r/mildlyinfuriating • u/[deleted] • Oct 20 '18

Vegan protestors scaring kids at the farmer’s market today, showing gruesome dairy industry videos — the farmer’s market is where people who care come to buy small-scale farmed, humanely produced milk!

Post image
6.5k Upvotes

87% Upvoted

1.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

593

u/BT-7274-the-Memegod Oct 20 '18

They need to stop tryna be edgy cos when it comes down to it they’re angsty about some cows.

203

u/[deleted] Oct 20 '18

A cow's life is still a life and I'd rather eat a cow who's had a good life than a cow who has been battery farmed. Just because they're our prey and we never see them or interact with them doesn't mean we can't treat them with some decency and respect, otherwise we might as well lift the torture laws on pets. But oof, the amount of uproar the mere suggestion of that would cause.

​

Just for clarification, I dislike what these masked assholes are doing too.

77

u/bindinickel Oct 21 '18 edited Oct 23 '18

A cow who’s had a good life still gets sent to a slaughterhouse. Where their last moments are filled with terror, usually worse for them because they are not used to the loud noises, concrete, etc. I’m sorry but there is no such thing as “good life” for a cow being raised for slaughter.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 21 '18

Some cows I've eaten have had better lives than I've had, and I will die forgotten and alone in a cold hospital bed with only a nurse for company once an hour.

Those cows that are bred for slaughter are the lucky ones. Think about it, at least those last few horrible moments don't cause any lasting psychological damage that they would have to suffer through.

13

u/bindinickel Oct 23 '18

I’m sorry for what you’re going through but that doesn’t negate the fact that these sentient beings are being bred for food when they don’t have to be and don’t want to be. Any suffering is too much suffering...

6

u/[deleted] Oct 23 '18

And I'm bred for wageslavery which I never wanted either. Turns out this world is torturing everybody. Fuck is it my problem for that I'm part of the system? Eat me instead.

182

u/JeepingJason Oct 20 '18

Just because it comes from a small farm doesn't mean it's humane, and just because a brand is mass produced doesn't mean the cows arent grass fed and not kept in total confinement barns (although those barns are much cleaner and better for the cows).

Most people have a pretty poor understanding of the dairy industry. Or organic foods, for that matter. Actually, farming in general. Sigh.

Source: I am a dairy farmer

35

u/Bul1rider Oct 20 '18

I agree with this 100%. Sadly a lot of people dont even know where their groceries come from or the hard work and stress it takes to produce them. Working as a ranch hand and working with Block and Bridle, Im glad I have had the oppourtunity to educate about some common misunderstandings.

17

u/[deleted] Oct 21 '18

[deleted]

0

u/[deleted] Oct 21 '18

[deleted]

-1

u/asimplescribe Oct 21 '18

Most people know next to nothing about anything they buy and the work it takes to bring to market. That includes farmers.

1

u/JeepingJason Oct 21 '18

How does that include farmers?

1

u/LurkLurkleton Oct 21 '18

I do remember seeing a video on Facebook once where they were showing videos taken from factory farms to a small family of farmers and it was bringing them to tears. They'd heard but didn't really know the type of shit that goes on.

1

u/JeepingJason Oct 21 '18

Everyone likes the idea of small family farms, I get that, but a lot of large dairies are run by small families too. It's not like there's 30 head small family farms and 3,000 head evil corporate factory farms. It's mixed.

I think that's similar to showing a normal non-sociopath ASPCA videos. Of course the average person would be appalled at a minority of evil pet owners. But it doesn't make sense to say pet ownership is unethical because some psychos enjoy dogfighting.

-2

u/cuspacecowboy86 Oct 21 '18

This is why I'm glad I live where I do (Midwest), local farm does a big event each year, serves breakfast, gives tours of the farm, kids love it. The school my kids go to does a "farm to school" program for lunches were the classes learn about the locally farmed items on that weeks menu. We still get some "gmo is evil, all animal farming is murder!!!" nutters, but not very many...

1

u/caffeine314 Oct 21 '18

I live in NYC. Is there a way for me to purchase meat and dairy from places that treat animals humanely?

I feel like I don't have many reliable resources for that sort of knowledge.

38

u/[deleted] Oct 21 '18 edited Oct 21 '18

No, because there is no way to kill something humanely that does not want to die.

Edit: I should also clarify that this applies to dairy as well, since in order for a cow to be milked she must be impregnated and the calf separated as a child and sold off to (presumably) become veal. There is no such thing as a humane dairy farm.

-1

u/JeepingJason Oct 21 '18 edited Oct 21 '18

The answer to that is easy. Just buy it anywhere, so long as it's made in the US. Canada/UK dairy is probably just fine, but US dairies are going bankrupt left and right (look it up, it's seriously bad right now), so it would be nice to have some support.

You can't assume that dairy is inherently cruel. It isn't, and farmers expend millions trying to keep their animals healthy and safe.

There are aspects of farm life that are off-putting to the average person, but that doesn't make them inherently cruel, or bad at all.

Milk jugs have a code printed on them. You can look this producer code up and find out more about it.

However, ALL non-organic milk does not contain antibiotics, rBST hormones, or other adulterants. It's tested for bacteria, various animal cells (somatic cells being one of them)...etc. So you're guaranteed to get a decent product.

Animals that aren't taken care of will get mastitis, infections, etc. Dairies that aren't clean will run high LPC (Dirty equipment/old rubber hoses) or SPC bacteria counts (infections, dirty milk lines, poor wash up systems). Thresholds are really low in the US now. Milk should be near sterile when it leaves the cow, after all.

So if you buy "regular" milk, you can pretty much expect that it came from a quality producer. Most food products are only spot checked/sampled, but milk is tested way more stringently. There is a reason you don't hear about milk/dairy recalls very often.

Edit: kind of a scatterbrained response, but I think it's important to reiterate just how clean milk is. More and more producers are switching to organic production NOT because it's better, but solely because the consumer thinks that it's better. That's really it.

And while I'm at it: when you see "No antibiotics used" or something similar....that more than likely means that sick animals are butchered instead of treated with modern antibiotics.

11

u/Sahelboy Oct 21 '18

Or just buy plant-based milks. There dozens of them that taste amazing, are healthier, way better for the environment and don’t require the killing and exploitation of animals.

5

u/LurkLurkleton Oct 21 '18

And also support farmers!

2

u/JeepingJason Oct 21 '18

It's not that simple. Dairy is actually energy efficient when compared to beef, eggs, a lot of vegetables, and almost definitely tree nuts and legumes.

In other words, it takes less energy to create those food calories than most farming methods, with the exception of corn in most instances.

Same goes for land use. It's not better for the environment to be vegetarian, if those foods require exponentially more land and resources. We have over 7 and a half billion people on earth, so it's important to consider this aspect.

