Childhood indoctrination

[Forbinator]

Wrong Fornicator. I tried vegan/vegetarianism and was admitted (to hospital very ill) as an anorexic. Whilst I DO strive to have more vegetables in my diet than meat I NEED meat as I am unable to utilise the nutrition from vegetation.

You are just being childish as your precious ideology is being challenged. All in all ...It doesn't work for everyone and you must accept this. Petroleum products are far more dangerous than utilising leather, cotton, silk; which are all biodegradable..your petro-synthetics are not and will pollute your precious "farm-land" and also your "veggies" this is already happening and hence vegan/ vegetarianism isn't as healthy as you would like to think it is

What nutrients were you actually deficient in? How can you expect your argument to be valid if you haven't even specified that rather major detail? Rule number one of nutrition is it's the nutrients that count; the specific ingredients are just a means of getting them into you.

And please don't try to state that leather is biodegradable and environmentally friendly: http://www.worstpolluted.org/files/FileU...Report.pdf

Given that animal-based food requires 6-10 x more land mass per kg of product than plant-based food, doesn't this offset any potential damage caused by cotton, hemp, polyester etc.? Overall land use in a "vegan utopia" is far less than in our current world, and involves less petrol consumption from milk tanks driving between farms every day, shipping of grain to feed animals, transport of animals etc.

---

And you would rather see the billions of cattle, sheep, fowl and pigs have a lingering death due to 1080 poisoning rather than be slaughtered quickly (and hopefully humanely) for food and leather? We have a crisis of goats and horses here in Oz (amongst other feral animals) thanks to the simpering good intentions of vegans/ vegetarians they die a most horrible death or to die in a bushfire, but to you this is ok it is natural?

Strawman argument. Animals don't need to be farmed in the first place.

As far as feral animals goes, humans certainly cocked up royally by introducing them, and it's not a simple issue. A utilitarian analysis needs to be conducted thoroughly before any decision to cull, but usually this is not done. Of the two of us, you seem to be the one committing naturalistic fallacy, not me, as if animals killing each other in the wild is somehow justification for us:

And while we’re at it, if we’re using the behaviour of wild animals as an ethical reference point, I guess it’s ok if we throw our faeces at each other, rape each other and steal each other’s food?

---

Where do you get:

Calcium
Vitamin B
Iron

http://veganeasy.org/Nutrition

Yeah yeah, Peta is certeinly the most unbiased and honest organisation on the entire planet, and it certeinly doesnt try to force any kind of agenda onto anyone.

This is a better source: http://www.worstpolluted.org/files/FileU...Report.pdf

What is your alternative for animals used in labs?

Click on "Alternatives to Animal Research" http://www.humaneresearch.org.au/fact-sheets

Do you condole acts of violence and the criminal destruction of property directed against institutions using animals for experiments?

No. Violence to stop violence is a pointless cycle, but an illegal break-and-enter can certainly be justified if it saves lives.

[Zen Badger]

One contributer in my case were the behavioral studies by Konrad Lorenz. I constantly tried to justify my vegetarianism and later veganism on scientific grounds. But constantly failed.

But you clearly are unable to justify your exploitation of animals either, so you have deferred to a default setting of continuing to exploit them. How are you deciding where to place the burden of proof (or justification)? Seemingly childhood indoctrination plays a role. Every time you buy food you actively make a choice: violence or non-violence. It takes some pretty powerful programming to make us actively choose violence.

---

I'm interested in this concept of "animal rights" of which you speak.
If you could provide examples of animal rights occurring in the natural world I would be most appreciative.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy

That's nice, but I asked for examples in nature, not a Wikipedia article.

[Forbinator]

Wrong! I repeatedly stated that I considere humans to be supirior, we have a civilisation, greater awareness over our surroundings, are capable to learn and establish knowlege which are unrequired for simple survival, have surpassed the stage at which our behavior is primearely controled by our instincts and are capable of creative thought.

Only because you dont think that this is not a valid justification this does not mean that you are right.

The burden of proof is on you to show that I am wrong.

And all you did is make insultingly stupid statements which would be considered plain ans simple biggotry if it werent for your obvious stupidity.

Such as comparing the animal rights issue to the lesbian and gay rights movement as if gays and lesbians were somehow animals!

You've stated that we are superior to animals, based this on your own standards of superiority (anthropocentrism), and used it to justify victimisation of entire groups. How is this not bigotry?

