Don't buy it.


/thread

The premise of something being fundamental yet we know for a fact you don’t need animal products to survive... the entire premise is false

This

No one who thinks plants have feelings thinks it's so because they talk to them. They have other reasons.
lol



This thread isn't based on science. It's based on religion/emotion.

Why did you expect it to be confined to the realm of science ?

True, but the vast majority of humans throughout history have distinguished between certain food animals and humans. You can make an ethical argument but you have to prove it. And OP isn't doing a very good job so far.


I have no problem with his personal choices but imo he shouldn't be trying to set the world on fire just yet.

No rjr. When you have lack of animal fats in you diet it happens what happened to Pottenger's cats (google is your friend). People esp kids need animal fats in their diets. Again I urge you and anyone thats interested to read 'Nutrition and physical degenaration' by Weston A. Price. Its free in pdf.

We do not need animal fats that’s just factually wrong to say that... you might prefer it and you might even thrive off of it but to say we need it is just not correct.

Plenty of people survive on a plant based or vegan or vegetarian diet so no we do not need animal fats stop spreading propaganda.

Also what’s your thoughts on subsidies? Even if we needed animal facts subsidizing it would still be wrong.

Im against subsidies. Let the free market be free. About animal fat: we do need it. Not getting enough animal fats leads to bone deformities in children (like Pottengers cats). Thats why people need braces. Everyone assumes its genetic but it isnt. Again I urge you to read about weston a price.

The views of Weston Price are, to put it charitably, not universally accepted. I would sooner recommend Quackwatch for health information.

https://quackwatch.org/

Animals can certainly understand what is going on and feel fear of the outcome.

Anyone who takes their dog to the vet has seen this as soon as the dog figures out where they are, in fact going. Dog goes from excited to go for a car ride to trembling and hiding and has to be dragged.

I saw a pet pig being taken for slaughter when I was young and similarly it just seemed to know. I will never forget the sound of it crying out as it was walked off. Walks it would eagerly go on at other times.

Humans clearly have a tell animals can read in cases like that.

That said I still think humans are part of the predation cycle and we need predators and prey on this planet for balance.

I think humans have a duty to step up and kill more of certain animals (deer, geese, etc) when we clear areas of other predators and those populations run wild and wrongly misguided people with big hearts convince gov'ts that is wrong to allow culls. Everyone then suffers including the prey animal and environment as prey animal populations explode to detrimental impact.

This doesn't make much sense to me. Apex predators typically control population, control disease through predation, and encourage biodiversity. Most of the meat we eat is domestically farmed. I don't see how farming and eating chickens controls population, controls disease, or encourages biodiversity. In fact, if human beings went extinct, I suspect there would be far fewer chickens on the planet than there are now.

And I have never heard anyone suggest that modern human populations have a net positive effect on biodiversity.

So you agree with my original position?

You just want to derail thread with propoganda such as “not getting enough fat leads to bone deformities in children”?

This is blatantly false. You agree with my original stance yet you choose to derail.

If you want to argue for your precious meat/fats then go to the optimal diet thread where there’s a debate about whole food plant based diets. There are good fats in avocado that can replace any animal fat you get. There’s literally an alternative for everything. You just choose to be stuck in your ways citing outdated sources that fit your prerogative.

Saying humans need animal fats is a lie. We don’t. It may be better for us it may be worse but to say we need it is disingenuous.

Ok, I only derailed because you started talking about how unhealthy meat is. It seemed important to you so I thought I would offer an oppposing opinion. Do you really think I care about a stranger's health/nutrition on the internet?

Hmmm, I said kill 'deer, geese, etc' and you came back with 'chickens' and said it doesn't make much sense to you. i think I see why.

My post is addressing the idea that ethical vegans believe man should have no role in the willful killing of animals. I am addressing that moral question only.

I am highlighting that 'Yes' mankind should maintain there role as an apex predator and maintain the role of culling animals.

