(January 21, 2014 at 3:18 pm)Chuck Wrote: I've given you at least 3 examples. That you might deny what is plain to view does not help your case. I will repeat them now:

1) I could value reduction of suffering as primary concern, but only amongst humans.

2) I could value reduction of suffering over all as my parimary ethical concern, but regard deprivation of meat from those humans who desire it to be a greater suffering then the death of the animals that could have fed the desire. Therefore suffering intrisically increases overall if suffering amongst food animal decreases.

3) I could value reduction of suffering over all as my parimary ethical concern, but regard the dislocation required to implement a move away from meat diet to be the equivalent of greater suffering than death of animals required to maintain status quo. Therefore suffering increases overall in practice if suffering amongst food animal decreases

And this is what it comes down to: how people evaluate and balance different kinds of suffering. Does it even MATTER if an animal suffers, if the suffering leads to improved enjoyment or easier nutrition in humans? As in most cases, it is competing instincts and interests which lead to a dilemma. Most people have a natural tendency toward compassion and sympathy, to a degree-- we have a tendency not to inflict suffering or harm to others, including animals, if there's no good reason to do so. We also have the instinct to eat meat, as evidenced by the fact that the smell of cooking meat smells good, and that many vegetarian foods are deliberately treated as substitues for meat-- veggie burgers, for example, or processed-tofu "meats." So how do we balance these tendencies? Not by calling vegetarians pussies just because their feelings of compassion are stronger than their desire to eat meat. Not by calling meat-eaters monsters, because their desire to eat meat trumps any idea of extending the same protections to animals that they would extend to people.

In the end, I think at least for now, compromise and rational thought on BOTH sides should be the order of the day; we all benefit if we can use logic to assist in our dietary decisions, rather than only the pleasure centers of the brain. I don't think a 350-lb American man really needs to eat that next order of ribs. Save a pig, take a fucking walk, you are not lacking in protein or calories. That unnecessary meal is adding unnecessary misery to the world, because your mind is too weak to overcome your monkey instincts-- you might as well be flinging pooh and masturbating on the bus. On the other hand, vegetarians need to stop being hypocrites. If you're living on a commune, using hand-tools to farm because industrial machinery is causing deaths of voles and birds, then you are probably not reading this. Since you ARE reading this, you haven't taken a perfect stance on this issue, and so you don't have the moral authority to draw everyone else's moral line-in-the-sand.

I ask this: consider that animals suffer, and try to minimize that suffering, where there's no compelling reason not to. We should eat less meat, and be more suspicious and demanding of the meat producers. Just from a health perspective, I think most people would rather eat free-grazing cattle than crippled ones that stand up to the knees in shit all day, or eat the higher-quality meat of natural, free-range chickens than some steroid-pumped DNA-modified freak connected to a machine. But escaping the evils of the mass-production food industry, mathematically, WILL require reducing meat intake a lot.

We are going to see a massive change in meat eating due to cultured (ie artifically grown) meat becoming a reality. Since we have now produced a meat that can be used in suasages and burgers it is just a matter of time before it predominates.

it will go in these stages

1) Artificial meat is released onto the market but is high priced and is eaten by middle class people who want to get rid of animal cruelty but can;t give up meat. "Traditionalists' will make a huge fuss , call it 'frankenfoods' and refuse to eat it. Some absurd places might actually ban it out of some conservative religious sentiment.

2) Whilst artificial meat improves to be able to produce steaks etc the cheaper end actually becomes cheaper than meat for use in burgers and sausages. The burger/Sausage industry uses it as standard. Only the usual conservative balk at this. the number people who use killed meat falls as fake meat prices fall. essentially people will take a more ethical option once it doesn't affect their palates or their wallet.

3) Production gets to a point where steak like products are available and are derived from many different species. At this point factory farming will become ethically unacceptable and only the most humane animal farming methods will be acceptable and the price will start to steadily increase for natural meat. It will become more and more rare for younger people to eat real meat and those who do will be frowned on and subject to ostracisation. Objecting to cultured meat will become rarer with only ultra conservative ,some religious groups and significant portions of the elderly eating meat refusing to eat it.

4) The penultimate stage is where most people refuse to eat natural meat because the cultured alternative is cheaper and better for you. Killing for food will become morally unacceptable and will go down the same route as foie gras and it will be supplied only by very specialist shops which will have endless protests outside (like the tiny number of shops in the UK that sell fur)

5) the final stage in countries like the EU is where the entire meat industry is banned.

How close or far away these steps are is difficult to predict but I think we are at least 100 years away from stage 5 stage 1 is probably 10 years away

(January 21, 2014 at 3:17 pm)StoryBook Wrote: I see so you support animal testing, quite the contradiction there.
Do you really think it is healthy?

All that is in healthy food is chemicals, all that is in unhealthy food is chemicals. If you understand the physiology and chemistry who could
synthesise food from meat that is either. Do you not agree with this? Just because I can imagine set of action in a thought experiment that illustrates my point does not mean that I agree with those actions.

