Veganism

B12 is what you are talking about, which comes from bacteria. You can get it in fortified products or take a tablet. That is the only thing you probably wouldn't get enough of from a purely plant based diet.[/QUOTE]

Which is why such a diet is not a natural one for humans. It proves that meat is an absolute necessity in our diets,
and why nature has fashioned us to consume it.
So best we keep on chicken throttling and cow pole axing, deficiency is not good.
 
How is a lettuce not alive but a cow is?
There is nothing you can eat that hasn't, at one point, been "alive". Something "alive" absorbs energy from the sun or volcanic vent, something else "alive" eats it and takes the energy, all the way down to microbial level.

So where do we draw the line over what is cruel to eat? Things that have limbs or look cute? Things that are more closely related to us? Trees DNA is over 50% identical to our own, so we're beginning to struggle for anything for tea tonight that isn't eukaryotes .
It's pretty simple really. It just comes down to capacity for suffering. Plants have no nervous system or brain and are therefore incapable of suffering. Different animals have different degrees of these. I believe mussels and clams have a nervous system but not a brain, so it's therefore pretty dubious that they are capable of suffering, but it's pretty obvious that a pig or dog is capable of suffering. Pretty much most meat eaters in the developed world recognise this as a factor, which is why they're generally in favour of making conditions nicer for animals before they die where possible, and are in favour of a quick slaughter when they are finally killed. If they genuinely didn't give a shit about animal suffering, then they would have no problem with the Chinese practice of skinning dogs alive before killing them because they believe it makes the meat taste better. Once you accept that animal suffering is something that we should be concerned about, I don't see why accepting that different people are willing to take this to its logical conclusion would be particularly confusing. And that's why most vegans would presumably have no problem with you eating road kill, for example, because the suffering involved was incidental to your meal rather than the reason for it.
 
Fine, you don't like the analogy, but all you have done so far is use shit fallacies. Appeal to nature, appeal to tradition, and ad hominems. I'm deranged, a fruit and sanctimonious.. you just can't help yourself defend why the systematic breeding, abusing, and killing of highly sentient animals is a good thing, or morally irrelevant then I suggest you go back to playing with your dolls.


bacon butties ?
 
It's pretty simple really. It just comes down to capacity for suffering. Plants have no nervous system or brain and are therefore incapable of suffering. Different animals have different degrees of these. I believe mussels and clams have a nervous system but not a brain, so it's therefore pretty dubious that they are capable of suffering, but it's pretty obvious that a pig or dog is capable of suffering. Pretty much most meat eaters in the developed world recognise this as a factor, which is why they're generally in favour of making conditions nicer for animals before they die where possible, and are in favour of a quick slaughter when they are finally killed. If they genuinely didn't give a shit about animal suffering, then they would have no problem with the Chinese practice of skinning dogs alive before killing them because they believe it makes the meat taste better. Once you accept that animal suffering is something that we should be concerned about, I don't see why accepting that different people are willing to take this to its logical conclusion would be particularly confusing. And that's why most vegans would presumably have no problem with you eating road kill, for example, because the suffering involved was incidental to your meal rather than the reason for it.

Good post. I think the people hardest to get to are the couldn't-give-a-shitists - the 'No, no, God said it's ok, we've done for ages, we're the only animals that really matter..e tc' that's why invitro meat is so important. Once they can create gourmet steaks that taste just as good, then the farmed animals plight will near it's end. Mankind have disgraced their intelligence long enough, but it's science to the rescue!
 
Good post. I think the people hardest to get to are the couldn't-give-a-shitists - the 'No, no, God said it's ok, we've done for ages, we're the only animals that really matter..e tc' that's why invitro meat is so important. Once they can create gourmet steaks that taste just as good, then the farmed animals plight will near it's end. Mankind have disgraced their intelligence long enough, but it's science to the rescue!
Farm animals plight won't be ended they will be driven to extinction.
 
Farm animals plight won't be ended they will be driven to extinction.

Same difference. But that might not actually be the case. We may come the conclusion that it'd be a good idea to keep some in the game, with the numbers controlled through immunocontraception.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.