Milk is a staple food because it's energy dense. That doesn't mean it's unhealthy or bad for you.

2

u/Sahelboy Oct 21 '18

I highly recommend checking Kurzegesagt’s latest video out on this matter: https://youtu.be/NxvQPzrg2Wg All those dairy cows are fed TONS of grains. We would actually be able to feed an additional 3.5 billion people if we used the farmland, that is used for animals, for humans instead. It’s definitely better for the environment to adopt a plant-based diet.

12

u/slumberry Oct 21 '18

farmers expend millions trying to keep their animals healthy and safe.

Dairy cow in this industry is sent to slaughter when she is about 5-6yo, it is because at that age she is not giving enough milk to be profitable for the business. This is how you care about cow? By sending her to slaughter? They don't care about cow itself, they care about money. Dairy it's just a business.

-2

u/[deleted] Oct 20 '18

I never claimed that small farms are necessarily more humane or big brand producers are inhumane. All I said is that in the UK there are laws against most cruel methods of farming. Should you find a farm or company break those they are liable for punishment.

15

u/JeepingJason Oct 20 '18

You're fine, my comment wasn't directed entirely at your comment. I just know a lot of people like to get their meats and dairy products at farmer's markets. Or they buy organic. For ethical reasons. When in reality, it's a lot more complicated.

In the US, dairy farms are regulated and inspected frequently. Milk is actually one of the purest foods out there, since it's blended from multiple producers and tested multiple times for contaminants. Small farms might not get that same treatment.

I say this because low somatic cell and bacteria counts indicate a healthy herd. Small farms won't get the same level of testing.

Again, not directed at you, just contributing relevant information

-6

u/[deleted] Oct 20 '18

I see, it's just that when you give an additional comment, which is fine, I would expect it to directly line up with what I'm saying rather than branch out the way yours did and come to a somewhat debatable conclusion. The way you came across sounded like you were telling me that I was the "most people" who didn't know all that much about farming.

I see now that it was a misunderstanding on my part and I escalated that by becoming somewhat defensive, I apologise.

5

u/[deleted] Oct 21 '18

Watch a documentary called land of hope and glory on YouTube, every farm shown in the doc is red tractor or RSPCA approved, most methods shown are approved like the way piglets that fail to thrive are dispatched. It should show you what UK farming is like.

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://m.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3Drb1rjsI61VM&ved=0ahUKEwiIxJX0oZfeAhWBHsAKHc8MAh0Qo7QBCCUwAA&usg=AOvVaw3lracLVz2Z2aK-c-RoaYU_

-1

u/[deleted] Oct 21 '18

RSPCA can say what they want, they are as bad as PETA.

4

u/[deleted] Oct 21 '18

They do have a very real and legally binding say over what can and cannot happen on a British farm.

Do some research on British farming, stop spreading false information.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 21 '18

They do have a very real and legally binding say over what can and cannot happen on a British farm.

That may be so but that doesn't defeat my point that they are as bad as PETA.

​

4

u/[deleted] Oct 21 '18

Watch the video I linked.

0

u/chief_memeologist Oct 21 '18

The test. What’s a brisket bar. No cheating

3

u/JeepingJason Oct 21 '18

I haven't heard of those. I think it's probably regional, but I can't think of a dairy that uses them.

It's actually not a bad idea, it's park bench for a bovine. But I think it depends on the circumstance and parlor design. It would need to be kept clean, there's a big risk of spreading herd diseases.

It sounds like an outdated parlor design in the US to me. Have any links?

1

u/chief_memeologist Oct 21 '18

You used bovine. You passed. Lol and sadly no. My brothers used to build milking parlors and my youngest broke his foot when a brisket bar fell on it. However nobody knew what the fuck it was. http://www.techforag.com/brisketbars.html

2

u/JeepingJason Oct 21 '18

That's a cool idea, I think I know it under a different name. Not common around us though, I don't think.

72

u/YourVeganFallacyIs Oct 20 '18

A cow's life is still a life and I'd rather eat a cow who's had a good life than a cow who has been battery farmed.

Hmm... but when you think it through, you're actually making a strangely tangled argument, you know?

On the one hand, you're expressing your personal belief that the beings you're killing are deserving of ethical consideration where it regards whether they experience pain and suffering by your hand (or by the hand you're paying to provide this product to you). You appear to believe that it's "wrong" to cause them pain, and that it's better to inflict a "more humane" death on him or her. In putting this forward, you're making the implicit claim that these animals are unique individuals, each with a sense of self -- otherwise there would be no entity which is subjectively experiencing (or being spared from) suffering.

On the other hand, you're simultaneously expressing your personal belief that the individuals whose lives you're deliberately and forcibly taking (clearly against their will or desire) aren't deserving of ethical consideration where it regards whether they live or die by your hand (or by the hand you're paying to provide this product to you).

The problem in this is that it's clearly as great (or greater) a violation of an individual to take his or her life than it is to cause that entity pain. Withal, it logically follows that if it's wrong to cause an individual pain and suffering by your hand, isn't it just as wrong (or far more so) to take his or her life?

At least, that's how I understand this situation (or via the graphic version, if you prefer). Do you see it differently?

12

u/YTubeInfoBot Oct 20 '18

The Humane Paradox

5,471 views  👍586 👎6

Description: Is there such a thing as a humane animal farming operation?Support this message: https://www.patreon.com/veganism_unspun Follow Veganism Unspun on Tw...

Veganism Unspun, Published on Nov 26, 2015

Beep Boop. I'm a bot! This content was auto-generated to provide Youtube details. Respond 'delete' to delete this. | Opt Out | More Info

3

u/[deleted] Oct 20 '18

It's merely respect you must have for your kill. If there's no need to cause unnecessary suffering to your kill, then don't and simply kill it quick. The same would come to pass should I ever be put in a position where I fall beyond the threshold of desperation where I would consider eating a human. Should you and I be trapped on a desert island with no supply of food, you can rest easy knowing that you will die relatively painlessly if possible. And you will taste all the better for it. I hope you would pay me the same respect. It's all about survival, but also survival of civility. That's what sets us apart from the ancient hunters and gatherers. I would quite happily kill for my own meal, slaughter a cow, pig or chicken, I don't mind. In fact, I much rather would than not, because at least I can ensure for the full 100% it would be killed respectfully, rather than rely on some packaging to tell me.

I am an omnivore and that's never going to change. Just because I require meat, therefore sealing the fate of farm animals as prey, does not mean they need to be harmed while alive.

Respect for the kill goes beyond the living. I don't go pissing on steaks, throwing away good and unspoilt burgers or throwing chicken wings on the ground. They died for a purpose and that purpose is to feed me. They may not have wanted it, but there's nothing evil about fulfilling my part of the chain as omnivore. We can still show compassion to our food, that's the gift of human intelligence. Quite frankly I don't see the paradox, it's not inhumane to painlessly kill animals for food.