The point is that science can allow the creation of vegan cat food that allows the animals to be healthy.

(January 21, 2014 at 3:17 pm)StoryBook Wrote: We do try to reduced suffering and HAVE. Humans make ethics animals don't have ethics. Animals live and think in the present. They don't dwell on things. Like i said before, there is a difference between abuse and survival. Beating an animal is wrong, killing an animal for nutrients is a fact of life.

So your argument essentially is this

1. We should try to reduce suffering
2. The suffering of animals caused by humans eating animals has no ethical relevance because it happens in nature anyway/ is natural.

Therefore its is ok to eat meat. Is this your argument?

(January 21, 2014 at 10:56 am)jg2014 Wrote: Um, in this case, trust me I really am.

If your doctor tells you a vegan diet is unhealthy they are wrong. You are such a hypocrite. You give out all this medical advice in opposition to what the doctors of the NHS and ADA say, in addition to the studies I provide, THEN you try to appeal to authority! ridiculous

Um, no. Just no. What you're doing is cherry picking your data, it's called data mining - you're choose precisely what data you want to hear and parroting it back. That's not sound medical advice, idiot. You want to hear from the SDA study you quoted that it concludes that vegans are healthier, no such conclusion can be made from that data. You said it's the "best" scientific data that you have on proving vegan diets are healthier; and doesn't even meet the minimum research standard.

This is what you need as a bare minimum:

1. a "control" group from the population of people who: have never smoked (or have only smoked very occasionally) as an adult, do not drink alcohol or coffee at all and have not for the last 5 years or longer, do not take any non-prescription medications, AND perhaps most importantly are neither overweight or underweight.

You can not data mine your control group - which is all the study that you quoted seems to do, and in fact they do not have a proper control group anyway. So you cannot know what the dietary habits of this control group are - at all, it's your control.

Next you need vegetarians that meet the same criteria (don't drink, don't smoke, don't drink caffeine, don't take drugs, and weigh a healthy weight).

Next you need vegans that meet the same criteria.

Then, and only then, do you see whether either of these groups is healthier than your control group.

That by the way is a bare minimum, what I'd prefer to see is a proper controlled trial.

I'l going back to this point you said earlier to call bullshit on you:

Quote:Vegan breast milk is not deficient in any nutrients if the mother has a well planned diet, and there are always supplements that can be take. Soya milk infant formula milk, has also been shown to be as safe as cows milk, although breast milk is still best.

1. No it hasn't been shown to be "as safe" - it can result in DEATH.
2. What if the baby is allergic to Soy, AND Breast Milk is unavailable??

Quote:If your doctor tells you a vegan diet is unhealthy they are wrong. You are such a hypocrite. You give out all this medical advice in opposition to what the doctors of the NHS and ADA say, in addition to the studies I provide, THEN you try to appeal to authority! ridiculous

You are such a dumb bitch.

Try this one:

• 
  
  So, I've been vegan for 5 years, vegetarian for 10 years before that. Here's the problem:
  
  I am allergic to soy, which I have done fine with. Somehow, I've developed a severe peanut allergy, and am starting to show symptoms of other allergies to legumes and nuts. I'm not sure how much longer I can remain vegan and survive.
  
  But I don't want to not be vegan.
  
  Does anyone know of any really useful alternative protein sources? Solutions to the problem? I can go on shots and such, but many of the allergen preventatives are animal tested or animal derived. This is such a pain in the butt.
  
  I suppose I'm writing because the depression of this is simply hitting me so hard, I don't know how to deal with this.

If a physician or nutritionist tells you to eat meat or dairy or take animal-derived supplements for your health, according to you, they'd be wrong?

Grow up.

Quote:Giving animals vegan cat food is not just like giving them vegetables. Its formulated to have high protein, low carbs, just like meat.

You're a moron. They can't breakdown proteins; they need to get them wholesale and they cannot get the right proteins without meat - and specific meat at that. If you had a veggie-based cat food that did meet their dietary requirements by being supplemented, then that protein has to come from meat and/or meat products and would not be vegan.

Quote:If there is anything missing there is no scientific reason why we cannot just either obtain that substance from plants of synthesise it. Do you have any understanding of chemistry? There is nothing in nature which cannot be at least potentially be made in a lab for vegan sources. NOTHING. Not protein, not vitamins or minerals. All that is required is research and time.

Hahahahahahahahaha.



Dumbass.

Quote:Here is some ACTUAL evidence rather than just opinion, that vegetarian cat diets are healthy.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16817716

1. I can't even see the text of it, and 2. It's not real science anyway and the results are speculative at best. They had a very small sample size, they didn't measure many of the important areas in which a cat would be deficient, and they didn't even contain the cats - the average pet cat kills 109 animals per year (source) and eat about 30% of their kills. If a cat is being fed a nutrient deficient diet, it's possible they'll kill more prey and eat more of their prey to get their nutrients. So that study doesn't prove a fucking thing for your argument. I'm not even clicking on "vegepets.info", thanks all the same.

