained my point of view and have made clear that I am going to keep defending animals and the planet and won't change my mind about that."
Disagreeing with the truth doesn't change it, but it's not my problem if you wanna maintain that delusion. My problem is you pushing that delusion on others.
"All I want is to do what is morally right."
You're not doing that. In fact, you're doing the complete opposite. So you're a failure.
"I am not spreading information written by me, but information written by the USDA, the industries themselves, award winning health professionals and statistics. If you have a problem with the information, you are free to complain to the USDA and the others I mentioned. After all, I'm not the one providing statistics and information: THEY are."
That doesn't absolve you of guilt, since you're still spreading the misinformation around yourself. I mean, if someone was selling a dangerous drug to people, they're still guilty of selling it, even if they didn't make it themselves.
"It's ironic that you talk about me "bullying" you when you came to MY page and insist on harassing me until I stop drawing while simultanously calling me names."
Excuse you, you cast the first stone with your deviations, you don't get to claim innocence here.
"I'm not sure if you are with Maura and Veronica's gang of bullies, but if you are, please leave because I don't intend to quit."
Dunno who they are and I don't care, I'm here doing my own thing for me, not anyone else. Let's see how long you last.
π: 0 β©: 1
Listen, Crapcarp , I think I've been patient with you. My works are publicly open on my new site for everyone to look at, and I cite all of my sources as clearly as possible. And so far you have only pulled mindless insults and your opinion (NOT facts) to back up your claim of my work being flawed. You can't back up your claims with just your opinion or with dairy industry tv-commercial propagada. You needlessly call me names because you are upset that I choose peer-reviewed studies, statistics and articles over your opinion and ignorance. Then you continue to deny the existence of me and millions of other vegetarians and vegans and explain it by saying that we "secretly eat meat". Honestly, do you even listen to yourself?Β
Do you know what I believe? I believe that you think of yourself as a good person who doesn't needlessly want to harm others. But because you like the taste of corpse, your moral framework takes a massive backflip, which allows you to choose your selfishness over the lives of thousands of innocent beings and the planet because you're making yourself believe that you have to.Β So even though complete vegan populations, me and millions of other people prove the opposite, you basically deny our existence because the fact that we, as fellow humans, live without animal products is a threat to the delusion you're living in. You make yourself believe that what you're doing is a life or death situation, one that doesn't give you a choice. Because if you have to kill animals to live, you can feel good about yourself because there is no other option. I think that is why you hate vegans so much: because we show the opposite by simply existing, and therefore also show that you, as a member of a species with the same digestive track and anatomy as us, are killing animals and the planet for your enjoyment, which is clearly immoral.Β You desperately cling to willful ignorance, but the existence of vegetarians and vegans is forcing you to come face to face with reality. You want to be a good person, but you also want to be selfish. This is seen in many people who participate in other forms of senseless violence as well, even my past self, so I do understand it. I just know better now, so I no longer cling to this delusion just because I enjoy the result.
So please be honest: you want to (pay to) kill animals. You, from a biological standpoint, don't have to.
π: 0 β©: 1
"Listen, Crapcarp, I think I've been patient with you."
Well good for you, you're wrong.
"My works are publicly open on my new site for everyone to look at, and I cite all of my sources as clearly as possible."
And yet, all your arguments have been shot to hell. Some citations those are.
"And so far you have only pulled mindless insults and your opinion (NOT facts) to back up your claim of my work being flawed."
A non-medical scientist claiming a medical scientist's education are only opinions. 'Course your work is flawed.
"You can't back up your claims with just your opinion or with dairy industry tv-commercial propagada."
Says the one who backed her shit with a Netflix documentry. It's just as hiliarious as when you first pulled that.
"You needlessly call me names because you are upset that I choose peer-reviewed studies, statistics and articles over your opinion and ignorance."
The above sentence is opinion and ignorance, how ironic.
"Then you continue to deny the existence of me and millions of other vegetarians and vegans and explain it by saying that we "secretly eat meat". Honestly, do you even listen to yourself?"
Neither of us ever claimed that. You making these comments for someone else to see, or do you really need to keep lying to yourself about what we're saying to maintain your delusion?
If the latter, then I truly pity you. Adherence to a delusion like that is what causes wars and oppression that last decades or even centuries.