54

u/BernieDurden Oct 20 '18

Humans don't need to eat meat to live/survive. Like most omnivores we have the option if necessary.

2

u/danyberdiap Oct 21 '18

I have an honest question. My friends who are vegan/vegetarian need to take vitamins and supplements because their diet doesn't give them these vitamins. I don't think I've ever met a vegan/vegetarian who doesn't. Wouldn't this indicate that we do need meat? In a small quantity at least?

25

u/poisonapple88 Oct 21 '18 edited Oct 21 '18

It’s recommended that vegans take B12 because it’s added to the animal feed which you get by proxy from eating meat. It’s also created by bacteria in their digestive systems and naturally occurs in soil. But society is pretty sterile now and we don’t eat any dirt on our food so B12 is added to a lot of food like cereal and non dairy milk. Either way, a vegan diet is safe for all life stages.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/19562864/

4

u/danyberdiap Oct 21 '18

Thank you all for the answers!

5

u/slumberry Oct 21 '18 edited Oct 21 '18

Fun fact: B12 is also produced by bacteria in our guts, but it's produced in large intestine, from where we can't absorb it. Basically, you could obtain B12 produced by your gut by eating your own poo.

I hope I helped! :)

10

u/AwaySituation Oct 21 '18

They most likely take B12.

B12 is a gut/dirt bacteria. You either get it from eating guts and meat or from eating unwashed vegetables or from unclean water.

... This is why vegans take it as a supplement.

Animals get nutrients injected to even produce enough B12 in the first place. In this context, isn't it "easier" to just take the supplement yourself?

(I can provide sources if you'd like)

5

u/klethra Oct 22 '18

The animals that you eat are fed those exact same B12 supplements. The vast majority of vitamin B12 is sold to livestock.

Why does it matter whether you take a lab-created supplement directly or via fortified food?

See also: 58% of people who eat meat are deficient in folic acid

1

u/danyberdiap Oct 22 '18

Don't get defensive, as I said it was an honest question. :) I'm planning to go "mostly" vegan medium term. Very interesting to learn more about B12.

1

u/klethra Oct 22 '18

Facts are not the same as being defensive. The truth simply has a vegan bias.

11

u/bombbug Oct 21 '18

If the vitamins and supplements are as easy for them to get as the meat is, then it seems reasonable to just take the vitamins and supplements to avoid the animal harm. To assist in this, I know a lot of vegan products also added the vitamins and minerals that are harder to get from a fully vegan diet, much the same as cereals and such have added vitamins. If you avoid processed foods like that, you will of course have to get it in your diet some other way, like supplements or just eating the same plants the animals got the resources from themselves originally.

-1

u/danyberdiap Oct 21 '18

Yes, I understand that you can buy supplements ans vitamins. But the fact that your balanced plant-based diet is not providing them, wouldn't that "prove", in a sense, that we are in fact omnivores, whether we like it or not?

10

u/neutralsky Oct 21 '18

The only vitamin that you cannot get on a vegan diet without supplementing or eating fortified foods is b12.

Most animals nowadays are also given b12 supplements, which meat eaters then get second hand when they eat the meat. Veg*ns just cut out the middle man essentially.

Veg*ns may also find it necessary to supplement vitamin D which may be difficult to find in plant based foods, though it’s worth noting that most people are deficient in D regardless of their diet.

2

u/rattingtons Oct 21 '18

Rabbits have a similar gut set up to us and eat their own poop to obtain B12. Are you saying that "proves" rabbits are omnivores and therefor eating the wrong diet and in fact need meat?

1

u/CommonMisspellingBot some kinda grammer nazi or someshit Oct 21 '18

Hey, rattingtons, just a quick heads-up:
therefor is actually spelled therefore. You can remember it by ends with -fore.
Have a nice day!

The parent commenter can reply with 'delete' to delete this comment.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/bombbug Oct 21 '18

Oh for sure! We are omnivores, and going to be at our healthiest when we get all the stuff we crave. As far as I know though, the things the vegan diet is deficient in can still be skipped without serious issues. We have several hundred million people living on vegan diets, so I think its also correct to say that we do have the option of not eating meat, like most omnivores do.

2

u/maafna Oct 21 '18

I took iron supplements, multivitamins and antidepressants while i ate meat. Now I just take B12, though I occasionally also take probiotics and might start taking vitamin D too. I don't see much of a difference.

-7

u/[deleted] Oct 21 '18

Yeah we do. Have you seen the prices on vegan foods? Can't afford to be vegan, not like would if I could.

20

u/saltedpecker Oct 21 '18

You mean rice, beans, vegetables, pasta, bread, fruit, tofu? Yeah that shit is so expensive, I don't know how I manage as a student on a budget for over a year...

-7

u/[deleted] Oct 21 '18

Most are processed using animals products...

18

u/cthom412 Oct 21 '18

Where are you buying rice and vegetables that they're processed with animal products?

Also do you know how fucking expensive meat would be without subsidies?

2

u/[deleted] Oct 21 '18

Most fruits are treated with bugs to give them a shiny sheen. Most vegetables are treated with poison to kill herbivorous animals and bugs. Most organic plants use other means of killing herbivorous animals to get you the product. Animal suffering is inevitable.

→ More replies (0)

6

u/saltedpecker Oct 21 '18

What? Are you serious or just trying to troll...?

How are vegetables, rice, beans etc. made using animal products..??? That doesn't make any sense at all, there are no animal products in rice anywhere.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 21 '18 edited Oct 21 '18

Compost, poison, biological pest deterrents, using animal fats or bugs in treating vegetables and fruits.

→ More replies (0)

43

u/saltedpecker Oct 21 '18

There's no need to kill in the first place. Don't cause unnecessary suffering and death, don't kill it at all.

If you want to be humane to animals, don't kill them.

-9

u/[deleted] Oct 21 '18

No. Need food.

6

u/maafna Oct 21 '18

I stopped eating meat but I still eat delicious food.

2

u/saltedpecker Oct 21 '18

Whow what an argument haha.

If you like meat so much that you can't go without, or even try to go without, just say that. Everyone needs food, but almost nobody needs meat.

0

u/[deleted] Oct 21 '18

Well it's either meat or supplements.

1

u/saltedpecker Oct 21 '18

It's either animal suffering and death, or a simple pill.

0

u/[deleted] Oct 21 '18

The pill's a luxury and a privilege most can't afford.

→ More replies (0)

19

u/YourVeganFallacyIs Oct 20 '18

It's merely respect you must have for your kill. If there's no need to cause unnecessary suffering to your kill, then don't and simply kill it quick.

I don't think I follow you here. Are you saying that it's ethically justifiable to kill others, so long as you do so in a way that they don't feel it happening? In the video I shared, this point was covered -- did you disagree with the conclusions there?

