Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    2. News

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. News
      2. Red Dead Online
    1. GTA Online

      1. After Hours
      2. Find Lobbies & Players
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Vehicles
      5. Content Creator
      6. Help & Support
    2. Crews

      1. Events
      2. Recruitment
    1. Grand Theft Auto Series

    2. GTA Next

    3. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    4. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA Mods
    5. GTA Chinatown Wars

    6. GTA Vice City Stories

    7. GTA Liberty City Stories

    8. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    9. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    10. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    11. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    12. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption

    2. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. Forum Support

    2. Site Suggestions

Sign in to follow this  
el_make

Veganism, animal rights & factory farming

Recommended Posts

Kratos2000

...

As I've already pointed out, most documentaries or media projects on the subject suffer badly from confirmation bias. They're produced by people who already have preconceived moral views on the industry and who go out of their way to find evidence to fit those theories. By virtue of this complete lack of impartiality, it's difficult to make a coherent argument for them being properly representative of the industry.

Who's talking about documentaries and media projects? I'm talking bare documentation, the kind done by vegan activists or slaughterhouse workers, filming inside these farm factories and inside slaughterhouses. This stuff is not invented and the moral views of the filmers don't change what's being filmed.

it's incredible how much effort you'll put into constructing around-the-point arguments to dismiss evidence, holding on to the premise that these are just theories - a prime example of nuanced unaware stubbornness. You are blatanly dismissing hundreds of hours of serious documentation,

 

No, they really aren't. Your second category is people who have done knowledge, but apparently not enough to reach the same concluduon as you. Notwithstanding the fact your assumption that it's some greater intrinsic knowledge which leads to your veganism, which is self gratifyingly delusional, farcical and kinda hilarious.

What's hilarious is how you descend here, basically all crowned-up master of argumentation and then proceed dismissing arguments by making a strawman, and then describing it by tossing around 4 empty terms or descriptions. In the common toungue, this is called being full of sh*t.

 

"The large numbers of people who are aware of the suffering in much of the meat industry but simply don't care, or more accurately don't care enough to stop consuming it. I'd say this is distinguished from not minding, as most people do mind, just not enough to stop."

Group 4 - "And at last we have those who know and don't mind - which is self explanatory, I have nothing to offer them." - this is it, with a slight change in wording and the added imaginery difference between "minding but not actually minding to stop".

 

"Those of us who are acutely aware of the suffering in much of the meat industry, but who believe that animal consumption done in such a way as to minimise suffering is morally acceptable."

Let me first debunk a myth, you are not acutely aware. It screams from your posts when you're mentioning anti-suffering measurements, animal abuse of horrific levels in the meat industry is a higly documented fact, choose whatever branch of it you want, it's there.

Another thing to note, that in my years of vegan activism, never have I came across a person face to face, who claimed he's against animal abuse and said the raw footage I've shown him is within the acceptable boundaries of morality, in fact so many people promised me they will reduce or stop meat, eggs and dairy consumption after watching the footage that the actual experience does everything but nullify your proposed group of people

Actually, I will take a step forward and argue, that people who claim their moral views are against animal abuse but are limited to in favor of the exact treatment of animals in the industry (which is essentially animal abuse minus a couple of joke-ish 'morality' measurements and precautions) - these people did not come with these moral systems predefined. They developed these moral systems to allow themselves to consume meat. I'll explain with an example:

>Billy believes that taking a chicken and cutting its beak, or cutting a cow's tail is animal abuse.

>Billy finds out it's being done in the meat industry.

>In a psychological process, Billy adapts his set of morals and excludes these actions out of his definition of "immoral animal treatment" under the specific circumstances of a factory farm.

>Billy can morally eat meat again.

Now to address the repeating argument that deals in discrediting my moral views and belittling them; you are painting a picture in which <<I go around puffed up in my moral views when nobody shares these moral premises, and people generally don't agree with me on the basic moral stands.>>

It's different, I have grown up in the most ordinary nurture of western society, eating anything except maybe dog meat, being educated on the same moral principles taught to children today under the concensus - tolerance, freedom, equality, rights humanity and what not. I have not adopted a new moral system, my moral system is not different than most people's - it's just that I (and millions of other vegans) have found out that the backstage of the world is not operating by the strandard moral teachings.

 

The reason is not a different set of moral views, and that's why when you address it as such you're simply not going anywhere.

it's the coming to conclusion that there's contradiction between the standard bland morals of western society to how it operates in actuality.

Animal abuse is widely seen as inappropriate and immoral, yet people who think so often provide money to the meat industry. < that's the essence of group number two.

 

In your opinion. You have a real tendency towards confusing opinions with facts.

No, you have a tendency of ignoring facts by dismissing them as opinions - you really do it methodically.

Your perception (or at least conveyed perception) of the meat industry is wrong, it simply has no grip on reality.

 

"Anyone who has seen the slaughter process must reach the same opinion as me on it, regardless of how it was enacted. Anyone who says otherwise is lying."

 

Do you hear how utterly delusional you sound? It's like one grandiose, self stimulating no true Scotsman fallacy.

And there he is again, crafting one of his brilliant strawmen. Would you like to you give it a break?

Come discuss with me what you know, and how that is moral, instead of clutching to your usual status quo of "it all falls down on your truth and mine".

We can discuss reality,

w o u l d y o u w a n t t h a t ?

 

Perhaps you just want to believe that group don't exist because you can't bear the thought of people having different ethical views to your own? That's far more likely I would say.

 

It's pretty interesting to see the lens which you view others through. Your illusory moral superiority is pretty funny; discussing with you is like talking to a living manifestation of cognitive bias.

Although I've already addressed this, I'll quote it again for the hell of it.

We're not talking moral superiority, we haven't been; you are putting a lot of effort into depicting people instead of comprehending and addressing what they write.

You indict by cherry-picking the most sidelined quotes and making shallow argument twists, I propose you address the points instead of the flavour they are written in.

 

Now, you proposed a group. I told you it's insignificant and borders on non-existant from my personal experience in vegan dialogue. The moment I meet someone who is just that I'll happily change my mind, there's no grudge here.