"Do you know what I believe? I believe that you think of yourself as a good person who doesn't needlessly want to harm others. But because you like the taste of corpse, your moral framework takes a massive backflip, which allows you to choose your selfishness over the lives of thousands of innocent beings and the planet because you're making yourself believe that you have to. So even though complete vegan populations, me and millions of other people prove the opposite, you basically deny our existence because the fact that we, as fellow humans, live without animal products is a threat to the delusion you're living in. You make yourself believe that what you're doing is a life or death situation, one that doesn't give you a choice. Because if you have to kill animals to live, you can feel good about yourself because there is no other option. I think that is why you hate vegans so much: because we show the opposite by simply existing, and therefore also show that you, as a member of a species with the same digestive track and anatomy as us, are killing animals and the planet for your enjoyment, which is clearly immoral.Β You desperately cling to willful ignorance, but the existence of vegetarians and vegans is forcing you to come face to face with reality. You want to be a good person, but you also want to be selfish. This is seen in many people who participate in other forms of senseless violence as well, even my past self, so I do understand it. I just know better now, so I no longer cling to this delusion just because I enjoy the result.
So please be honest: you want to (pay to) kill animals. You, from a biological standpoint, don't have to."
What a lovely fabrication you've crafted for yourself.
And now, medical scientist housemate here.
Very interesting choice of language: "I BELIEVE..."
You see, I DON'T BELIEVE. I actually have an education. I actually know the facts. I understand the science that you so blithely ignore. I have pointed out to you the nature of your misunderstanding of science and your false attributions. I have clearly demonstrated that VEGAN POPULATIONS ARE A FICTION; there are no vegan cultures, though there are vegetarian ones.
You see, when push comes to shove, you're all about BELIEF, not FACTS. You are a religious zealot and a cultist; you BELIEVE that your refusal to consume meat makes you morally superior to those who consume it. You are caught up in the CULT OF VEGANISM that has existed since time immemorial and has left a trail of damaged people in its wake wherever it has been embraced.
I am not a cultist; I am a rational, sane and worst of all for you, a SCIENTIFICALLY TRAINED individual. I eat meat because I have personally suffered the physical consequences of long-term veganism, but managed to catch it before the damage became permanent. And when I hear your arguments, I am struck by a strong sense of deja vu: because not a single argument you've given is any different than those which originally turned me vegan 28 years ago, and which I have since learned have all been debunked thoroughly by cold, hard science. Science that I have presented, but which you refuse to BELIEVE.
Well, here's the thing, girl: SCIENCE REMAINS SCIENCE REGARDLESS OF YOUR BELIEFS. Deny it all you want; it's not going to up and change by the power of your beliefs. All that your denying it will do is hurt you, and hurt all who make the foolish mistake of listening to and thinking like you. Your beliefs make you a joke; give them up before they also make you a casualty.
Now back to me, and what I see all this stemming from is nothing more than arrogance common to much of modern humanity. You've been coddled by modern society and its many conviences. Have you ever had to hunt and forage for your food every day? No. Have you needed to know about all the various life around you and how it affected you? No. Have you ever seen death up close and personal on a daily basis? No.
Nature to you is a bunch of defenseless bunnies and green leaves, a perspective made possible because you've never had to get your hands dirty. You stand on the shoulders of those who wanted something better than daily strife for survival, but a consequence of that is your disconnection from nature.
You see cute little animals with a full belly and can't see yourself gobbling them up. You gag at the sight of intestines and shriek at the sight of blood, so why on earth would you ever eat that? How could you eat that? You know several others who also gag and shriek, so you start believing that it's all unnatural. How could it be natural to kill a cute, defenseless cow, chicken, or pig, when we're so disgusted and scared of killing and gutting them?
The reality is the simple fact that most people are simply not used to hunting and gutting animals. Most people have never done those sorts of things in their lives, and have constructed worldviews without such things. They've been replaced by getting meat at the supermarket or Mcdonalds, not the wilderness. So of course we get disgusted at the sight of blood and guts, we don't see them too often.
But when your belly's empty and you've made some kills for meals, you'll realize just how natural it is for us to do. Or you could just continue to delude yourself and others for a false cause, in which case, you can expect to see more of me.
π: 0 β©: 1
Are you conveniently ignoring the over 250 sources I hate summed up in my last book and the over 1000 sources I have used in my other books?
No, boy, you haven't "shot my arguments to hell". You've attempted to, but so far you have failed. Sorry.
No, boy, you haven't stated a single fact. You're just trying to convince me to stop defending your victims by throwing a tantrum on my page.
No, boy, you were never vegan. You were a plantbased boy hopping on the bandwagon and ended up starving yourself, and blamed your lack of knowledge in nutrition on veganism. I know, I've done the same when I first tried it.
No, boy, a cult is what you are defending.
No, boy, veganism is not about me, but about the animals and the planet.
No boy, pointing out the environmental disasters caused by animal agriculture is not "beliefs" but facts.
No, boy, I never had to hunt for my food because we don't need to eat corpse to live and I'm not into senseless violence.
