Isn't there a lot of social media people like on youtube that had sites dedicated to vegan diets all quiting recently because they are running into huge health problems and have needed to start adding stuff like fish and eggs and stuff to their diets?
MrWayne said:
I think the argument gets better if we slightly modify it. "if people had to kill and manufacture what they are going to eat they would eat way less meat" Eating meat on a daily basis is a relatively new phenomenon made possible by the industrial revolution. If everyone had to kill and manufacture their own meat we would do it in a way less efficient way than we do it right now wich would lead to higher prices for meat. Higher prices for meat leads to less meat consumption. |
Yes that is true, but have nothing to do with the point vegan try to make on people not eating meat because of having to kill related to moral or ethics. They would just eat less because of cost and efficiency.
People also had less clothing and tools when they had to make it themselves or buy from people that hand made it.
Immersiveunreality said:
A good amount of people would possibly eat less meat and have more respect for what is killed and a small fraction might stop eating meat when they have enough other resources available(healthy nonmeat food,good sources of protein and money) But yes humanity as a whole is not ready to just stop eating meat and it might be better to focus on the general happiness and fast and painless killing of the animals till we come closer to be able of putting up meat eating restrictions without risking the health of people that just can not afford the vegan diet that is currently a luxury diet. So yes i agree with your post. |
People would eat less just because it would take more work to do it.
People in cities would also eat less meat if they had less available income so let's reduce wages? People would use less technology and be happier on nature with less internet so let's ban internet outside of 5pm to 8pm. Human would use less clothing if they had to make it themselves.
It is almost a logical fallacy that human would eat less meat when having to kill the animal in any way isn't just because it is unpractical. It have nothing to do with moral or ethics on the less consumption.
Immersiveunreality said:
First bolded:Yes indeed our open market does not care(not enough) about the treatment of animals when it laws for that product change for every country that participates in the trade,money above morals and we should be glad that we are at the top of the foodchain. Second bolded:"comfortable" life is questionable for all the hard work they had to endure and being forced to endure even when being old and sick and is becoming extinct that bad if it erases suffering?Caring about species that go extinct because they do not have a natural place anymore really borders to human control. |
A lot of people suffer a lot in the world but won't suicide. So arguibly most prefer to live in suffering or even just survive than to die.
| irstupid said: Isn't there a lot of social media people like on youtube that had sites dedicated to vegan diets all quiting recently because they are running into huge health problems and have needed to start adding stuff like fish and eggs and stuff to their diets? |
Some lie and hide that they do it.
duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363
Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994
Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."
| John2290 said: @Felix and whoever else pinged me. Idon't know the statistics but based on the amount of plant food a Vegan eats times 8+ billion it does not even seem close to achievable it's not the same as making room and putting rescource to growing hat and corn. We feed cattle and other animals easily grown foods like corn for a reason, many eat grass land and hay. What you are proposing is just one evil over another as the farm land for growing certain plant and space for vegetable would have to be increased drastically, natural habitats and forestry would see a massive surge in destruction even faster than today from poor farmers in third world countries and then there is the issue of a bad harvest. Animals don't suffer from blight or other agricultural issues based on the weather so there would be potential food shortages that would easily lead to wars, hence why I said it would result in world war 3 and yes, it happens and to a degree that is pretty fucking scary considering we manage to navigate it yearly. Not to mention the amount of asshattery and negative shit that the mood swings would have on every day life as well as the shear amount of time that would have to be allowed to worker so they can keep their diet in check. It would literally destroy the world as we know it and have the potential for great harm in so many ways. Yes it is awful that we kill animals but we do it humanely, I believe we should have more open farms like in Europe rather than your American nonsense of mass herds kept in small enclosed ranches, where the animals can live just as they would not the wild and increase the age an animal can has to be raised before making it to the abattoir. This is a much more achievable goal than making the whole world a vegan mess. There is always one aspect of this debate that Vegan fail to realize and that is putting farm animals back into the wild, when we all go Vegan in this utopia we have no incentive to take care of farm animals and they would be condemned to the wild, decreased in numbers and suffer from a slew of awful disease that we keep away from them. Have you ever been to a farm that Is in the mist of a spread of something like clostridial, I have, and it is not pretty to see animals waste away and die in such an almost zombie like state and then there is the issue of space for them, there is so little free grazing land left and in this Vegan paradise there would be need for so much more, where do the cattle go past the fences? Where fo the chickens go without the safety of theor hennhouse? Where do whores go? The thunra do be condemned to freeze to death for wandering to far north one winter? That's another thing we fo, protect animals from, nature and themselves. We literally breed the animals, give them existence that they would not have on a human inhabited modern Earth. Are you lot going to deny thier extence if only it is for a brief time or are you going to condemn them to horrible diseases, to harsh winters they have long sense lost the instinct to weather themselves, the anxiety of being pushed back into smaller and less favourable habitats by humans who no longer can afford the time to bother and all the ills that entails. You just don't think of outcomes and expect everything to be this perfect set of ideals that manifest in reality from what floats around in your head, well nature doesn't work like that and nature is going to be a right cunt to these animals and not give the mercy of a quick death. What you all should be fighting for is the basic right of animals to be given space and an extended period of life with more foresight and harsher punishment for Farmers who breach that right, and much, much more inspection of farms while to check on the livestock well being, which shouldn't be too hard in this day and age. Increasing staff of agencies that are assigned to keep track of this sort of thing would be one route. For the love of God, do something reasonable or do nothing at all, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez is a laughing stock with the stuff she is proposing and diminishing the attention of future proposals by going so over the top and absurdist. |
World is based on economy. So if eating animals were ban all farms and the like that have them would have to release the cattle (who would likely die to famine or predators on the are) to replace with crops.