Anyway, what I do and intend to do is appeal to people who I feel have a similar moral background as I do. Whoever I feel the moral-vegan message can appeal to.

You don't like idea of groups? memorize the above then. It will save us so much trouble in this discussion.

Do I agree with people who think treating animals like sh*t is alright? obviously not, nor do I agree with policing my own thoughts on the belief that treating animals like sh*t is acceptable.

Besides, last time I voiced my displeasure with such beliefs was pretty far back in this discussion. I took a step back from it specifically to ensure that I am not into this moral superiority bullsh*t like it will depict, If you feel like criticizing that then we should open a thread for it, perhaps.

Edited by Kratos2000

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dealux

Your entire argument seems to revolve around the premise that human and animal life are demonstrably and inexorably equal, which is a state of affairs that exists largely in your own head and is therefore not a view held by the vast majority of individuals. You also seem to confuse an attack on your appeals to emotion with a defence of the practice rife within the meat industry, when the two are actually completely different things. This makes responding to your comments challenging, largely because they seem to have little to do with the posts you're replying to.

That is my number one gripe with vegetarians and vegans. This notion that all life is equally valuable, which is an argument that is not based on any evidence really, but rather empathy that is not modulated by reason (AKA blind empathy which is completely useless).

 

Where does it stop then? Are flies or ants just as valuable as pigs or cows? If you say yes, I am going to call you a liar. I think we all get that intuition that the size and complexity of an organism correlates with the amount of harm or well-being that creature can experience. In other words, a cow or pig probably experiences more pain than an ant. If you agree with that logic, then you have to accept the fact that humans are more complex than all of the other beings that we know of, therefore they are capable of experiencing more pain and well-being, or they are open to more experiences therefore they have more to lose. It doesn't take speciesism to argue that humans are more valuable. It is objectively true given what we know about us and the other animals.

 

The various videos and documentaries of the sort that were posted in this topic don't move in the direction of "that's horrible, I want to be a vegetarian\vegan now". I don't think there's an easy solution for this at the level of society. You won't be able to convince everyone to stop eating meat and it's probably currently not possible either. Even in my case, I don't know if it would be a wise decision to become a vegan given that I am underweight. I could probably give up meat and animal products since I'm not a big fan of any of them but I am more concerned about the health aspect of a change like this. I mean where would you find legitimate information on what would constitute a healthy\sufficient vegan diet?

Edited by Kristian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

This stuff is not invented and the moral views of the filmers don't change what's being filmed.

No, it's intentionally sought out to reflect the moral views of the filmers. I don't know why this seems so hard to grasp for you- people who support a particular moral standpoint find evidence to corroborate their belief. Such evidence by its very definition does not represent an objective analysis of the facts, because it has been pursued for the explicit purpose of supporting a single moral view.

 

You seem to be under the entirely mistaken belief that I think the moral arguments somehow nullify the evidence. That's clearly not true, but the evidence presented by these individuals does not constitute support for the blanket argument that the entire meat industry is immoral (again, ignoring the whole concept of trying to argue from an entirely objectivist point when morality is so subjective anyway, but I digress). It's a complete non-sequitur; the evidence does not support the assertion.

 

it's incredible how much effort...to dismiss evidence...holding on to the premise that these are just theories

Where? So you really don't understand the difference between dismissing evidence, and making the argument that evidence doesn't fit a particular assertion? Seriously, this is entry level stuff, I have no idea why you seem to be struggling so badly with it. I don't know if it's a language barrier issue, or whether I'm not being simplistic enough or something but literally every response to my comments you've written seem so far wide of the mark of what I'm actually saying that it's like you're responding to completely different comments.

 

You are blatanly dismissing hundreds of hours of serious documentation

No, I'm absolutely not. I can't really be held accountable for your complete inability to understand nuance or comprehend complex ideas.

 

What's hilarious is how you descend here, basically all crowned-up master of argumentation and then proceed dismissing arguments by making a strawman, and then describing it by tossing around 4 empty terms or descriptions.

I really have no idea what you're try to say here. Are you claiming that the assertion that you claimed everyone who has some awareness of, and sympathy towards, the suffering which takes place in the meat industry only continues to eat meat because they aren't as aware as you on the extent of that suffering is a straw man? Because:

 

 

  • Next group is those who know yet close their eyes- those who are aware there is a horror industry of great scope but ignore it for the well being of their already established eating habits or whatever other reasons. They are the ones who show dissonance between what they do and what they believe - those who can agree that these acts are not acceptable, but eat meat because they still didn't fully comprehend how horrific the meat industry is
Emphasis mine.

 

Here, you explicitly and inarguably claim that a lack of knowledge and/or wilful ignorance is all that stands in the way of people who have some awareness of the suffering caused by the meat industry and full-blown veganism. You are explicitly stating that anyone who cares about suffering but still consumes meat is ignorant in a way you apparently are not, and implicitly that anyone who cares about suffering and who does have that knowledge would automatically reach the same moral conclusions as you- again, moral objectivism completely unrepresentative of the nuances of how people actually think.

 

Let me first debunk a myth, you are not acutely aware.

That's not you "debunking a myth", that's a fallacious argument from authority in which you offer no evidence or analysis to support the assertion I lack awareness. The problem is that your illusory superiority often gets in the way of your ability to argue coherently. Ditto your assertion that "anti-suffering measurements" as you put it do not exist. Here's a hint; this subforum is for proper debate and discussion. Asserting things are false because they're false isn't going to get you very far.

 

never have I came across a person face to face, who claimed he's against animal abuse and said the raw footage I've shown him is within the acceptable boundaries of morality

And now we have arguments from anecdote. How many other fallacies can we commit in this argument?

 

Now to address the repeating argument that deals in discrediting my moral views and belittling them

I'm not belittling or discrediting your moral views, just arguing they're subjective and that your assertions that anyone else would feel the same way when subject to the same level of knowledge is logically indefensible. The only thing I've belittled is your reliance on logical fallacy to try and support your arguments, and your illusory superiority in your own moral views.

 

No, you have a tendency of ignoring facts

You haven't presented any. You've not even presented any evidence, empirical or otherwise, aside from anecdote.