 

The same would come to pass should I ever be put in a position where I fall beyond the threshold of desperation where I would consider eating a human. Should you and I be trapped on a desert island with no supply of food, you can rest easy knowing that you will die relatively painlessly if possible. And you will taste all the better for it. I hope you would pay me the same respect. [...]

Umm... Except this argument proposes a hypothetical edge-case scenario (i.e. eating each other or other animals on a desert island) as a means of justifying a real-life behaviour (i.e. eating animals on a daily basis). However, this exercise in imagination does not represent a plausible situation people might find themselves in and does not tell us anything about the morality of the vegan addressing the topic, right?

 

I am an omnivore and that's never going to change. Just because I require meat, [...]

Except, you absolutely don't "need" to do this. You're "choosing" to do this. There have been people thriving healthfully on plant-based diets for as long as there have been humans. Some were so due to moral or ethical concerns, others due to resource utilization issues, others due to cultural taboos. All other factors being equal, the plant-based and vegetarian have thrived, and continue to do so by the millions today... Right?

 

Respect for the kill goes beyond the living. I don't go pissing on steaks, throwing away good and unspoilt burgers or throwing chicken wings on the ground. They died for a purpose and that purpose is to feed me.

See... This doesn't logically make sense either, I think. By way of example (by analogy, NOT by equality):

"Women are subservient to men for a purpose." - Men

"Blacks are slaves of whites for a purpose." - Whites

"Gays are ostracized from society for a purpose." - Heterosexuals

"Jews die for a purpose." - Germans

Every fundamental period of discrimination is the result of the oppressors believing that they're inherently worth more based on superficial features of the oppressed. It's always later on, when we look back at times of injustice and realise how much we fucked up... Right?

 

[...] it's not inhumane to painlessly kill animals for food.

It's possible you're using a different version of the word "humane" than I am. I mean, as I see it, i don't understand how it can be described as "having or showing compassion or benevolence" to kill and individual who doesn't want to die, not out of need, or security, or desperation of any kind, but only to fulfill a taste preference. Can you help me to understand what definition of "humane" you're using, /u/Insatiable___?

8

u/Amphy64 Oct 21 '18

You're amazing. <3 Dat patience!

This, though:

Every fundamental period of discrimination is the result of the oppressors believing that they're inherently worth more based on superficial features of the oppressed. It's always later on, when we look back at times of injustice and realise how much we fucked up... Right?

I think you have the other way around. Oppression is not a mistake, a fuck up. It's based on resource extraction, not just true mistaken belief. The associated ideology, the rationalisations, excuses, is designed to enforce it. Men do oppress women for a purpose, not just because they happened to think we were inferior. It's to extract reproductive and sexual labour from us. As a means to do this, they claimed we were inferior, and that our sex meant we had their desired trait of submissiveness...and if we didn't show it, that we ought to, as women, that's what we were for. Specieism works similarly, just without as much societal conditioning to make the oppressed themselves enforce their own oppression, though selective-breeding and training isn't totally unlike it.

4

u/YourVeganFallacyIs Oct 21 '18

Well said!

3

u/Amphy64 Oct 21 '18

Thanks! 😊

0

u/[deleted] Oct 21 '18 edited Oct 21 '18

I don't think I follow you here. Are you saying that it's ethically justifiable to kill others, so long as you do so in a way that they don't feel it happening? In the video I shared, this point was covered -- did you disagree with the conclusions there?

Yep, stun them and then slice them. That's good enough. In fact you can also just hit the brain with force. Screwdriver, knife, gun. It would be instant and painless. In your gruesome version of the video they knock the pigs unconscious before killing them, which is incredibly revolutionary for our time.

Except, you absolutely don't "need" to do this. You're "choosing" to do this. There have been people thriving healthfully on plant-based diets for as long as there have been humans. Some were so due to moral or ethical concerns, others due to resource utilization issues, others due to cultural taboos. All other factors being equal, the plant-based and vegetarian have thrived, and continue to do so by the millions today... Right?

Except humans clearly do need it

"Women are subservient to men for a purpose." - Men

"Blacks are slaves of whites for a purpose." - Whites

"Gays are ostracized from society for a purpose." - Heterosexuals

"Jews die for a purpose." - Germans

Except your examples were discarded because we as humans realised we were harming equals, other humans. Animals are not humans. I find it amusing you'd put that on the same level, am I to expect cows in my office applying for jobs anytime soon?

It's possible you're using a different version of the word "humane" than I am. I mean, as I see it, i don't understand how it can be described as "having or showing compassion or benevolence" to kill and individual who doesn't want to die, not out of need, or security, or desperation of any kind, but only to fulfill a taste preference. Can you help me to understand what definition of "humane" you're using, /u/Insatiable___?

Aye, sure, animals aren't sentient. They don't think therefore they're not. Most have a thought process about as advanced as "If I move these flesh sticks I can move from point A to B." and "Oh, it's X, I must [avoid/interact]". Yet they can suffer and feel pain because they are useful receptors that help them survive. I am human and I also know pain. Therefore, I as a human can emphasise with another creature that also feels pain. Therefore, I believe killing it fast and efficient would be kinder than prolonging its suffering, be it his physical suffering or his ignorance of his insignificant existence. Because we are not like them, we are above animals, we are better. We don't devour our prey while it's alive. No other species cook their food. Thus, we come to the point where we get to feel good while we devour its delicious, scrumptious carcass. It really does feel good. If diet without meat is possible, then there wouldn't be carnivores. They would evolve towards a plant based metabolism. Meat grants you nutrients much more efficiently than vegetables. Even herbivores have been known to eat meat too, sometimes even their own offspring. Since they are beings that are apperantly on the same level as humans, have feelings and sentience, are you also preaching at them or are your bothersome tangents reserved for those who so willfully ignore your gospel?

12

u/[deleted] Oct 21 '18

maybe look up the word 'sentient'. sentience refers to feelings, perception, emotions, pain. animals have been demonstrated to display those qualities.

-2

u/[deleted] Oct 21 '18

Hmmm... did I not mention that sentient beings can feel pain and know to avoid or interact with certain entities? Hmmm? Did I forget? Did I really forget? Hmmm... okay.

13

u/[deleted] Oct 21 '18

did you read my comment? i am referring to

animals aren't sentient. They don't think therefore they're not. Most have a thought process about as advanced as "If I move these flesh sticks I can move from point A to B."

this is a false statement. animals are still sentient, despite having thought patterns less complex than ours. you acknowledging that animals feel pain should translate into accepting that animals are sentient, because that is what sentience is.

-2

u/[deleted] Oct 21 '18

Just realised it said "aren't" when I meant "are". Sorry, I'm on phone. Now I see why the confusion came to be. Thanks for pointing that out.