So basically they would be condemning all cattle to die.
Also a good point that you didn't put is that a lot of cattle is created in open areas with some wild life and forest, while crops are done replacing natural life totally.
There were a good post in brazil recently showing that farms in Brazil that deal with cattle preserve much more nature than ones that have crops and off course all of them are much better in preservation than cities and people in cities.
I don't see vegan trying to zero electrical consumption as it burns coal, flood rivers and other environment impact, they also don't forfeit their iphones and macbooks that have batteries with giant capacity to pollute water when land disposed, etc.
As you said in the other post. Much better to leave people from the countryside legislate about how they have to do instead of city folks... unless city folks want countryside legislating in their lives and perhaps forbidden over 1 floor tall construction, demanding all houses to have at least 80% area of vegetation, etc.
duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363
Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994
Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."
Darwinianevolution said:
Again, then the answer is buy food from producers that do take care of their livestock, not just changing people's diet in such a fundamental way. People would be much open to animal's rights if they heard "Buy meat from farmers that take care of their cows" instead of "Stop eating cow". And about the human control thing: Wouldn't it be the other way around? Species that go extinct for reasons not related to human interference should not really afect us in a moral sense, but don't we have a responsability to mantain species created by humanity for the sake of humanity, especially those that would either go extinct in the wild, or they would completely mess up the environement? If the logical conclussion of veganism became the extinction of many species, wouldn't many people (including animal activists) abandon those ideas for the sake of those animals? |
First bolded: yes that is the answer for people that have money to spare but the meat coming from producers that do take care of their livestock is more expensive and that results into people buying the cheaper less controlled meats and making it less expensive is also never an option because the farmers that care about the livestock would go broke because they're the ones that do invest into better feeding and environments for the animals and that needs to be translated into the profits to be viable.
Second bolded:That is a very loaded question and i partly agree with it because yes species that go extinct for reasons not related to human interference should not make us the moral criminals if we let its extinctence just proceed but the animals we control are not comparable with the free animals of the wild and i would rather use the term slave for the donkeys you mentioned earlier so when this extermination translates into no more forced slavery work for lots of unhappy animals than i might be not so sad we could lose a species over that.
The next time I'm eating an animal I'm going to think about this thread.
On a semi related note..... do vegans have to spit?
Why not check me out on youtube and help me on the way to 2k subs over at www.youtube.com/stormcloudlive
Immersiveunreality said:
First bolded: yes that is the answer for people that have money to spare but the meat coming from producers that do take care of their livestock is more expensive and that results into people buying the cheaper less controlled meats and making it less expensive is also never an option because the farmers that care about the livestock would go broke because they're the ones that do invest into better feeding and environments for the animals and that needs to be translated into the profits to be viable. Second bolded:That is a very loaded question and i partly agree with it because yes species that go extinct for reasons not related to human interference should not make us the moral criminals if we let its extinctence just proceed but the animals we control are not comparable with the free animals of the wild and i would rather use the term slave for the donkeys you mentioned earlier so when this extermination translates into no more forced slavery work for lots of unhappy animals than i might be not so sad we could lose a species over that. |
If people wants to discuss or live the moral, market also adapts, there is space for organic vegetable food that is much more expensive than regular one. So you can have independent party audit and certify the production (as jew and muslim demands for kosher and jalal, and we have several places in Brazil that abide and make a lot of money with it) and producers can sell it more expensive to who think this is an important point. You don't need government intervention for that.