 

And there he is again, crafting one of his brilliant strawmen.

It's not a straw man, you explicitly said it as I've quoted above. Not to mention fact that only four quotes above this one you're arguing I can't possibly have any understanding of the subject because my opinions on it dint match yours? Hypocrisy at its finest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Uncle Sikee Atric

Do you also buy from a specialty butcher in rural England, from an abattoir that you've visited personally? Like I'm pretty sure he buys game pheasant and sh*t from a guy with a shotgun and a hound dog, wearing knee high wellington boots.

 

I'm pretty confident you just shove sh*t in your trolley at Tescos, at best you look for 'free range' eggs or something. While I don't know if factory farming is technically illegal, I know it's the norm rather than the exception. You seem to think it's performed by dodgy crooks who eventually get prosecuted, so I take your claim about being an informed and active consumer with a grain of salt.

Erm.... My family are butchers, I have collected, seen, smelt and dealt at abbatoirs, and seen the processes involved in the slaughter and jointing of just about every animal that ends up on the plate.

 

So maybe I don't wear Wellingtons, but I am pretty well informed on what does go on behind the closed door.

 

And right now, I buy my meat from https://keelhamfarmshop.co.uk/pages/skipton as the quality and source tracing is there, right down to them noting their abbatoirs on the blackboard, for pennies more than buying out of the Tesco.

 

Who's the smug git now?

Edited by Sikee Atric

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kratos2000

 

 

 

...

 

 

 

No, it's intentionally sought out to reflect the moral views of the filmers. I don't know why this seems so hard to grasp for you- people who support a particular moral standpoint find evidence to corroborate their belief. Such evidence by its very definition does not represent an objective analysis of the facts, because it has been pursued for the explicit purpose of supporting a single moral view.

>This stuff is not invented and the moral views of the filmers don't change what's being filmed.

>No, it's intentionally sought out to reflect the moral views of the filmers

Dear god what are you even replying to.

 

I said it is of no relevancy, pleading confirmation bias here is ridiculous. It "being sought" does not discredit anything in the footage and what's on the footage is the core of the discussion. You're somehow lingering to the premise that there's some other side to unravel here.

The methods are documented, filmed, we know how this industry operates from beginning to end and if there was another prespective to the industry's horrible animal abuse record everyone would've already been linking it like there's no tomorrow. There's no form of exposure more bare than actual footage from a slaughterhouse or a factory farm, footage which reveals animal abuse and clear suffering. You're pretending there's a bigger picture that suddenly brings the footage into proportion and I assure you there is none.

 

 

You seem to be under the entirely mistaken belief that I think the moral arguments somehow nullify the evidence. That's clearly not true, but the evidence presented by these individuals does not constitute support for the blanket argument that the entire meat industry is immoral (again, ignoring the whole concept of trying to argue from an entirely objectivist point when morality is so subjective anyway, but I digress). It's a complete non-sequitur; the evidence does not support the assertion.

Moral arguments nullifying evidence? Are we on the same page?

Absolutely not what I said. The discussion is about the morality of the practice rife in the meat industry, we know as a fact animals are being abused and are put through extreme suffering: the livestock is often deformed, sanitary standards are low, there's infections, animal mutilation, mass electrification of chickens past the age of 2, cuilling of chicks and I'm just getting started.

Now instead of contributing to discussion, wether about how you feel this is moral or immoral and why - you make a point about the "seeking of materials for the explicit purpose of supporting a single moral view" which is a worthless, forced diversion that you think discredits the analysis as subjective.

It's footage from the actual place, you can even visit if you like - it doesn't make a difference. Thinking there's some different angle to all of this is quite the delusion and is exactly what I meant by "unawareness".

Abuse and cruelty are concepts with unmistakably clear connetion to morality so that makes it a valid part of the issue, and can definitely support it being either moral or immoral. There's still a question if you identify animal abuse as cruelty, and if you identify cruelty as immoral. Do you understand the link?

 

 

I don't know if it's a language barrier issue, or whether I'm not being simplistic enough or something but literally every response to my comments you've written seem so far wide of the mark of what I'm actually saying that it's like you're responding to completely different comments.

"most documentaries or media projects on the subject suffer badly from confirmation bias"

 

If we let this by and take it as if you were talking there about factory-farm/slaughterhouse footage, and not actual documentaries and media projects (which are not what I had brought up and not what you were replying to either way), whatever point you were trying to make by confirmation bias simply falls flat. You were bringing this argument up as if in case one looked for wonderful treatment over there, or were to film it from a different angle, it would have produced credible footage to dissmis the abuse with.

Our knowledge about these places consists of said footage, inspection reports, testimonies and visits, all of which are bare evidence and reveal cruelty, abuse and suffering.

I don't see what other kind of insight on the industry you pretend there is, but confusing the documentation of actual practice there as subjective makes for a false premise and leads to easy dismissal of said footage.

 

It's really wonderful you feel I'm responding to completely different comments, given that's what I said about you just one post ago.

 

 

I really have no idea what you're try to say here. Are you claiming that the assertion that you claimed everyone who has some awareness of, and sympathy towards, the suffering which takes place in the meat industry only continues to eat meat because they aren't as aware as you on the extent of that suffering is a straw man? Because:

I was mocking the way you answer.

The way you described my second category was all twisted up in the right places for easy refutation, that's the essence of the strawman logical fallacy.

Then, after repeating someone else's argument and turning it into logicless crass, you proceed to 'debunk it' with 4 eloquent but incredibly shallow terms - not with an argument.

Since I'm not one of those who are totally fine repeating themselves over and over for you - I'm pointing it out so we can move past that.

 

"Are you claiming that the assertion that you claimed everyone who has some awareness of, and sympathy towards, the suffering which takes place in the meat industry only continues to eat meat because they aren't as aware as you on the extent of that suffering" - you simply did it again, while I said there's a group of people like that who are one of the primary targets of moral veganism, you simply felt the need to vomit my argument as one presenting said group as the exclusive kind.