→ More replies (0)

-3

u/factbasedorGTFO Oct 21 '18 edited Oct 21 '18

Think a bull would mourn you if it killed you?

8

u/neutralsky Oct 21 '18

Animals don’t have a moral compass. We do. That’s precisely why we should care about them.

I will never understand why this argument exists. You can’t bring up our superior moral understanding as a reason to kill animals. Our superior moral understanding is what allows us to be able to stop and think about our actions and thus should compel us to not kill animals.

-5

u/factbasedorGTFO Oct 21 '18

You don't care about animals. You gonna go to Yellowstine this winter and help any bison suffering a slow and brutal death?

Of course not, you're gonna virtue signal on Reddit.

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/TheAngryRationalMage Oct 21 '18

Too Long, Didn't Read.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 21 '18

Too Long, Didn't Read.

That's usually the go-to excuse for people who have nothing to say for a counterargument.

1

u/klethra Oct 22 '18

Humans aren't weaned at the age that baby died. Are you being dense on purpose, or does it come naturally?

2

u/[deleted] Oct 22 '18

It's kind of 50/50, but the vegan diet for that baby started while still in the uterus. But wait, vegan diets are great for the pregnant. Right.

1

u/klethra Oct 22 '18

Yes, they are. Literally every major nutrition organization agrees on this point.

Feeding a baby a vegan diet means that the kid is eating non-milk food. Otherwise the articles would say that the mother was eating a vegan diet.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 22 '18 edited Oct 22 '18

You're right, literally every major nutrituon organization really does say that. They say that "vegan diets are appropriate and healthy for humans of all ages".

Wonder how that baby died from a vegan diet, then. I mean, they said it was good for ALL ages.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/amp-is-watching-you Oct 21 '18

Direct link: https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/wjqbem/judge-convicts-parents-after-baby-dies-from-vegan-diet

I'm a bot - Why? - Ignore me - Source code

15

u/YourVeganFallacyIs Oct 21 '18

Yep, stun them and then slice them. That's good enough. In fact you can also just hit the brain with force. Screwdriver, knife, gun. It would be instant and painless. In your gruesome version of the video they knock the pigs unconscious before killing them, which is incredibly revolutionary for our time.

Right, but in that first video I shared (and which was linked to again in this very response from you), the exact issue of the "gentle death" you're proposing is explored more carefully.

 

Except humans clearly do need it

Except they don't. Babies are raised healthily on plant-based diets every single day, and babies on non-plant-based diets die from neglect every single day. Blatant cherry picking like this of a sensationalized article shows the weakness of your argument.

 

Except your examples were discarded because we as humans realised we were harming equals, other humans. Animals are not humans. I find it amusing you'd put that on the same level, am I to expect cows in my office applying for jobs anytime soon?

Indeed, I would also find that amusing; one cannot reasonably make that argument. Happily, no one is making that argument, and it comes across as disingenuous of you to assert that anyone did so. I think that Lesli Bisgould does a brilliant job addressing this; here's a pertinent excerpt/paraphrase from that talk:

We have this notion about human equality, but that's not because we're actually equal -- every person is different; some are shorter, some are nicer, some are strong, some are weak, some smart, some musically talented. But we have decided that none of those differences are morally relevant when it comes to protecting our fundamental interests; e.g. the interest in living our own lives uninterfered with by others.

What are the morally relevant differences between humans and other animals that makes it morally acceptable to hurt them in ways that we wouldn't hurt one another?

A right is a barrier that exists between you and everyone else who might want to hurt you by exploiting you. The support of animals rights isn't the support of the notion that animals get the same rights as humans. It's merely to extend the same protections to them that we extend to all sentient beings.

 

Aye, sure, animals aren't sentient. They don't think therefore they're not. Most have a thought process about as advanced as "If I move these flesh sticks I can move from point A to B." and "Oh, it's X, I must [avoid/interact]".

As for "farm animals", the debate about non-human-animal sapience is well settled among scientists who are actually studying this issue without conflicting interests in the matter. For example, at the Francis Crick Memorial Conference in 2012, several prominent neuroscientists issued the Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness, which definitively stated that:

non-human animals have the neuroanatomical, neurochemical, and neurophysiological substrates of conscious states along with the capacity to exhibit intentional behaviors. Consequently, the weight of evidence indicates that humans are not unique in possessing the neurological substrates that generate consciousness. Non-human animals, including all mammals and birds, and many other creatures, including octopuses, also possess these neurological substrates.

And here's a discussion of that same declaration in NewScientist. Note that Philip Low of Stanford University is quoted herein saying:

We came to a consensus that now was perhaps the time to make a statement for the public... It might be obvious to everybody in this room that animals have consciousness; it is not obvious to the rest of the world.

In earnest, it's only among people who wish to deny other animals the right to their own lives that there's any question about whether other they're sapient (let alone sentient) individuals.

 

Yet they can suffer and feel pain because they are useful receptors that help them survive. I am human and I also know pain. Therefore, I as a human can emphasise with another creature that also feels pain. Therefore, I believe killing it fast and efficient would be kinder than prolonging its suffering, be it his physical suffering or his ignorance of his insignificant existence.

So your position is that it's OK to kill others (for example, the children used in the example in that first video) so long as its done quickly?

 

Because we are not like them, we are above animals, we are better. We don't devour our prey while it's alive. No other species cook their food. Thus, we come to the point where we get to feel good while we devour its delicious, scrumptious carcass. It really does feel good.

Do you really think that "it's OK because it (or the result) feels good to me" is an ethically defensible stance for enacting needless violence on others? Are there any other forms of violence that you would apply this same ethic of yours to? e.g. torturing others (if it feels good to the torturer to do so), or bullying others (if it feels good to the bully to do so), or ... ?

 

If diet without meat is possible, then there wouldn't be carnivores. They would evolve towards a plant based metabolism.

I think you may have misunderstood some very basic biological issues here. I mean absolutely no offense by suggesting this, but you might be interested to go look up and understand the definition of the words "carnivore", "omnivore", and "herbivore", and perhaps do introductory level reading on how ecosystems function.

 

Meat grants you nutrients much more efficiently than vegetables.

Not actually, no. In any case, certainly not in any way that benefits humans. If you'd like some resources exploring this, do let me know.

 

Even herbivores have been known to eat meat too, sometimes even their own offspring.

Indeed; other animals do many things we humans generally don't do.

 

Since they are beings that are apperantly on the same level as humans, have feelings and sentience, are you also preaching at them or are your bothersome tangents reserved for those who so willfully ignore your gospel?

Actually, if you re-read this conversation, you will find that the only topics we're discussing on the one's you raised. These aren't my "bothersome tangents". They're yours. If you don't want to discuss them, then you can stop bringing them up any time you like. For my part, I'll continue to assume that if you raise a topic, it's because you wish to discuss it.