| John2290 said: Ew, a quick look at people supporting this on twitter and these same people are for Islams halal tradition and giving Islamic people the right to have food where the method of slaughter is to slowly kill an animal by bleeding it out, a process that can take 5+ minutes of pain and fear to the animal. Oh, how ironic and hypocritical. |
Muslims are more evolved so they are free to choose, you aren't. Now out with the joke, some movements have this type of hypocrise so internal to them that they don't even see it.
duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363
Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994
Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."
| John2290 said: @DonFerrari Not only condemning these animals put denying the existence of more, they could well end up as just another zoo animal which would lead around in a great big, time wasting and painful circle. Yes, people in Cities who pump this absurdist nonsense out keep biting the hand that feeds and as we have seen with the yelloe shirts they are pushing to far, like I said AOC and the people behind dominion are doing more harm than good, solidifying these progressive ideals as laughable in the minds of the people who put in the actual work to keep everyone else fed and keep the wheels turning. The next time someone comes up with a plan thst might actually help but sounds ridiculous, it could well be shrugged off. |
In Brazil it is cool to hate three group of people, rich entrepreneurs, farmers and doctors... all are treated as greedy monsters that want to explore all and destroy the world.
duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363
Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994
Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."
DonFerrari said:
Yes that is true, but have nothing to do with the point vegan try to make on people not eating meat because of having to kill related to moral or ethics. They would just eat less because of cost and efficiency. People also had less clothing and tools when they had to make it themselves or buy from people that hand made it.
People would eat less just because it would take more work to do it. People in cities would also eat less meat if they had less available income so let's reduce wages? People would use less technology and be happier on nature with less internet so let's ban internet outside of 5pm to 8pm. Human would use less clothing if they had to make it themselves. It is almost a logical fallacy that human would eat less meat when having to kill the animal in any way isn't just because it is unpractical. It have nothing to do with moral or ethics on the less consumption. |
First bolded:My point was that people buy the cheaper meat from less controlled areas because the controlled meats are pricier, so no reducing wages will make them stick with the cheap meats even more.
Second bolded: Yeah for myself technology does not equally compare to animals so its hard to see a valid comparison in that.
Third bolded: It has to do with alot of things and you make it look much more simple than it actually is,it has to do with moral and ethics and all of the rest,no need to think we behave like a collective mind and not as individuals.
Immersiveunreality said:
First bolded: yes that is the answer for people that have money to spare but the meat coming from producers that do take care of their livestock is more expensive and that results into people buying the cheaper less controlled meats and making it less expensive is also never an option because the farmers that care about the livestock would go broke because they're the ones that do invest into better feeding and environments for the animals and that needs to be translated into the profits to be viable. Second bolded:That is a very loaded question and i partly agree with it because yes species that go extinct for reasons not related to human interference should not make us the moral criminals if we let its extinctence just proceed but the animals we control are not comparable with the free animals of the wild and i would rather use the term slave for the donkeys you mentioned earlier so when this extermination translates into no more forced slavery work for lots of unhappy animals than i might be not so sad we could lose a species over that. |
Many farms and businesses related to agriculture and livestock production nowadays use their quality treatment of their animals and plants as both a badge of honour and a selling point, and nowadays with all the fuzz and debate around animal rights, they compete with bigger companies by taking the "environmental" route. There are many means to granting decent lives to farm animals nowadays, plenty of them extended enough they aren't that expensive to get either. I'd even say smaller farmers would adapt faster to legislation than bigger ones, considering they don't have as many livestock as their competition. And if people would go broke by implementing laws protecting animals' well being, how many would lose their jobs if people suddenly stopped eating meat?
And about comparing domestic animals with slavery... That's really pushing the comparison. You're essentially taking the "someone's freedom is tied to another one" part of the concept, with all of the negative connotations attached to it, and applying it to a whole different context. That is a very loaded comparison. And even still, I cannot grasp how people who defend animal rights would agree with letting a species die, when the right to exist is one of the first and most important rights there is.
DonFerrari said:
If people wants to discuss or live the moral, market also adapts, there is space for organic vegetable food that is much more expensive than regular one. So you can have independent party audit and certify the production (as jew and muslim demands for kosher and jalal, and we have several places in Brazil that abide and make a lot of money with it) and producers can sell it more expensive to who think this is an important point. You don't need government intervention for that. |
Could be true yes,but if it is not existent already then what would trigger its existence without goverment interaction?
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