 

Those who have extended knowledge of meat-industry reality, and claim to have empathy towards the suffering animals there, yet refuse to translate that empathy into action or prioritise their empathy above food - are group number 4, those who don't mind, those who prioritsie so differently that moral veganism can not appeal to them. That makes them not targets of moral veganism (just as much as Christians are not targets of the occassional Jewish preacher who's looking for Jews to complete a prayer) since there is nothing at my arsenal to convince them with anyway.

 

Do I need to record myself saying or is that clear now?

 

Ditto your assertion that "anti-suffering measurements" as you put it do not exist.

Will you forever make me requote myself? funny you mention we're in the debate forum. Your debating methods in this thread consist of nauseating strawmen, I have correct you every second paragraph (including now), you're stuck on terminology and the "different morals" melody.

Abuse and cruelty is something we can actually debate, there's plenty to say and link on this subject matter.

 

And now we have arguments from anecdote. How many other fallacies can we commit in this argument?

I'm bringing my experience into this, what were you bringing to the table? proposed groups without even an anecdote to back up?

Is personal experience invalid in this section? Either way I'm more than enthusiastic to move on to something else.

 

You haven't presented any. You've not even presented any evidence, empirical or otherwise, aside from anecdote

I was bravely told you were aware of all of it, remember?

 

It's not a straw man, you explicitly said it as I've quoted above.

expilictly as you've quoted, huh?

"Anyone who has seen the slaughter process must reach the same opinion as me on it, regardless of how it was enacted. Anyone who says otherwise is lying."

Sir, this is what you've quoted. The idea of a strawmen, is that you repeat someone else's argument in a twisted way and proceed to refute what you misrepresented.

It's exactly what you've done.

Edited by Kratos2000

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

>This stuff is not invented and the moral views of the filmers don't change what's being filmed.

>No, it's intentionally sought out to reflect the moral views of the filmers

Dear god what are you even replying to.

What the f*ck are you replying to? Nothing you've just posted even vaguely resembles a response to the actual comments I've made. Nowhere have I said or implodes it's invented in any way.

 

I'm beginning to think you're being deliberately obtuse.

 

 

 

It "being sought" does not discredit anything in the footage

If you'd even bothered to skim my posts, your have realised that not the point I was making. Your continued assertion that every facet of the meat industry is immoral does not make it actually so, and your refusal to accept that such documentation may not be representative of all slaughterhouses just makes you delusional. Until such a point as you've visited evey slaughterhouse on the globe and documented that evidence, its a non-sequitur.

 

 

 

You're pretending there's a bigger picture that suddenly brings the footage into proportion and I assure you there is none.

Your "assurances" mean nothing and I don't believe you have the knowledge or authority to "assure" anything.

 

 

 

Thinking there's some different angle to all of this is quite the delusion and is exactly what I meant by "unawareness".

Have you been to my local abbetoir? I doubt it but you seem to think you know what happens there. Can you demonstrate that the meat I purchase from there has been maltreated or has suffered? No, you can't. Therefore, your continued assertion that the entire industry is toxic is at best a conclusion based on a cherry picked narrow and selectively data pool, and at worst an explicit lie.

 

 

 

Abuse and cruelty are concepts with unmistakably clear connetion to morality

No idea what point you were trying to make here.

 

 

 

Our knowledge about these places consists of said footage

"Our, our our". You keep making these assertions and arguments from apparent authority, but you've yet to post any actual supporting data. You just keep reiterating that it's true because it is.

 

 

 

I was mocking the way you answer.

Probably not the cleverest idea you've had.

 

 

 

you simply felt the need to vomit my argument as one presenting said group as the exclusive kind.

If that's not what you mean then you probably need to be a little clearer and more coherent, given that I quoted you verbatim. I doubt I was the only person who interpreted your comments that way given that's, y'know, what you said.

 

 

 

...and claim to have empathy

And yet you feel the need to imply that they don't actually have empathy? Kinda supports my assertion that you believe you possess moral superiority over these people. Can they *not* have empathy if their conclusions don't match yours?

 

 

 

Do I need to record myself saying or is that clear now?

No, it's still not entirely clear what points yoire trying to make.

 

 

 

Will you forever make me requote myself?

Why don't you actually respond to what I'm saying rather than repeating yourself as nauseum then? If you think it's tedious, imagine how I feel.

 

Oh yeah, the authority you repeatedly claim to have but which you haven't even begun to actually explain or support. Even if you did have a clear authority on the subject, which you don't, it's still not actual evidence.

 

You're the one whose gone to great lengths to try and argue that I'm actually not knowledgeable. For the sake of clarity, if you're going to make statements like those you've made, you need to back them up really. Continued assertion is meaningless in the context of discussion and if that's all you're going to do then this thread isn't going to be going anywhere and I'll just lock it now and save everyone the grief.

 

Oh, and you should probably learn the difference between paraphrasing and a straw man. Hint- it's only a straw man if it doesn't actually represent the same underlying comment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

It's abundantly clear you still don't understand the points I've been making so rather than encourage another broken record round I think we're done here. I'm fed up of having to repeat myself in ever simpler terms and still having you completely misunderstand or misconstrue my points. The complete irrelevance of the one single solitary source you posted to support your continued assertions to literally any argument I've made supports this.

 

Perhaps we can revisit the topic at such a time you decide to respond to the actual things I'm saying, rather than some distorted idea of what you think I mean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Aaand we're back open. No returns to broken records or straw men please, unless you're talking about eating them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
otachi

Animals eat animals,that's how the life goes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Animals eat animals,that's how the life goes.

If you want to remain in D&D you're going to have to do a lot better than that. Animals don't selectively breed, domesticate, rear or process other animals, nor do they engage in wilfully cruel practices to try and maximise yield and profit, so as an argument it's utter sh*t

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was a Junk

Well it wom't let me quote you for some reason but the animals that eat other animals are obligate carnivores so they must eat other animals. Humans do not need meat on the other hand.

