By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Animal Liberation Now!!

DonFerrari said:
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.

Could be true yes,but if it is not existent already then what would trigger its existence without goverment interaction?



Around the Network
Immersiveunreality said:
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.

Your point on cheap meat was on a different reply. My point is on saying that having to kill the cattle would reduce consumption because of the cost and time taken. Having less money would also make you eat less meat.

Sure animals and internet are different things, but when someone wants to legislate and intervene in other people choices they should also accept the opposite.

It really is simple. People eat meat because they like, they ate less when it was harder/more expensive, and eat more now that it is more affordable. It doesn't have to do with feeling guilty on killing the cattle. I would say I haven't met a vegan that became vegan because he was tired of having to kill cows to feed himself. Most would say "they got awaken due to a documentary, reading something or thinking about the poor animals... if you love dogs why do you eat pigs?". Usually the people that say they think by themselves instead of being part of the mass but will say exactly the same thing one another.

John2290 said:
@DonFerrari it isn't that bad here yet but it is painful to here that, we respect doctor's here in Ireland even if we complain when we are sick (mostly out of concern), the hate is directed to the establishment when it isn't working properly and not the individuals trying to make it work and we appreciate the tireless work farmers do all year round, however it is a job that is increasingly looked at as the lesser way of life and that scares the hair off my balls. It's a bit different as we all usually grow up on farms or near them here, the vast majority anywaymyself included and our cities don't grow all that much or at least very slowly as people often move back to the country at a certain age. The country always calls you home and respect must be given to the process that feeds everyone on this increasingly ludicrous world we live in.

Best of luck dealing with these nutbags in Brazil, dude.

I would say you have it good on cities usually not being to big and communing with the country.

I usually don't deal with them I just pretend they are white noise. At most I'll mock them with my friends. These type of people think that being well is a type of a crime and people that is rich should feel guilty instead of proud even if they were totally legit.

Immersiveunreality said:
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?

Popular need and demand.

Government doesn't require you to have several certifications to sell your goods, like ISO9001, still a lot of companies have them because customers push the need and want a product with a seal of quality. Similar to Nintendo Seal of Quality that was the assurance customers needed at the time to buy the games.

Government hardly solve anything, when you have a couple people trying to decide how 100 millions should live or do they will make very bad decision.



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:
@ganoncrotch I'm going to take the burgers and cook up some good cheeseburgers this evening if I don't buy a 24 ounce steak instead for a treat, these people leave me spiteful and craving meat.

Have you ever tried tears as a garnish? Really adds a salty sweetness to the dish!



Why not check me out on youtube and help me on the way to 2k subs over at www.youtube.com/stormcloudlive

Darwinianevolution said:
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.

First bolded: I know but their wish to "compete"is not met at all as most people buying meat in stores do not look into that so yes it can always be a badge of honour but only a selling point for the people that firstly have more money to spend and secondly want to be invested in the wellbeing of animals and most just do not really make a connection between their food and a living being.

Second bolded: Indeed there are many ways to improve animal life on farms and most of it costs money and the fast adapters like you mentioned the smaller farmers to be are also the ones that currently are in most debt because they can not treat animals the same factorylike way like bigger farmers do.(i must mention that i talk about a small portion of Europe so it might be different for other countries.)My brother in law had a company that delivered everything to farmers in this country like food and nutrition and the debt the small farmers had was crazy,those same farmers that took pride in that badge of honour. Most of them went bankrupt because they still couldnt compete with prices of meat coming in from other countries.

Third bolded:People can put more importance in ending suffering and that is why letting a species die comes second place for them.

"The right to exist is one of the first and most important rights there is" This is no right or law of nature or should we use invented human rights on nature and if we do that then we could also blame that on our human control and ego again.



Immersiveunreality said:
Darwinianevolution said:

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.

First bolded: I know but their wish to "compete"is not met at all as most people buying meat in stores do not look into that so yes it can always be a badge of honour but only a selling point for the people that firstly have more money to spend and secondly want to be invested in the wellbeing of animals and most just do not really make a connection between their food and a living being.