---

(January 22, 2014 at 1:48 am)là bạn điên Wrote: We are going to see a massive change in meat eating due to cultured (ie artifically grown) meat becoming a reality. Since we have now produced a meat that can be used in suasages and burgers it is just a matter of time before it predominates.

Ph please that shit is fucking gross, only an idiot would eat it.

---

(January 22, 2014 at 1:48 am)là bạn điên Wrote:

---

We are going to see a massive change in meat eating due to cultured (ie artifically grown) meat becoming a reality. Since we have now produced a meat that can be used in suasages and burgers it is just a matter of time before it predominates.

it will go in these stages

1) Artificial meat is released onto the market but is high priced and is eaten by middle class people who want to get rid of animal cruelty but can;t give up meat. "Traditionalists' will make a huge fuss , call it 'frankenfoods' and refuse to eat it. Some absurd places might actually ban it out of some conservative religious sentiment.

2) Whilst artificial meat improves to be able to produce steaks etc the cheaper end actually becomes cheaper than meat for use in burgers and sausages. The burger/Sausage industry uses it as standard. Only the usual conservative balk at this. the number people who use killed meat falls as fake meat prices fall. essentially people will take a more ethical option once it doesn't affect their palates or their wallet.

3) Production gets to a point where steak like products are available and are derived from many different species. At this point factory farming will become ethically unacceptable and only the most humane animal farming methods will be acceptable and the price will start to steadily increase for natural meat. It will become more and more rare for younger people to eat real meat and those who do will be frowned on and subject to ostracisation. Objecting to cultured meat will become rarer with only ultra conservative ,some religious groups and significant portions of the elderly eating meat refusing to eat it.

4) The penultimate stage is where most people refuse to eat natural meat because the cultured alternative is cheaper and better for you. Killing for food will become morally unacceptable and will go down the same route as foie gras and it will be supplied only by very specialist shops which will have endless protests outside (like the tiny number of shops in the UK that sell fur)

5) the final stage in countries like the EU is where the entire meat industry is banned.

How close or far away these steps are is difficult to predict but I think we are at least 100 years away from stage 5 stage 1 is probably 10 years away

---

Fuck me dead you are completely deluded. And as for "Fur" - um, you can get fur products everywhere with no protests, and leather as well (there's no difference between leather and fur FYI). I have a few sheepskin products that classify as fur and leather, bought at normal shops where nobody blinks an eye.

Fuck me dead you are completely deluded. And as for "Fur" - um, you can get fur products everywhere with no protests, and leather as well (there's no difference between leather and fur FYI). I have a few sheepskin products that classify as fur and leather, bought at normal shops where nobody blinks an eye.

Me deluded? Someone who beleives in sky fairies? You may get furn in the USA but in the UK fur is utterly unacceptable. Harvey Nichols started stocking fur and had to stop within days. Harrods has a full time picket. There is a fur dealer who has to have every parcel screened for bombs.

There is a massive difference between fur and leather FYI- I don't buy either. I am talking about Fur not leather. If you wear fur in the UK you will be derided and quite possibly attacked.

(January 22, 2014 at 6:15 am)là bạn điên Wrote: You may get furn (SIC?) in the USA but in the UK fur is utterly unacceptable.

I wouldn't know, I haven't been.

Quote:There is a massive difference between fur and leather

There is? What's the difference?

---

If a cat is being fed a nutrient deficient diet, it's possible they'll kill more prey and eat more of their prey to get their nutrients.

FYI I can back this point up with science.

Problem: small sample size. However: no data mining!!!!!

(January 22, 2014 at 3:32 am)jg2014 Wrote: Therefore its is ok to eat meat. Is this your argument?

The argument is any "ethic" which requires humanity to do something for something else in return for no reasonable expectation of reciprocity to itself exceeds the boundary of ethics and is nothing but fluffy, masturbatory bullshit.

An animal won't help us because we helped it to reduce its suffering.

Suffering may be seen as bad, but not all of it need to be seen as bad. It's up to you. But If you choose to see suffering in such way that you would inconvenience the broad welfare of humanity reduce it, then may those suffering not only not decrease, but increase by you also getting an additional share of it.

(January 22, 2014 at 6:25 am)Aractus Wrote: I wouldn't know, I haven't been.

And yet you presume to lecture me? Arrogant wanker

Quote:There is? What's the difference?

tell you what tell your wife you are buying here a fur coat and bring home a leather one. She will tell you quickly enough.

(January 22, 2014 at 10:57 am)Jacob(smooth) Wrote:

Can you really find no more edifying entertainment than watching carnivores tear apart incautious, uppity, overreaching herbivores?