 

Animals also do a bunch of other screwed up thngs as well so that's not really an arguement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

It won't let you quote him because the quote is hidden, because it's incoherent nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Switch

Here is how i see it personally.. Veganism is in every sense healthier and better for the environment, and if everyone suddenly became a vegan tomorrow it would make the world better, even if it was 50% of the worlds population. I do not believe you can disprove that. I believe that capitalism and the whole industry is the main reason why it won't ever happen if we keep going like this. Just look at how the industries are reacting and have been reacting to global warming and other environmental issues for many years now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro

Veganism isn't healthier than eating animal products. Vegans have a risk of a lot of nutrition deficiencies of nutrients that occur mainly in animal products. http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/guide/vegetarian-and-vegan-diet?page=2 But obviously the diet of the average meat eating Westerner isn't exactly healthy either. But that doesn't negate that a healthy balanced vegan diet is a challenge. Eating healthy and eating animal products is easier. All of which has nothing to do with ethical concerns, which are completely legitimate.

Edited by Eutyphro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was a Junk

Veganism isn't healthier than eating animal products. Vegans have a risk of a lot of nutrition deficiencies of nutrients that occur mainly in animal products. http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/guide/vegetarian-and-vegan-diet?page=2 But obviously the diet of the average meat eating Westerner isn't exactly healthy either. But that doesn't negate that a healthy balanced vegan diet is a challenge. Eating healthy and eating animal products is easier. All of which has nothing to do with ethical concerns, which are completely legitimate.

 

I dunno from what i've seen the only thing vegans need to be careful with is B12. Take a supplement as most fortified foods don't contain enough. Other nutrients are covered by eating fortified foods as the article says. Oh and common sense, seriously you'll not believe how many eople have said they felt unhealthy on a vegan diet and they said they've been eating salad three times a day.

 

Here is how i see it personally.. Veganism is in every sense healthier and better for the environment, and if everyone suddenly became a vegan tomorrow it would make the world better, even if it was 50% of the worlds population. I do not believe you can disprove that. I believe that capitalism and the whole industry is the main reason why it won't ever happen if we keep going like this. Just look at how the industries are reacting and have been reacting to global warming and other environmental issues for many years now.

Yeah i seriously doubt i'll see a vegan world and the overall ending exploitation of one another in my lifetime, but you'll NEVER see change if you sit around and do nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DarkSavageDeathlyCloud

I saw "earthlings"....and honestly, looking from a rational standpoint i was not suprised from what i saw.

At such places only cash matters and animals are considered nothing but a product. Their feelings are simply not considered.

 

It is not a big secret that we are all considered apex predators and we dominate earth and do rarely consider most, if not any other lifeform living here to.

In the end, though it is with a noble mind people become vegans, i got canine teeth, they are meant to do something.

Really, if you go down the path of such a mindset, there is no end to it.

Farming plants on large scale can be as damaging to life as farming animals, so consuming meat or vegetables coming from any industry is not gonna do much good anyhow.

Sure you might start farming youreself in a bio-friendly way, but even then, if you had a big garden before that with a diversity of plants everywhere and you plan to change that, are you not making the same "mistake" again ?

even if you didn't before, you are still taking in place.

 

if its about the idea of harming animals, rather then minimalizing the ecological footprint, one must wonder, why goes everyone crazy by harming an animal and nobody bats an eyelid if neighbour timmy decides to get rid of that 40year old tree just for more sun.

 

same for clothes...hope everyone is aware most of what they wear is build on the not so healthy foundations of child labor, extortion along with loads of sweat, lots of tears and some stains of blood.

same for multimedia

and damn, you do not want to know what people have to do to mine places looking for things like gas, all kinds of ornomental stones, oils and pretty much anything your house and computer/tablet/phone/whatever is build on.

Might as well just wanna accept it, you are an apex predator meant for destruction no matter what you do....and if you are on this forum you probably enjoy, like most people many luxurious things you do not even need to survive.

 

and if its about the good old argument noble vegetarians try to use against people who only seem to care about themselves, that vegan food is more healthy...though there is something to say about the fact that plants are less likely to be conteminated by harmfull bacteria or stuff like that(it is still damn possible), there is an ongoing debate of vegan food being more healthy actualy being a fact...and again, i personaly can not help it but to remind me of the fact i must have my canine teeth for a reason.

 

so yea...call me an asshole, my personal conclusion: i know my burger ended up on my plate trough a path paved by death, mutilation, pain and a total disconcern for life, but i do not see any rational reason to not eat it and enjoy the taste of it in the rare occasions i go for one.

Trust me, i still wish sometimes life just was not like this...but yea...it simply is...and i prefer to not ignore facts.

Edited by goldadderXD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RedDagger

In the end, though it is with a noble mind people become vegans, i got canine teeth, they are meant to do something.

The entire point of this humanity thing is that we're able to do away with just doing as nature intended - if you were to use your body the way it was "meant" to be used, you wouldn't be going on a forum and typing out your post, or living in modern society at all. Singling out one type of tooth you have as evidence for what you're "meant" to do doesn't really work.

 

It's just an appeal to nature and those are bleh.

 

 

Farming plants on large scale can be as damaging to life as farming animals, so consuming meat or vegetables coming from any industry is not gonna do much good anyhow.

Well no, this is demonstrably false. The food animals are fed with has to be grown, and energy/nutrients are lost in comparison to having people just eat the plants directly. Farming animals requires a ridiculous amount of land, energy, water in comparison to an equivalent in plants, and produces far more pollutants - and that's ignoring the processes for creating the animal's food.

 

 

if its about the idea of harming animals, rather then minimalizing the ecological footprint, one must wonder, why goes everyone crazy by harming an animal and nobody bats an eyelid if neighbour timmy decides to get rid of that 40year old tree just for more sun.

same reason we don't like harming humans? They have a brain, they can think, and importantly, feel pain. A plant does none of that.

Although it's worth noting that lots of people get very annoyed if you cut down trees willy-nilly, though that's not direct empathy and it's not the same thing as harming animals.

 

 

same for clothes...hope everyone is aware most of what they wear is build on the not so healthy foundations of child labor, extortion along with loads of sweat, lots of tears and some stains of blood.

same for multimedia

and damn, you do not want to know what people have to do to mine places looking for things like gas, all kinds of ornomental stones, oils and pretty much anything your house and computer/tablet/phone/whatever is build on.