As for our civilisation, we have already applied standards from our civilisation to animals, as is seen in laws we currently have against senseless cruelty to animals. The difference is that veganism applies these standards to animals all the time, not just when it's convenient. Why accept any level of cruelty?

---

@ Zen Badger: it is a fallacy to even ask me for an example in nature to demonstrate why we should behave in a civilised manner.

[Something completely different]

You've stated that we are superior to animals, based this on your own standards of superiority (anthropocentrism), and used it to justify victimisation of entire groups. How is this not bigotry?

Wrong.

I based the argument of supiriority of the human species on the achievements of the human spiecies! And not not the fact that we are differnt from animals you liar! If these are not the standards, then what is?! It is not bigotry because if it were than every single carnivor on the planet is a biggot.

As for our civilisation, we have already applied standards from our civilisation to animals, as is seen in laws we currently have against senseless cruelty to animals. The difference is that veganism applies these standards to animals all the time, not just when it's convenient. Why accept any level of cruelty?

We have applied these standards on animals for our own good to be a productive society in our interactions with animals. Not because we "love" them.

[KichigaiNeko]

Wrong Fornicator. I tried vegan/vegetarianism and was admitted (to hospital very ill) as an anorexic. Whilst I DO strive to have more vegetables in my diet than meat I NEED meat as I am unable to utilise the nutrition from vegetation.

You are just being childish as your precious ideology is being challenged. All in all ...It doesn't work for everyone and you must accept this. Petroleum products are far more dangerous than utilising leather, cotton, silk; which are all biodegradable..your petro-synthetics are not and will pollute your precious "farm-land" and also your "veggies" this is already happening and hence vegan/ vegetarianism isn't as healthy as you would like to think it is

What nutrients were you actually deficient in? How can you expect your argument to be valid if you haven't even specified that rather major detail? Rule number one of nutrition is it's the nutrients that count; the specific ingredients are just a means of getting them into you.

All the B groups and Iron

And please don't try to state that leather is biodegradable and environmentally friendly: http://www.worstpolluted.org/files/FileU...Report.pdf

And synthetics are MORE biodegradable? Poor argument.

Given that animal-based food requires 6-10 x more land mass per kg of product than plant-based food, doesn't this offset any potential damage caused by cotton, hemp, polyester etc.? Overall land use in a "vegan utopia" is far less than in our current world, and involves less petrol consumption from milk tanks driving between farms every day, shipping of grain to feed animals, transport of animals etc.

No dispute there but your vegetarian utopia will destroy a great many ecosystems to feed the planet. Unless of course you condone the "culling" of 50% of the total world population that are unable to sustain a vegan/ vegetarian diet?

---

And you would rather see the billions of cattle, sheep, fowl and pigs have a lingering death due to 1080 poisoning rather than be slaughtered quickly (and hopefully humanely) for food and leather? We have a crisis of goats and horses here in Oz (amongst other feral animals) thanks to the simpering good intentions of vegans/ vegetarians they die a most horrible death or to die in a bushfire, but to you this is ok it is natural?

Strawman argument. Animals don't need to be farmed in the first place.

As far as feral animals goes, humans certainly cocked up royally by introducing them, and it's not a simple issue. A utilitarian analysis needs to be conducted thoroughly before any decision to cull, but usually this is not done. Of the two of us, you seem to be the one committing naturalistic fallacy, not me, as if animals killing each other in the wild is somehow justification for us:

And while we’re at it, if we’re using the behaviour of wild animals as an ethical reference point, I guess it’s ok if we throw our faeces at each other, rape each other and steal each other’s food?

But that is the thing isn't it? these sheep, cattle, fowl and pigs are NOT wild nor are they endemic to their respective environments. You seem to prefer a cruel and agonising death for these animals that were once domesticated in support of your ideology.

---

Where do you get:

Calcium
Vitamin B
Iron

http://veganeasy.org/Nutrition

Yeah yeah, Peta is certeinly the most unbiased and honest organisation on the entire planet, and it certeinly doesnt try to force any kind of agenda onto anyone.

This is a better source: http://www.worstpolluted.org/files/FileU...Report.pdf

What is your alternative for animals used in labs?

Click on "Alternatives to Animal Research" http://www.humaneresearch.org.au/fact-sheets

Do you condole acts of violence and the criminal destruction of property directed against institutions using animals for experiments?

No. Violence to stop violence is a pointless cycle, but an illegal break-and-enter can certainly be justified if it saves lives.