That is not an argument for factory farming or even smaller local farms or even eating meat. Even if everyone was vegetarian I would argue mankind has a duty to continue to fulfill that role. They can either do it directly or by purposely re-introducing other apex predators to do the killing for them.

And the reason is that because when we create human settlements we often drive out most of the predators and throw the balance towards the prey animals who can live in closer proximity to man.

this causes all sorts of imbalances in nature that not only harm the predators but also the prey animals (over population, sickness, etc) and even the topography of the planet itself (rivers, forrests, etc).

So in my view what happens to the 'ethical vegan' argument predicated around a moral prohibition on all killing if we recognize mankind not only has necessary role in the predation cycles but a duty to act upon it.

That recognition pretty much invalidates the ethical vegans position.

^^^
BTW if you have never seen the National Geographic video 'The Wolves of YellowStone' it is a must watch to see just how damaging it is when there is no apex predators and populations run wild.

(sorry only found that poor quality video but I did not search long. There might be better copies)

No, animals can't understand what's going on. That's a bridge too far.
They do have emotions and pets depend on humans so they're in tune with their owners like a wild animal would be with nature.

Also humans project our own emotions and motives onto animals. It's impossible to know how much an animal actually suffers.

That being said, it seems cruel to take an animal conditioned to be a pet and expose it to the slaughter process. Race horses have to go through this after their racing days are over.

But the average animal that's bred for slaughter never knows anything else.
And doesn't live very long.

It's not nice but if you've ever had a family of rabbits on your property you know how many babies you see once or twice and then never again. Most animals don't make it very long irl. And the ones that do don't live in any sort of luxury.

If we didn't raise animals for food we'd have to hunt and trap all our meat. That would mean no biodiversity when the lands were hunted bare.

I suppose eventually we'll get off of meat but until we do, farming animals is the way to go.

This is a function of population explosion. 5000 years ago, human beings had minimal impact on biodiversity.

I am not disputing the importance of apex predators. Far from it. I'm suggesting that modern meat eating habits have little to do with humans fulfilling some role as an apex predator. And that is not going to change any time soon. Human meat eating is not on the verge of being redirected mainly toward wild deer and Canada geese. And one of the main reasons humans need to control the populations of some prey animals is because humans have dispaced or destroyed the habitats of predators that effectively controlled those prey populations for thousands of years.

If human beings disappeared from earth, it almost certainly would benefit long-term biodiversity on the planet.

5000 years ago we lived like the wild animals do now. Short, brutal lives that didn't end well.

Starvation was common actually.

But I suppose the behavioral sink could also be at play in humans at this point.

Maybe a cull would be better. Trump seems up for it.

Agree to disagree, is about the best I think, we can do here.

I am not arguing anything suggesting modern meat eating fulfills some role as apex predator. That is not my argument, not even a little bit.


What I am saying is a key difference between someone who eats Vegan and an Ethical Vegan is, to my understanding is the idea that it is immoral/wrong for mankind to kill any animals. Full Stop.

An absolute position makes no room for exceptions.

So I am tackling that absolute position from what I see as an area of weakness to test if it holds. I think it fails to hold when you examine what becomes, imo, mankind's need to cull animals, in the event apex predators have been removed from an area and certain species of prey animals over populate to the great detriment of themselves and the surrounding environment.

So if you agree man has that roll, as I have explained, that makes the moral argument of ethical vegans collapse. You cannot have an absolute position with a 'ya but' or 'exception'.

So once you strip away the 'moral' argument from an ethical vegan then what can they say or use to tell others they 'should not' eat meat other than 'hey man, I prefer not eating so you should not eat it either'.

It turns it back to an argument of preference and not morals.

You don’t need to cull any animal population... you may need to have dominion over the animals but dominion doesn’t mean killing. In fact you can do things to make sure animals can coexist.

I misunderstood your position. I agree that some sort of absolutist position is not defensible. But it's pretty easy to modify an absolutist position to address the issue you are raising. For example, one could argue that it is morally indefensible to kill animals solely for the pleasure of eating them.

This isn't self-evident. Invasive species can do immense damage to biodiversity.