Yes, boy, I am a former cattle rancher, so I have seen and participated in death for almost 22 years.
No, boy, people aren't disgusted by violence because they aren't "used to it". They are disgusted by violence because humans are not natural meat eater. Even a cat who had never seen a dead animal would not be disgusted by killing it, because they are biologicallyΒ predators, unlike humans. By your logic, we're disgusted by murder and cannibalism because we're not "used to it". Guess what: those who get "used to it" are considered psychopaths. People who go hungry in wars would even eat each other out of desperation (and this happens, even today). Doesn't make it "natural" or okay to do so when you're NOT in that situation. Also, what's with the appeal to nature fallacy? You do realize that rape, cannibalism and child murder are natural, right? Does that make it ok? Nope!
And wow, you've spammed my page with THAT many more messages? You must be really desperate. But just to make it clear to you: as long as your victims suffer, I will never be silent.
π: 0 β©: 1
Medical Scientist housemate here.
First of all, you claim to know a hell of a lot about my life for someone who never lived it. I was vegan alright; and I was VERY educated on the nutritional issues pertinent thereto. I ate an extremely balanced vegan diet, and also excluded all sources of caffeine and as much processed crap as possible; I was extremely health-conscious. And then I hit a period of extraordinary stressors in my life. You know what dietary needs most increase during stress? Hmmmm? Try B12 and protein. So naturally, I ended up with a clinical deficiency. My education, which included a medical science degree by this stage, gave me the information necessary to realize what was happening and correct it.
Now of course, you don't believe that I have such a degree, despite the fact that I've told you my name, the date that I earned that degree and the educational institution from which I earned it. Had you bothered to check MY statements, you'd realize that I actually DO have the degree that I've claimed. But you haven't and you won't; you'd rather believe the delusion that I'm conning you, because then you can dismiss my accurate information as ignorance.
As to your sources: you still haven't presented a SINGLE SOURCE. NOT ONE. The mere fact that you seem incapable of listing a basic citation in text format without having to list a website is telling; no-one with any sort of academic education is so incapable. I refer here of course to your lame excuse that you couldn't post your sources in reply because the forum was having difficulties with all the web links therein. Until you post those sources, I can't take you seriously; and neither should anyone else. Because someone who can't adequately cite a peer-reviewed journal without resorting to a website address has no academic training, and is thus not an expert in any academic field, much less the specialized field of nutrition.
And yes, I HAVE shot your arguments to hell: by showing your statements up as confirmation bias based on flawed arguments long since discredited by science. And I have shown that you are incapable of recognizing that confirmation bias when you see it, as demonstrated by your use of Adventists as an example of the alleged benefits of veganism.
Now, as to your statement that we shouldn't have a problem with the facts because they've come from accredited professional bodies such as the USDA etc. There's an old saying that every scientist is very familiar with: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics." You see, statistics require context to tell the truth. You rip them out of their context and proudly use them inappropriately, happily ignoring subsequent statements in the same data that would instantly dispel your gross misinterpretation of their meaning. Divorced of context, they seem to say what you want them to say; but placed back into their proper context, they say no such thing.
Now, in answer to your rampant conspiracy theories about the meat industry, here's a little scientific precept for you: Occam's Razor. This states that, all things being equal, the simplest explanation will tend to be the truth. Which is the simpler explanation: that 98% of the world's nutritionists have somehow conspired together to submit to the influence of a mighty economic force in total contravention of their scientific commitment to uncover the facts and determine the truth by statistical analysis, and have done so solely for profit; or that 98% of nutritionists disagree with the statements of your little lobby because they've found that the facts just don't fall in its favour? Take your time.
Tell you what: here's a challenge for you. Drop yourself off in the midst of a tropical rainforest. Just you; no backpack, no supplies, no water. For mercy's sake, we'll say you can take a knife. No pills to supply the B12 you won't be getting from vegetation; no dermal patches of B12 or other means of its artificial delivery, either. Now let's say you aren't allowed to leave the forest for 1 month. That's all: 1 month.
Now if, at the end of that month, you emerge from the jungle healthy and tell me that you haven't killed and eaten at least 1 animal, I will happily call you a liar to your face. Because under those stressful circumstances, you will deplete your entire stored reserve of B12 in no time, and if you don't kill and eat, you'll die. That's a fact.
I repeat: you are a CULTIST. You are caught up in the CULT OF VEGANISM, which openly misuses facts for the sole purpose of self-righteously declaring themselves better than everyone else for their poor nutritional choices. You manifest the blithe cruelty towards non-vegans that is most commonly seen amongst the B12 deficient and the divinely deluded, and behave like a typical crybully, whining when others turn on you for your bad behaviour, claiming persecution because they won't let you get away with calling them murderers and animal abusers. Your cartoons are merely a vehicle for your cruelty to other humans; they are disgraceful, contemptible and vile. They are a sign of a very warped mind, and your defence of them does you no credit whatsoever.