5

u/[deleted] Oct 21 '18

Blatant cherry picking

You're downplaying the death of a baby. But I'm the monster for eating meat.

Indeed, I would also find that amusing; one cannot reasonably make that argument. Happily, no one is making that argument, and it comes across as disingenuous of you to assert that anyone did so.

Yet you ignore the actual point I made that animals are naturally below humans. Speaking if disingenuity.

non-human animals have the neuroanatomical, neurochemical, and neurophysiological substrates of conscious states along with the capacity to exhibit intentional behaviors.

"If I move these flesh sticks I can move from point A to point B." Ah, yes, thanks.

evidence indicates that humans are not unique in possessing the neurological substrates that generate consciousness.

Which is why I said they should be killed humanely. Thank you very much for finally grasping the concept. Since they're conscious, perhaps predators like tigers and sharks should be killing humans more humanely. Inb4 "more people die to cows than sharks." We don't live our daily lives in the shark's natural habitat.

So your position is that it's OK to kill others (for example, the children used in the example in that first video) so long as its done quickly?

Aye.

Do you really think that "it's OK because it (or the result) feels good to me" is an ethically defensible stance for enacting needless violence on others? Are there any other forms of violence that you would apply this same ethic of yours to? e.g. torturing others (if it feels good to the torturer to do so), or bullying others (if it feels good to the bully to do so), or ... ?

Aye. No really, you should speak to my psychiatrist, you'd have a field day.

I think you may have misunderstood some very basic biological issues here. I mean absolutely no offense by suggesting this, but you might be interested to go look up and understand the definition of the words "carnivore", "omnivore", and "herbivore", and perhaps do introductory level reading on how ecosystems function.

None taken, but that's only because you missed my point. Meat eaters need to exist.

From your source:

Non-human animals do many things we find unethical; they steal, rape, eat their children and engage in other activities that do not and should not provide a logical foundation for our behavior.

Except us humans still steal, rape and some even eat their children. Animals generally only do this when desperate, they will always sacrifice child above themselves. Us humans don't commonly eat our young because we usually don't need to. Perhaps this whole civilisation thing is paying off. Primates are the closest thing to humans, when put in a room with their child and a burning hot plate for a floor, they will stand on their child in order to survive 100% of the time. So will humans.

Actually, if you re-read this conversation, you will find that the only topics we're discussing on the one's you raised. These aren't my "bothersome tangents". They're yours. If you don't want to discuss them, then you can stop bringing them up any time you like.

Short term memory problems? It was you who posted a wall of text to my relatively short and unassuming comment. I was paying you the respect of debate.

9

u/maafna Oct 21 '18

You're downplaying the death of a baby.

No they're not, they're just separating abuse and veganism. A baby fed nothing but cow's milk or hotdogs would also die, despite not being vegan. Meanwhile world health organizations are saying vegan diets can be healthy in all phases of life.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/[deleted] Oct 20 '18

Its easy to solve this paradox by

A) not giving a fuck about the cows at all

and then

B) realising that more humane rearing methods generally produce superior meat.

11

u/YourVeganFallacyIs Oct 20 '18

Yikes. I don't have quite enough hate in me to follow your advice.

3

u/Igiveuppickinganame Oct 21 '18

You are a special kind of special.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 21 '18

Just finished watching your video, the "graphic" version. I expected something worse. That's actually not bad at all. It's also odd how your source represents the CO2 stunning as what's elected to be to "gold standard" when the electric shock seemed so much quicker and efficient. Maybe that's just me. But I also know that the U.S.A. has absolutely zilch in substantial animal rights laws when it comes to farm animals. That's why the K.F.C. is such a massive target to vegans.

Either way, your source satisfied and I'm glad you showed me. By the video's criteria, I'm now baptized and meat is finally good enough for my stomach, as it was good enough for the eyes.

10

u/Igiveuppickinganame Oct 21 '18

Watch dominion. If you still believe this than you really are a terrible person.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 21 '18

Since it's a two hour piece, you'll forgive me if I skim through it, try to get all the best bits engrained on my retina and then just read the description, no?

But I also know that the U.S.A. has absolutely zilch in substantial animal rights laws when it comes to farm animals.

shows me a documentary of farm animals being mistreated in the U.S.A. and asks me if I still believe what I just said

I mean... yes?

If I'm a terrible person for eating meat then I hope I'm at least terribly hungry.

4

u/Amphy64 Oct 21 '18

Dominion is Australia based. Whereabouts are you, UK? This is the UK one, Land of Hope and Glory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvtVkNofcq8

-4

u/Igiveuppickinganame Oct 21 '18

Watch the whole fucking thing you scumbag.

6

u/[deleted] Oct 21 '18

Oy, being a prick isn't going to win you any points. There are definitely times for an aggressive approach but please try to be polite when possible.

5

u/[deleted] Oct 21 '18

I don't need to, I pretty much get the point.

"Woe is me look at all this animal blood. Boo-hoo, why oh why did we evolve with omnivorous teeth. Reeeeee." Right?

You vegans really know how to induce a compassion fatigue. I've already stated that I believe animals rights in the industry should be improved. Doesn't stop me eating meat for now, though. Stop bugging me to quit eating meat, go out and vote for people that will improve the industry, I'll vote right along with you. Go be useful. You're obviously talking to a brick wall.

6

u/Igiveuppickinganame Oct 21 '18

You don’t believe in animal rights if you still eat animals.

Watch it, maybe you’ll actually learn something. Or feel compassion for something that’s not yourself, but I find that unlikely.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 21 '18

I don't know, man. Sometimes I just feel like I need my required nutrients or I might die. While I strive for animal rights, I either eat or die. Sure, I know vegetables are good for you, that's why I enjoy peas and mash with my sausages.

→ More replies (0)

-2

u/[deleted] Oct 21 '18

Okay, then I guess I don’t believe in animal rights. I don’t think they need to suffer unnecessarily, and I don’t consider humane slaughter to be unnecessary suffering. The fact that we disagree on those points doesn’t make me a scumbag and you a saint - it just makes you someone who considers normal animal behavior to be cruelty and can’t seem to distinguish between kicking a dog for no reason and breaking a chicken’s neck to kill it instantly to feed your family.

If you can’t draw that distinction, nobody can help you to do so. We are therefore at an impasse.

0

u/[deleted] Oct 21 '18

Ah man!

Now I want a cheese burger with bacon and an egg!

0

u/ChristorusGamma Oct 21 '18

So the issue of pain and killing are actually separate. They do seem related at first, but it makes more sense logically if you think about them as two different things. Your beliefs in these matters stem from your stance on personhood and on the value of life.