Well yes, lots of people are against those, there's plenty of people who are actively against the things you've mentioned. None of them are issues that are brushed to the side, so the point's a bit moot here. Edited by RedDagger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DarkSavageDeathlyCloud

It is true we are evolving, but i would realy not trow out the nature factor out so fast...genetics are quite the powerfull thing.

Also seeing as humans can't realy live on plants easely i would say we still have a long way to go before that is happening.

Sure nothing wrong with wanting progress, but if tomorrow all people suddenly would need to eat only plants, we are not ready for that at all.

Besides, besides empathic reasons there aren't much reasons considering humans self-preservation to turn vegan ourselves....all that farming of animals might become an isue in the future, but it is not such an isue yet.

 

though i stand corrected as them being equaly poluting for the inviroment, there have been quite some hazzards happened regarding agriculture.

polution of soil because of the overusage of pesticides and fertilizers....such things still happen a lot

For an example, i could be wrong on this one, but i beleve they once exterminated all pollinating insects on some island somewhere and are now into big trouble because of that.

Actually, all sorts of such insects aren't fairing that well these days in my country to....and they say it is because of the agroculture, which weeds out all sort of plants that are considered harmfull by humans and the use of lots of insecticides

 

Indeed, just because they have something in common with us, might say we are quite biased about it no ?

Just because something else has feelings, why should we actualy take that into consideration ?

Just because the one thing feels pain while the other thing does not, but both still live, does that mean you have to take always the side of the thing closest related to you ?

That is kinda showing a disconcern for plantlife, and plantlife is as much important as animal life if you ask me.

 

my overall point is that, though all those things in an attempt to spare nature, as one would say, i do not see from a rational standpoint why one would honestly even bother.

few vegetarians are not gonna make such a diference,...and like said, if you ask me doing damage to other living creature lower in the foodchain is kinda what it means to be human.

and sure we can evolve, but like said, i do not think the time that humans will need to find a way to depend only on plants is gonna happen soon anyhow, so besides emotional reasons, why bother living in this time ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RedDagger

It is true we are evolving, but i would realy not trow out the nature factor out so fast...genetics are quite the powerfull thing.

"Because it's natural" is not an argument that holds water on its own, it needs more reasoning than that.

 

 

though i stand corrected as them being equaly poluting for the inviroment, there have been quite some hazzards happened regarding agriculture.

Agriculture has its own negative effects, yes, but like I said, the food for animals has to be grown - and if we ate the crops directly instead of essentially eating it via animals we'd be using far less crops, plus removing all the negatives of farming animals (space, resources, pollution etc.).

 

 

Indeed, just because they have something in common with us, might say we are quite biased about it no ?

Just because something else has feelings, why should we actualy take that into consideration ?

Just because the one thing feels pain while the other thing does not, but both still live, does that mean you have to take always the side of the thing closest related to you ?

That is kinda showing a disconcern for plantlife, and plantlife is as much important as animal life if you ask me.

It's not "because it has feelings" or that they "have something in common with us", it's what those feelings actually are - pain, depression, anxiety. Plants may as well be complex rocks, whereas the more intelligent animals think and feel.

 

 

my overall point is that, though all those things in an attempt to spare nature, as one would say, i do not see from a rational standpoint why one would honestly even bother.

few vegetarians are not gonna make such a diference,...and like said, if you ask me doing damage to other living creature lower in the foodchain is kinda what it means to be human.

and sure we can evolve, but like said, i do not think the time that humans will need to find a way to depend only on plants is gonna happen soon anyhow, so besides emotional reasons, why bother living in this time ?

Ethics, ecology, environment, plus it's simply more efficient to not rely so much on animal farming, for the reasons stated previously, all together which I feel are reason enough for most people. There's been plenty of positive results from campaigns and activism, so a difference is definitely being made. That's a terrible idea of what it means to be human and I'm not even sure where it comes from or what it's based off of, considering we're phasing out animal cruelty as much as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DarkSavageDeathlyCloud

well, sure there are also inviromental factors, but besides that, there are no other factors to account in.

again, there might be a few decent practical reasons to be vegan, but the reasons not to far outweigh those.

 

i'd say space is still a huge factor, but yes, less then indeed compared to farming animals, but it is still relevant if you ask me.

 

again though, why need feelings of so called lower lifeforms so much consideration ?

i would get why when talking about single rare animals that are useful for the ecosystem, or simply talking about the mass extinction of certain animals that are also useful for the ecosystem....but as sad as it might be in a way, animals being bred in cages and being actually eliminated of ever being a part of an ecosystem should be not really a concern in any way.

 

well positive....i really like when people are aware of their suroundings, but again, i think giving animals bred to be served on a plate more comfort is not something one really should spend time and resources on, it is not usefull, said animals are so low on the food chain they can't possible rebel or something and thus it can be not much harm self-preservation wise to see them as tools/assets, meant to be sacrificed for a human his needs.

Cruel behavior from humans towards animals should in my opinion be not relevant, what is relevant is balance, not destroying the world because we are still a part of it.

Call me evil, i rather be concerned about how all those pieces of overall rain forest dissapear every year(yes, me and me threes again ), invasive species of animals being accidently released in the wild destroying the ecosystem and the overall effects of pollution in any setting

and yes...animal or plant...either way something is always gonna die in the end to fullfill any need we got, so honestly, that is indeed pretty much part of my personal vision of what it means being a human.

Can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was a Junk

well, sure there are also inviromental factors, but besides that, there are no other factors to account in.

again, there might be a few decent practical reasons to be vegan, but the reasons not to far outweigh those.

 

i'd say space is still a huge factor, but yes, less then indeed compared to farming animals, but it is still relevant if you ask me.

 

again though, why need feelings of so called lower lifeforms so much consideration ?

i would get why when talking about single rare animals that are useful for the ecosystem, or simply talking about the mass extinction of certain animals that are also useful for the ecosystem....but as sad as it might be in a way, animals being bred in cages and being actually eliminated of ever being a part of an ecosystem should be not really a concern in any way.