Second bolded: Indeed there are many ways to improve animal life on farms and most of it costs money and the fast adapters like you mentioned the smaller farmers to be are also the ones that currently are in most debt because they can not treat animals the same factorylike way like bigger farmers do.(i must mention that i talk about a small portion of Europe so it might be different for other countries.)My brother in law had a company that delivered everything to farmers in this country like food and nutrition and the debt the small farmers had was crazy,those same farmers that took pride in that badge of honour. Most of them went bankrupt because they still couldnt compete with prices of meat coming in from other countries.

Third bolded:People can put more importance in ending suffering and that is why letting a species die comes second place for them.

"The right to exist is one of the first and most important rights there is" This is no right or law of nature or should we use invented human rights on nature and if we do that then we could also blame that on our human control and ego again.

The thing here is that the concept of "animal rights" is a completely human construct. Animals by themselves don't understand what the concept of rights and duties are. Animals will eat and attack and compete with each other, it's not something evil, it's just something that is. Social animals may show some elements of a society (coordinated hunting, defense of the progeny, some basic hierarchy...), but it's not born from of a higher understanding of how society and harmonial coexistence works and how doesn't, and definitively not from some higher value or conception of morality. Humans do. So yes, by defending what's described as "animal rights", we are basically implanting our own set of morals and values into beings that are not human, nor can they relate to us in the same way as we can relate to them. If doing that is wrong and born out of ego, then the concept of "animal rights" being abandoned should be the better thing, shouldn't it?



You know it deserves the GOTY.

Come join The 2018 Obscure Game Monthly Review Thread.

Around the Network
Darwinianevolution said:
Immersiveunreality said:

First bolded: I know but their wish to "compete"is not met at all as most people buying meat in stores do not look into that so yes it can always be a badge of honour but only a selling point for the people that firstly have more money to spend and secondly want to be invested in the wellbeing of animals and most just do not really make a connection between their food and a living being.

Second bolded: Indeed there are many ways to improve animal life on farms and most of it costs money and the fast adapters like you mentioned the smaller farmers to be are also the ones that currently are in most debt because they can not treat animals the same factorylike way like bigger farmers do.(i must mention that i talk about a small portion of Europe so it might be different for other countries.)My brother in law had a company that delivered everything to farmers in this country like food and nutrition and the debt the small farmers had was crazy,those same farmers that took pride in that badge of honour. Most of them went bankrupt because they still couldnt compete with prices of meat coming in from other countries.

Third bolded:People can put more importance in ending suffering and that is why letting a species die comes second place for them.

"The right to exist is one of the first and most important rights there is" This is no right or law of nature or should we use invented human rights on nature and if we do that then we could also blame that on our human control and ego again.

The thing here is that the concept of "animal rights" is a completely human construct. Animals by themselves don't understand what the concept of rights and duties are. Animals will eat and attack and compete with each other, it's not something evil, it's just something that is. Social animals may show some elements of a society (coordinated hunting, defense of the progeny, some basic hierarchy...), but it's not born from of a higher understanding of how society and harmonial coexistence works and how doesn't, and definitively not from some higher value or conception of morality. Humans do. So yes, by defending what's described as "animal rights", we are basically implanting our own set of morals and values into beings that are not human, nor can they relate to us in the same way as we can relate to them. If doing that is wrong and born out of ego, then the concept of "animal rights" being abandoned should be the better thing, shouldn't it?

Well yes i mostly agree with you,"animal rights" are used as a way to push our own morals on to animals but that is hugely implemented by activists and people that do not look further into this i assume but we can look how animals behave in nature and compare that to their behaviour when being in captivity to make a concept of what the best environment or situation for an animal should be like and study's have shown a more positive animal behaviour when it is implemented.

Good things can be born out of ego and it is hard for us to not use ego,most are incapable to do that and ego also blinds us for truth.

Bolded: Depends on individuality and perception,it means a lot of different things.



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.