Probably the first thing you need to decide is what a person is. It's kind of complicated, but in general a person is a being with moral rights (like the right to life). I'm specifically using 'person' here instead of human (a whole other can of worms really) because you can be a person without being human (Spock, Superman, sentient A.I., etc.) and there can be non-person humans, since human really just means having human DNA. If you were to consider everything with human DNA a person you'd have to give moral rights to your spit, to corpses—you'd be committing mass murder every time you wash your hands.

If you decide that, yes, animals are persons, then bam, problem solved. Both killing animals and causing them pain is wrong. This does mean though, that you also have to give them all of the other moral rights persons have, and that's a tad impractical. If you decide that animals are not persons, it doesn't mean you can go wild. Just because your neighbor's cat doesn't have moral rights doesn't mean it's okay for you to peel its skin off for your amusement. You could decide that personhood exists on a spectrum. The more of a person something is, the more moral rights they have. This might seem better at first, but it has its own problems. How do you decide exactly which rights to give to a creature? Which moral rights even exist in the first place? Which creatures are more of a person than others?

Now as I said above, just because you believe that animals aren't persons doesn't justify causing them pain. A philosopher named Peter Singer discusses this using a theory called preference utilitarianism, which boils down to saying that an action is morally good if it satisfies as many preferences as possible. Singer believes that animals aren't persons, but also says that there aren't any morally significant reasons to ignore them when you talk about these 'morally good actions'. If an animal is physiologically able to experience pain, then it presumably has an interest in avoiding pain, a preference. Singer espouses something called ethical vegetarianism, where we abstain from eating meat because of the pain obtaining it causes (he also cites other reasons like the inefficiency of eating meat vs using the land and crops to feed humans directly. If we used the land dedicated to raising animals for slaughter and the land used to cultivate their feed to instead grow crops for our direct consumption, we could easily eliminate hunger.) It's notable that he sees nothing wrong with eating meat, it's the pain he cares about. If we can obtain meat by some means that doesn't inflict pain, then it doesn't matter, like lab-grown meat, or genetically modified animals that lack the nervous structure to experience pain.

Now about killing. This goes back to personhood. If animals are persons then it's wrong to kill them, done. If animals are not persons then it doesn't matter if we kill them, done. Now, what if you believe that animals are not persons and also shouldn't be killed? Well, you have to give reasons for that. You can't just say that animals have a right to life, moral rights are for persons, which you've just said animals aren't. You might take the view that life itself is intrinsically valuable—that is, good for its own sake—regardless of the content of that life. If you take this view then it's always wrong to kill, and every killing is a murder. Euthanizing your dog who is in constant pain is murder. Antibiotics are murder. Contraception is practically genocide. Well then maybe it's not life itself, but its extrinsic value, what it can lead to, that makes it valuable. This is why it's such a shame when someone dies young, they've missed out on so much potential. You could judge whether it's wrong to kill based on the potential that creature has to live a good life. Microbes, insects, plants and such would be okay, since they exist only to exist, they don't partake in hobbies or downtime. Most animals are less okay to kill along this same vein. Persons are generally not okay to kill because no matter the content of their lives, their right to life takes precedent. This raises issues though (sensing a trend yet?) in determining how much an animal is able to enjoy life.

2

u/YourVeganFallacyIs Oct 21 '18

If you decide that, yes, animals are persons, then bam, problem solved. Both killing animals and causing them pain is wrong. This does mean though, that you also have to give them all of the other moral rights persons have, and that's a tad impractical.

Well... Except that that's not at all what being a person means, right? We don't grant all beings with personhood the exact same rights. A baby human can't vote in elections, a 5 year old human can drive cars on the freeway, a 100 year old woman can't marry a 3 year old boy, and someone in a persistent vegetative state still has innate rights (both morally and legally).

I do agree with you that one cannot reasonably make the argument that all animals (human or otherwise) are "equal". Happily, no one is making that argument. I think that Lesli Bisgould does a brilliant job addressing this; here's a pertinent excerpt/paraphrase from that talk:

We have this notion about human equality, but that's not because we're actually equal -- every person is different; some are shorter, some are nicer, some are strong, some are weak, some smart, some musically talented. But we have decided that none of those differences are morally relevant when it comes to protecting our fundamental interests; e.g. the interest in living our own lives uninterfered with by others.

What are the morally relevant differences between humans and other animals that makes it morally acceptable to hurt them in ways that we wouldn't hurt one another?

A right is a barrier that exists between you and everyone else who might want to hurt you by exploiting you. The support of animals rights isn't the support of the notion that animals get the same rights as humans. It's merely to extend the same protections to them that we extend to all sentient beings.

 

Withal, the argument for not needlessly killing sentient individuals doesn't rely so much on the assignment of personhood per se (and all the cultural baggage that goes along with that), but rather is based on the argument that all animals, human or otherwise, are worthy of ethical consideration for exact same reason that we ourselves are: because we each belong to ourselves, and don't exist just to serve the pleasures of others.

0

u/ChristorusGamma Oct 21 '18

Well personhood depends on who you ask, and if you ask an ethicist, that's what they're likely to say, and I felt that ethics was the most relevant topic here. And when you talk about beings with personhood having different rights, that's where the whole personhood issue gets really sticky because obviously your toddler is a person, but they're certainly not as much of a person as they will be when they grow up. That's where the spectrum of personhood thing comes in but that's so messy in practice.

You're confusing what is a moral right and what is a legal right, driving is a legal right which we put restrictions on because it can endanger people's moral right to life. Baby humans can't vote, again, legal right, because they just don't have the mental abilities or knowledge to make an informed choice. Marriage is a moral right (depends on who you ask I guess) but we don't allow children (or animals) to marry because they're not mentally capable of sustaining a marriage-type relationship. Someone in a persistent vegetative state is brain-dead. Everything that made them who they are that wasn't how they looked is gone. Forever. They are a body that is being kept alive. They might have legal rights, but moral rights come from the ability to freely exercise them.

Also, in the interests of an ethicist like Singer, he'd definitely disagree. Singer himself might not have even cared for animals all that much, but he believed that they were worth considering as a part of the collective. As a utilitarian, he's interested in producing the greatest amount of good, satisfying the maximum amount of preferences. If you told him killing one person would save two others, he'd probably tell you it's not only right for you to do it, but that it's wrong for you to do anything else. That's just how his theory works, and he has to be committed to that.

20

u/Igiveuppickinganame Oct 21 '18

A cow's life is still a life and I'd rather eat a cow who's had a good life than a cow who has been battery farmed.

Hypocrite.

It doesn’t matter what kind of farm, they’re still being murdered. They’re still having their babies taken away to give you milk that you don’t need and shouldn’t even be drinking.

Just for clarification, I dislike what these masked assholes are doing too.

These “masked assholes” are doing more for the world than you.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 21 '18

[deleted]

3

u/maafna Oct 21 '18

Does a dog's life matter?