Now, once again: GROW UP. Others are not animal abusers simply for eating meat; you are not more righteous than them because you don't. Others do not deserve the contempt you hurl upon them, and the fact that you hurl it upon them is the very reason why you deserve theirs. Knock it off, and you'll find that most people will be perfectly happy to let you do and eat as you wish. Most people aren't assholes; it's remarkable how many vegans I've encountered who ARE.
π: 0 β©: 1
I have replied to all this in my other comment to you on the other post. I have nothing more to add, so please read it.
π: 0 β©: 1
Second verse, same as the first.
π: 0 β©: 0
No; you've debunked nothing and not presented a single one of your alleged 250 sources. You've presented excuses as to why you haven't presented them, of course; but you still haven't presented them. So I am forced to assume that they are pure fiction. As to calling you stupid and ignorant: the hat fits. You clearly have no capacity to determine when you are reading valid science versus propaganda.You also clearly like using inflammatory language and demonising anyone who is non-vegan without regard for their feelings or opinions or the facts that they are able to present in direct contradiction of your claims. These are traits seen in the vast majority of sociopaths, so once again: the hat fits. Lastly, just like the Nazis, you engage in historical revisionism, making claims about past human nutritional acquisition that are patently fraudulent and invented, and thus unable to be substantiated by any source.
π: 0 β©: 1
Please check my reply to you on the other post.
π: 0 β©: 0
Except that they'll pretend to do that, and then actually lock them in a cage. I'd actually rather eat the caged one then the so called "free range", at least it's more honest. How do you eat vegan?! I plan to (hopefully) do that when I can buy my own food.
π: 0 β©: 1
I'm going to release a cook book soon with some basic recipes from scratch, because I noticed many people do not know how to make their own vegan meat, cheese, ice cream etc. But if you want to learn more about the nutrition facts, I suggest visitingΒ veganhealth.org/ and for some basic info:Β www.godfist.com/vegansidekick/β¦
π: 0 β©: 1
I'm hoping that when I'm in college, I'll have an easier time being vegan. Why did you become vegan?! Also, I think Almond Chocolate milk is supiror to Cow Chocolate milk. Why is that?! Was it easy for you to become vegan?!
π: 0 β©: 1
I became vegans for ethical reasons, but also because I've been bullied and beaten by racists for many years and realized that meat eaters use the same excuses as the racists did to harm animals and the environment (E.g. "They are different, so they matter less", "God says it's ok", "It's natural", "I enjoy it," etc.) The moment I discovered that the leading cause of global starvation is animal agriculture, I went vegan right away. At first it was hard because I couldn't cook and therefore bought the expensive veggieburgers and other luxury products at the supermarket, but later I learned how to make my own vegan meat, cheese etc. so then it became easy. I'm working on this cook book to help people who don't have much money to make all vegan stuff from scratch, so they won't have to buy the supermarket stuff... it saves tonnes of money!
π: 0 β©: 2
Or you could just not make substitutes and eat vegan meals. Most non dairy cheeses are not great for you and nuts are expensive to buy for healthy homemade take cheese. I usually only make veggie burgers and just buy cheap veggies
π: 0 β©: 1
I make a lot from scratch, saves me a hell lot of money, and put it in the fridge, so I can get little bits of it every week. Whole foods are always the best though.
π: 0 β©: 0
what are your thoughts on how in some countries there is cheese made from breast milk?
π: 0 β©: 1
Since the lactating woman gives permission, I don't see the point. If I wanted to sell my breast milk, it wouldn't be exploitation like how it is with forcibly impregnating and exploiting animals for it without their consent.
π: 0 β©: 1
I don't particularly have anything against it, but I'm sure some would say "that milk is for the baby".Β As long as the baby is getting proper nutrition it is completely ethical, but I'm wondering about the health side, does it have cholesterol? That sort of thing.
π: 0 β©: 0
Wait.............MAKING CHEESE AND MILK KILLS COWS!?! HOW!?!? π±π’π²
π: 0 β©: 1
Like this: www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcN7SGβ¦
π: 0 β©: 1
π......π......π¦......π§.....π₯....π’
π: 0 β©: 1
So many people think they aren't killers... When in fact they are. So many lives disappear because masses don't dare to think with their own brain.
π: 0 β©: 1
All these things the slaughter industries peddle are just smokescreens for the crux of the matter: there is no humane way to kill someone who does not want to die.Β
π: 0 β©: 1
| Next =>