 

well positive....i really like when people are aware of their suroundings, but again, i think giving animals bred to be served on a plate more comfort is not something one really should spend time and resources on, it is not usefull, said animals are so low on the food chain they can't possible rebel or something and thus it can be not much harm self-preservation wise to see them as tools/assets, meant to be sacrificed for a human his needs.

Cruel behavior from humans towards animals should in my opinion be not relevant, what is relevant is balance, not destroying the world because we are still a part of it.

Call me evil, i rather be concerned about how all those pieces of overall rain forest dissapear every year(yes, me and me threes again ), invasive species of animals being accidently released in the wild destroying the ecosystem and the overall effects of pollution in any setting

and yes...animal or plant...either way something is always gonna die in the end to fullfill any need we got, so honestly, that is indeed pretty much part of my personal vision of what it means being a human.

Can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs

This is ridiculuous. You do realize that animal agriculture causes a significant amount of deforestation. I also too think it is okay to justify say slavery because i mean i think they just exist to produce goods so i can go to my local walmart and buy stuff. Who gives a sh*t about the fact that they're sentient and have a will just as much as you and i do.

 

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120925091608.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Melchior

Yeah I don't think a pig is any less intelligent than a cat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DarkSavageDeathlyCloud

 

well, sure there are also inviromental factors, but besides that, there are no other factors to account in.

again, there might be a few decent practical reasons to be vegan, but the reasons not to far outweigh those.

 

i'd say space is still a huge factor, but yes, less then indeed compared to farming animals, but it is still relevant if you ask me.

 

again though, why need feelings of so called lower lifeforms so much consideration ?

i would get why when talking about single rare animals that are useful for the ecosystem, or simply talking about the mass extinction of certain animals that are also useful for the ecosystem....but as sad as it might be in a way, animals being bred in cages and being actually eliminated of ever being a part of an ecosystem should be not really a concern in any way.

 

well positive....i really like when people are aware of their suroundings, but again, i think giving animals bred to be served on a plate more comfort is not something one really should spend time and resources on, it is not usefull, said animals are so low on the food chain they can't possible rebel or something and thus it can be not much harm self-preservation wise to see them as tools/assets, meant to be sacrificed for a human his needs.

Cruel behavior from humans towards animals should in my opinion be not relevant, what is relevant is balance, not destroying the world because we are still a part of it.

Call me evil, i rather be concerned about how all those pieces of overall rain forest dissapear every year(yes, me and me threes again ), invasive species of animals being accidently released in the wild destroying the ecosystem and the overall effects of pollution in any setting

and yes...animal or plant...either way something is always gonna die in the end to fullfill any need we got, so honestly, that is indeed pretty much part of my personal vision of what it means being a human.

Can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs

This is ridiculuous. You do realize that animal agriculture causes a significant amount of deforestation. I also too think it is okay to justify say slavery because i mean i think they just exist to produce goods so i can go to my local walmart and buy stuff. Who gives a sh*t about the fact that they're sentient and have a will just as much as you and i do.https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120925091608.htm

True...but vegans are to much thinking about the animal being hurt stuff...it is kinda anoying a bit.

 

Well...slaves can actually rebel...and they do.

It is not a good idea to try and keep actual peoole under your thumb to much in an abusive manner...it was all just waiting to happen.

 

Might also wanna repeat i am not really in suport for suffering without a purpose, but the suffering of the animals in earthlings seems to actually serve a purpose, or lets say that it seemed to serve no purpose to decrease the suffering of said animals exept for the animal itself.

 

again...noble cause, but not sure if that usefull from a practical standpoint

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RedDagger

Hold on, the only reason slavery is bad is because they can rebel? Not because, y'know, ethics or anything? So if we make it so they can't rebel (i.e. what we do with animals) child slavery and and general forced unpaid labour are perfectly fine?

 

?????

 

Also you have this extraordinarily twisted and selfish view of this, saying that they it's fine if they "serve a purpose". Firstly, like I've said, their suffering is entirely avoidable but the only reason it's done is because it's the cheapest way of doing things. Secondly, "being useful" is this arbitrary designation you've invented that draws the line at where you personally shouldn't suffer (because your use is apparently to not suffer or something) but everything else can suffer because hey at least it's "serving your purpose" (again completely arbitrary) even if it's completely and entirely unnecessary right

 

And anyway, the suffering doesn't serve a purpose - it's entirely possible to do lots of animal-related things without the suffering, they just don't because it's easier to ignore that.

Edited by RedDagger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dudclub55

 

 

well, sure there are also inviromental factors, but besides that, there are no other factors to account in.

again, there might be a few decent practical reasons to be vegan, but the reasons not to far outweigh those.

 

i'd say space is still a huge factor, but yes, less then indeed compared to farming animals, but it is still relevant if you ask me.

 

again though, why need feelings of so called lower lifeforms so much consideration ?

i would get why when talking about single rare animals that are useful for the ecosystem, or simply talking about the mass extinction of certain animals that are also useful for the ecosystem....but as sad as it might be in a way, animals being bred in cages and being actually eliminated of ever being a part of an ecosystem should be not really a concern in any way.

 

well positive....i really like when people are aware of their suroundings, but again, i think giving animals bred to be served on a plate more comfort is not something one really should spend time and resources on, it is not usefull, said animals are so low on the food chain they can't possible rebel or something and thus it can be not much harm self-preservation wise to see them as tools/assets, meant to be sacrificed for a human his needs.

Cruel behavior from humans towards animals should in my opinion be not relevant, what is relevant is balance, not destroying the world because we are still a part of it.

Call me evil, i rather be concerned about how all those pieces of overall rain forest dissapear every year(yes, me and me threes again ), invasive species of animals being accidently released in the wild destroying the ecosystem and the overall effects of pollution in any setting

and yes...animal or plant...either way something is always gonna die in the end to fullfill any need we got, so honestly, that is indeed pretty much part of my personal vision of what it means being a human.

Can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs

This is ridiculuous. You do realize that animal agriculture causes a significant amount of deforestation. I also too think it is okay to justify say slavery because i mean i think they just exist to produce goods so i can go to my local walmart and buy stuff. Who gives a sh*t about the fact that they're sentient and have a will just as much as you and i do.https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120925091608.htm

True...but vegans are to much thinking about the animal being hurt stuff...it is kinda anoying a bit.