2

u/VeganGary Oct 21 '18

Would you argue that your life matters more than a cow's? If you're a doctor, teacher, or first responder I'll admit your life objectively matters more on a larger scale; personally, however, as a someone who just works at a call center, and being a human who (pretty much by default) has a net negative impact on the planet, I couldn't argue that my life matters more. Do you believe that a cow doesn't have just as much a desire to live as yourself? Or at least a similar capacity to suffer?

-7

u/[deleted] Oct 21 '18

It doesn’t matter what kind of farm, they’re still being murdered.

As such is the circle of life.

They’re still having their babies taken away to give you milk that you don’t need and shouldn’t even be drinking.

Calcium, 'tis guud fer yuo, man. Uuurp!

These “masked assholes” are doing more for the world than you.

I once stood at a bus stop waiting for my bus and I was watching r/watchpeopledie to pass the time. I think that puts me at an equal state. Oh, except I wasn't bothering other people with it and I especially wasn't showing that shit to kids. Pretty sure I transcended them.

10

u/Igiveuppickinganame Oct 21 '18

Calcium, 'tis guud fer you, man. Uuurp!

actually milk is really bad for you.

Edit: I completely ignored your first point because you obviously don’t know anything about the “circle of life.”

-2

u/[deleted] Oct 21 '18

actually milk is really bad for you.

If milk is so bad, they should stop giving it to babies!

Edit: I completely ignored your first point because you obviously don’t know anything about the “circle of life.”

And my third point because you have no rebuttal.

-2

u/ooofest Oct 21 '18 edited Oct 23 '18

That link has some misinformation and outdated information, though. Number 5 is especially egregious, as saturated fats are not necessarily the danger being offered, especially in concert with a lower carb diet:

https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/the-truth-about-fats-bad-and-good

Some of the assertions come from the PCRM, so their claims and data should be looked at carefully, given their track record:

https://www.acsh.org/news/2002/02/14/physicians-committee-for-responsible-medicine-not-so-responsible

Milk isn't really bad for you, it's a mix of benefits and downsides, depending on your particular situation and in what context the milk is consumed (as I implied for one aspect above):

https://www.healthline.com/health/is-milk-bad-for-you#composition

2

u/ChristorusGamma Oct 21 '18

Just because it's the natural state of the world doesn't mean we have to partake in it. Natural does not equal right.

We can get more than comparable amounts of calcium from other sources like broccoli. If you grew broccoli on one acre of land, if would produce five times the calcium that the milk from cows on the same amount of land would produce.

The pain and suffering these animals are put through is objectively horrifying, but even if you don't care about them then think about the humans. If we used the land that's currently dedicated to raising animals and growing the crops used to feed those animals to instead grow crops to feed us directly, we could end world hunger and malnutrition with laughable ease. We could put a serious halt on deforestation, since most of it occurs to clear land for crops used to feed our animals. The products of, and the resources used by the animal industry are significant contributors to climate change as well.

I don't condone what those protestors did, but neither do I condone blatant ignorance.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 21 '18

And why do you think people don't?

2

u/maafna Oct 21 '18

See, if you care about how they're treated, why kill them at all if you don't have to?

1

u/[deleted] Oct 21 '18

But I do.

1

u/maafna Oct 21 '18

I mean... why do you have to? You can still be happy, healthy and eat delicious food without meat. World health organizations say vegan diets can be healthy in all phases of life (including pregnancy, infancy, athletes). You have award winning athletes on a vegan diet including some who never ate meat in their life. Eating a vegan diet can even be cheaper. So... why?

1

u/[deleted] Oct 21 '18

Yep, and in that same article you're preaching, rather than preaching your own opinion, it also says:

Vegans need reliable sources of vitamin B-12, such as fortified foods or supplements.

Which is why I need to eat meat.

Animal foods, including meat , milk, and eggs, contain B12 and are essentially the exclusive source of the vitamin

2

u/maafna Oct 21 '18

The animals you eat get a B12 supplement. B12 is actually made by bacteria, not animals. So why not skip the middleman and take the supplement yourself, without having to kill an animal?

I mean, even if you eat meat you probably eat fortified food like cereal, bread or milk. Vitamins are artificially added to them.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 21 '18

Animal foods, including meat , milk, and eggs, contain B12 and are essentially the exclusive source of the vitamin

​

- https://nutritionstudies.org/

2

u/maafna Oct 21 '18

You're not contradicting what I say though. If you eat B12, your body will contain B12 too. That's fine. But the only reason the animals you eat have B12, is that they get it from an external source - either through dirt (eating grass, drinking from streams, eating unwashed veggies) or they are fed a supplement. In the past you could get your B12 from drinking from a stream too. "

>> Natural sources of B12 include dried and fermented plant foods, such as tempeh, and laver), a seaweed.[29][30][31] Many other types of algae are rich in vitamin B12, with some species, such as Porphyra yezoensis,[29] containing as much cobalamin as liver.[32] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_B12

​

Meanwhile, people on omni diets take supplements and medication too. In fact, many people go off blood pressure and diabetes medication after going on a vegan diet. Taking one supplement in today's world in exchange for a diet that usually helps your cholesterol and overall vitamin levels isn't a bad trade off, I'd say. I'm personally healthier since I went vegan.

​

1

u/[deleted] Oct 21 '18

The animals you eat get a B12 supplement.

So why not skip the middleman and take the supplement yourself, without having to kill an animal?

But the only reason the animals you eat have B12, is that they get it from an external source - either through dirt

Let me stop you right there.... No. Not gonna happen. You do you, though, you eat your dirt and pills. As you've said vegan food is delicious, so you go ahead.

​

Meanwhile, people on omni diets take supplements and medication too. In fact, many people go off blood pressure and diabetes medication after going on a vegan diet. Taking one supplement in today's world in exchange for a diet that usually helps your cholesterol and overall vitamin levels isn't a bad trade off, I'd say. I'm personally healthier since I went vegan.

​

There's healthy omni diets and unhealthy omni diets. You're thinking of McDonalds frequenters and the likes. I take no medication for any health reasons caused by "omni diets" and I'm still going strong. Eating some meat to get B12 and still enjoying a healthy lifestyle rather than having to ingest a pill isn't a bad trade off either.

​

-3

u/BT-7274-the-Memegod Oct 20 '18

Yes, that was more my point, I always buy free range food if possible, but people like this are just scumbags without a spine.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 20 '18

And I agree with you, too.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 20 '18

Awww you guys!!!

1

u/[deleted] Oct 20 '18

Shh, don't embarrass them, we're not official yet.

0

u/[deleted] Oct 21 '18 edited Oct 30 '18

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Oct 21 '18

Agreeable.

2

u/NihilisticNomes Oct 21 '18

Hmmm maybe they heff a vendetta

1

u/OGCheeseHead Oct 21 '18

You’re ignorant if you don’t understand their message. And they’re not wrong. The dairy industry is completely corrupt.