See there is the problem. You are NOT "saving lives" either animal nor human. You are just perpetuating the predator and prey cycle and the further pollution of our environment via exploitation of petrochemicals and seem to support Monsanto with it's GMO franchise. Otherwise how else are you going to feed 4 billion people (assuming you have "culled" all those who are unable genetically to be vegan/ vegetarians)

You really are starting to sound liken to a religion which you are railing against dearie.

[Zen Badger]

I merely asked you a question.
But I'll make the point that the vast majority of animals die in agony and terror in nature.
So to claim that they have some sort of natural "right" is a complete fallacy.
But while all that lives inevitably dies and is invariably eaten. I am of the opinion that animals in our care should be treated to a decent existence.
But it is not inhumane to kill and eat them as long as it is done swiftly and without pain( something they won't receive in the nature you wish to return them to)
BTW, humans evolved as omnivores, so meat is a required part of our diet.

[Forbinator]

You've stated that we are superior to animals, based this on your own standards of superiority (anthropocentrism), and used it to justify victimisation of entire groups. How is this not bigotry?

Wrong.

I based the argument of supiriority of the human species on the achievements of the human spiecies! And not not the fact that we are differnt from animals you liar! If these are not the standards, then what is?! It is not bigotry because if it were than every single carnivor on the planet is a biggot.

Whatever standards you use, they are yours. Calling yourself superior has never justified harming others, at least not in civilised society. I'm asking you why the fact that they're animals changes this, and you keep telling me it's because they're animals.

And you continue to apply naturalistic fallacy in your reference to carnivores being bigots...

As for our civilisation, we have already applied standards from our civilisation to animals, as is seen in laws we currently have against senseless cruelty to animals. The difference is that veganism applies these standards to animals all the time, not just when it's convenient. Why accept any level of cruelty?

We have applied these standards on animals for our own good to be a productive society in our interactions with animals. Not because we "love" them.

"Love" has nothing to do with it, and I don't think any of us have mentioned it. Seems like another straw man to me. Application of justice however, that is important, particularly given that we already have certain basic animal cruelty laws that apply a type of justice in favour of animals. Your wording of using them to be "productive" is just a restatement of it being convenient to use them, and society only sticking to its ethics when it's convenient to do so.

[festive1]

I can't justify exploiting them for entertainment (like zoo's.) If letting living things live happy is preferable, and we can entertain ourselves without locking animals up, then there's no reason to exploit them that way.

This entirely depends upon the zoo. I've seen zoos where the habitats are tiny, and no large animal should be forced to live. I've also seen zoos where the animals have great habitats and seem very content and happy. The former should be either closed or upgraded. The latter perform a great function for society, teaching and showing the public about animals.
I'm a zoo goer. If there's a zoo where I'm going, I go check it out. Great zoos with happy animals are much more fun. The bigger ones tend to be better in terms of happy animals. Not everyone can afford a safari to Africa or a trip to the Amazon, zoos are a great way to showcase the diversity of life on this planet. Though I'll give you the safari I went on was way awesomer than any zoo I have ever seen, but it's not a viable option for many.

[KichigaiNeko]

Wrong.

I based the argument of supiriority of the human species on the achievements of the human spiecies! And not not the fact that we are differnt from animals you liar! If these are not the standards, then what is?! It is not bigotry because if it were than every single carnivor on the planet is a biggot.

Whatever standards you use, they are yours. Calling yourself superior has never justified harming others, at least not in civilised society. I'm asking you why the fact that they're animals changes this, and you keep telling me it's because they're animals.

And you continue to apply naturalistic fallacy in your reference to carnivores being bigots...

We have applied these standards on animals for our own good to be a productive society in our interactions with animals. Not because we "love" them.

"Love" has nothing to do with it, and I don't think any of us have mentioned it. Seems like another straw man to me. Application of justice however, that is important, particularly given that we already have certain basic animal cruelty laws that apply a type of justice in favour of animals. Your wording of using them to be "productive" is just a restatement of it being convenient to use them, and society only sticking to its ethics when it's convenient to do so.

And yet here you are claiming the morally superior "High ground" You are starting to look very hypocritical Fornicator. liken unto a religion perhaps?

[Psykhronic]

We kill for survival. That's the difference between eating meat and killing for the lulz/murder. Meat helps us sustain ourselves. If you can manage a vegetarian or vegan diet without becoming malnutritioned, go for it. Not all of us can.