 

Well...slaves can actually rebel...and they do.

It is not a good idea to try and keep actual peoole under your thumb to much in an abusive manner...it was all just waiting to happen.

 

Might also wanna repeat i am not really in suport for suffering without a purpose, but the suffering of the animals in earthlings seems to actually serve a purpose, or lets say that it seemed to serve no purpose to decrease the suffering of said animals exept for the animal itself.

 

again...noble cause, but not sure if that usefull from a practical standpoint

 

 

What purpose? We don't NEED animal meat or animal products in our diet, getting all the nutrition necessary to live a long and healthy life from plant sources is 100% plausible.

Also, how is veganism not practical? If the entire world population was vegan then it would've been much more sustainable, you also can't downplay the environmental implications of pastoral agriculture when it's a pretty big contributor to climate change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DarkSavageDeathlyCloud

 

 

 

well, sure there are also inviromental factors, but besides that, there are no other factors to account in.

again, there might be a few decent practical reasons to be vegan, but the reasons not to far outweigh those.

 

i'd say space is still a huge factor, but yes, less then indeed compared to farming animals, but it is still relevant if you ask me.

 

again though, why need feelings of so called lower lifeforms so much consideration ?

i would get why when talking about single rare animals that are useful for the ecosystem, or simply talking about the mass extinction of certain animals that are also useful for the ecosystem....but as sad as it might be in a way, animals being bred in cages and being actually eliminated of ever being a part of an ecosystem should be not really a concern in any way.

 

well positive....i really like when people are aware of their suroundings, but again, i think giving animals bred to be served on a plate more comfort is not something one really should spend time and resources on, it is not usefull, said animals are so low on the food chain they can't possible rebel or something and thus it can be not much harm self-preservation wise to see them as tools/assets, meant to be sacrificed for a human his needs.

Cruel behavior from humans towards animals should in my opinion be not relevant, what is relevant is balance, not destroying the world because we are still a part of it.

Call me evil, i rather be concerned about how all those pieces of overall rain forest dissapear every year(yes, me and me threes again ), invasive species of animals being accidently released in the wild destroying the ecosystem and the overall effects of pollution in any setting

and yes...animal or plant...either way something is always gonna die in the end to fullfill any need we got, so honestly, that is indeed pretty much part of my personal vision of what it means being a human.

Can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs

 

This is ridiculuous. You do realize that animal agriculture causes a significant amount of deforestation. I also too think it is okay to justify say slavery because i mean i think they just exist to produce goods so i can go to my local walmart and buy stuff. Who gives a sh*t about the fact that they're sentient and have a will just as much as you and i do.https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120925091608.htm

True...but vegans are to much thinking about the animal being hurt stuff...it is kinda anoying a bit.

Well...slaves can actually rebel...and they do.

It is not a good idea to try and keep actual peoole under your thumb to much in an abusive manner...it was all just waiting to happen.

Might also wanna repeat i am not really in suport for suffering without a purpose, but the suffering of the animals in earthlings seems to actually serve a purpose, or lets say that it seemed to serve no purpose to decrease the suffering of said animals exept for the animal itself.

again...noble cause, but not sure if that usefull from a practical standpoint

 

What purpose? We don't NEED animal meat or animal products in our diet, getting all the nutrition necessary to live a long and healthy life from plant sources is 100% plausible.

Also, how is veganism not practical? If the entire world population was vegan then it would've been much more sustainable, you also can't downplay the environmental implications of pastoral agriculture when it's a pretty big contributor to climate change.

I thought personaly that there werent not enough plants give us the nutrients(i hope i type that right) we need to survive...could be wrong on this...feel free to correct me.

 

Definatly sure though that at the moment we dont have enough of those.

 

Also personaly i see no proof of global warming actually caused by co2 and such, let alone it truely existing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Also personaly i see no proof of global warming actually caused by co2 and such

Then you know literally nothing about the subject, it's incontrovertible scientific fact. Arguing against global warming/human-influenced climate change is on a similar scientific level to believing in early world creationism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RedDagger

I thought personaly that there werent not enough plants give us the nutrients(i hope i type that right) we need to survive...could be wrong on this...feel free to correct me.

 

Definatly sure though that at the moment we dont have enough of those.

Again, animal products we eat are produced from animals, and those animals are fed on plants (or other animals that were fed on plants). Energy and nutrients from the plants are lost when we eat them via animals, i.e. if we ate the plants directly we'd have to grow less plants to get the same amount of food, and that's ignoring all the energy and space expended on raising the animals, which would also be saved. And then, animals require far more space and energy to raise, so by eating the plants directly instead of eating them via the animals it'd drastically reduce the amount of space and energy needed, and we'd be getting the exact same amount of food.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DarkSavageDeathlyCloud

 

Also personaly i see no proof of global warming actually caused by co2 and such

Then you know literally nothing about the subject, it's incontrovertible scientific fact. Arguing against global warming/human-influenced climate change is on a similar scientific level to believing in early world creationism.

 

i knew earth is warming up, i didn't knew it was already 100 percent proven we are responsible for that to be honest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DarkSavageDeathlyCloud

 

I thought personaly that there werent not enough plants give us the nutrients(i hope i type that right) we need to survive...could be wrong on this...feel free to correct me.

 

Definatly sure though that at the moment we dont have enough of those.

Again, animal products we eat are produced from animals, and those animals are fed on plants (or other animals that were fed on plants). Energy and nutrients from the plants are lost when we eat them via animals, i.e. if we ate the plants directly we'd have to grow less plants to get the same amount of food, and that's ignoring all the energy and space expended on raising the animals, which would also be saved. And then, animals require far more space and energy to raise, so by eating the plants directly instead of eating them via the animals it'd drastically reduce the amount of space and energy needed, and we'd be getting the exact same amount of food.

 

But we cant like depend on just like carrots and regular salads to live on right ?

 

i could be mistaken, but we need sertain protein rich products like soya and all kind of beans with them right ?

are those easely grown ?

 

legit question, i always thought most of them could only grow in warmer climates

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.