@bolded 1

Here are the statistics. Jumpin posted them in this thread, just an hour before you wrote your post.

As you can see, plant food gives us 16 times as much calories per km², and almost 7 times as much protein. So agricultural land would actually decrease drastically, and we would have a lot more space for forests and nature. And the issue of bad harvest isn't nearly as much of an issue as you seem to think it is. When was the last time a harvest was so bad that it became unbuyable? We don't live in the middle ages anymore, we have enough technology to reduce weather damage to a minimum. Also, since we plant a wide variety of plants that can never all get affected by the same cause, this becomes even less of an issue. So, no, going vegan would not cause World War 3, as we'd have more food than ever.

@bolded 2

This would only happen when every single person would suddenly turn vegan at the same time, which would never happen. If we'd gradually go vegan, we would just stop farming animals. So we'd simply not let our livestock get offspring anymore, and the existing animals would just die of age after a few years.





My (locked) thread about how difficulty should be a decision for the developers, not the gamers.

https://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=241866&page=1

DonFerrari said:

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.

I'm sure many do. Not my point. 

John2290 said:
@irstupid Well they have been told by their doctor's that their diet is making them ill, how can you blame them for still making money off pushing the diet they can't hold to themselves. It's money after all, their money! How dare people attack their hypocrisy and the ethics of pushing a diet that makes them sick, it's making then money and they have a note from their doctor that says it's okay.

Wasn't blaming them for making money. Was saying I've seen many youtubers come out and make videos on WHY they are not vegans anymore. Kind of funny though, cause I can't tell if some are morons or they believe their viewers are. 

They will come on and say I'm no longer a vegan cause my doctor said its horrible for my health and talk about how sick they got and how as soon as they started eating meat they felt immediately better. And then they will say that they still support and think vegan diets are amazing and everyone should do it.

Like are they that stupid that they think they are the exception and that not everyone else will get sick from vegan diets or are they thinking their viewers are that stupid that that they will still support them if they say one thing while doing another?



Flilix said:
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.

@bolded 1

Here are the statistics. Jumpin posted them in this thread, just an hour before you wrote your post.

As you can see, plant food gives us 16 times as much calories per km², and almost 7 times as much protein. So agricultural land would actually decrease drastically, and we would have a lot more space for forests and nature. And the issue of bad harvest isn't nearly as much of an issue as you seem to think it is. When was the last time a harvest was so bad that it became unbuyable? We don't live in the middle ages anymore, we have enough technology to reduce weather damage to a minimum. Also, since we plant a wide variety of plants that can never all get affected by the same cause, this becomes even less of an issue. So, no, going vegan would not cause World War 3, as we'd have more food than ever.

@bolded 2

This would only happen when every single person would suddenly turn vegan at the same time, which would never happen. If we'd gradually go vegan, we would just stop farming animals. So we'd simply not let our livestock get offspring anymore, and the existing animals would just die of age after a few years.

Not sure how accurate your source is...

But Brazil is among the biggest productor of both crop and cattle in the world. And here are our official statistics

http://g1.globo.com/mato-grosso-do-sul/noticia/2017/01/vegetacao-nativa-preservada-ocupa-61-da-area-do-brasil-diz-embrapa.html

61% of brazilian area is still original vegetation, breakdown:

11% of country area is preservation of native on rural properties

17% of country area is conservation area of native vegetation

13% of country area is native vegetation in Indian properties

20% of country area is area that isn't used at the moment

So we have 39% of area that isn't native vegetation, breakdown:

8% of country area for Crops and artificial forest (like pine for paper)

19,7% for cattle

11,3% cities, infrastructure, mining, etc.

So our agriculture have 11+19.7+8 = 38.7% of the country area with 1/3 mandatory original vegetation.

So nope, our farmers aren't destroying the environment.

This one https://www.embrapa.br/en/car/sintese have figures that would be easier for someone not brazilian to understand.

Basically shows that about 50% of the rural properties are used for production and the rest is preservation or original.

Cities otherwise are about 0% preservation of nature.



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."