| I'm eating a steak while i browse through this clusterfuck of a thread. |
  ๐๐ฅ๐ข๐๐๐ฏ๐ฆ๐ฎ๐ฒ๐ ๐ช๐๐ก๐ข ๐ฑ๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ฐ ๐ฃ๐ฌ๐ฏ๐ฒ๐ช ๐ฐ๐ข๐ฑ, ๐ฆ ๐๐ช ๐ ๐ฌ๐ซ๐ฑ๐ฏ๐๐ ๐ฑ๐ฒ๐๐ฉ๐ฉ๐ถ ๐ฌ๐๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ค๐๐ฑ๐ข๐ก ๐ฑ๐ฌ ๐ฐ๐ฑ๐๐ฑ๐ข ๐ฑ๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ฐ |
Korrvo said: Ryuk9428 said: This is completely false and what you linked gives the complete wrong message in it's wording.Meat is a much much bigger factor in the obesity epidemic than carbs are. Scientists looked at a group of meat eaters, vegetarians, and vegans and found that eating meat increases your risk of obesity by 2-4 times even if they eat the same amount of calories. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/vegetarians-slimmer-meat-eaters-weight_n_4039441 There's more to it than that though. Eating processed red meat causes your cholesterol to skyrocket to unhealthy levels, it increases your risk of heart attacks dramatically in people who eat too much of it, numerous cancers, and diabetes. From a health perspective, given the ridiculous amounts of unhealthy hormones and other shit that's put in industrialized meat products. You'd be better off eating cakes, cookies, and drinking sodas than eating that stuff. If you really are looking to be healthy, you need to cut as much meat, especially red meat, out of your diet. One of the biggest reasons why Americans are so unhealthy is because we eat more meat than any other country in the world. The only countries that can keep up with us, are, not surprisingly, Gulf Cooperation Middle Eastern nations that also have extremely high obesity rates like Kuwait, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates. Not only did they fail to define what a meat eater is (how much eat are they eating? What other food are they eating?), but obviously people who are choosier about the type of food they eat are going to be healthier than those that aren't. Meat eater in the context of that article is essentially "people with no dietary constrictions" and look to pin the blame on meat by referring to them as meat eaters and by comparing them to vegetarians. Meat is a completely irrelevant factor here and is only in the spotlight as to forward an agenda, as eating habits and carb/sugar consumption are NOT measured. Look at people who go on completely carnivorous diets. They do so to lose weight and treat mental issues with great success. Look at people who go on Keto diets, and the exact same thing occurs (with minor differences but weight loss is a constant). Veggies are not the core in either of these diets, yet the proof is in the pudding. Meanwhile, if you look at the science and corprate america's backassward's manipulation of the food pyramid, you can see the cause of obesity very clearly comes from over-consumption of sugar and that of which gets broken down in your body as sugar, like carbohydrates. Bitch please, when have you ever seen a fatass vegetarian/vegan? Its practically common sense that eating plant based foods is better for you than chowing down on hamburgers and wings. The image of obesity and gluttonous eating is basically a person chomping on wings with grease running down their shirt and hands with like ten used napkins in-front of them that somehow didn't manage to make them any cleaner. The calorie content of each of the people was literally the same, about 2,000 calories a day and yet they found that meat eaters were significantly more likely to be obese? You can't just chalk that up to be a coincidence. The thing Americans need more than anything is fiber, which is primarily found in plant based foods and whole grains. Cut fiber out of your diet and you're basically fucked. Humans are basically 75% herbivore and 25% carnivore. Going on a carnivorous diet as a human is as stupid as putting a dog on an herbivore diet. |
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
Ryuk9428 said: The thing you linked literally just gave examples of obsess vegans that exist. I'm not sure what you're on about.Bitch please, when have you ever seen a fatass vegetarian/vegan? Its practically common sense that eating plant based foods is better for you than chowing down on hamburgers and wings. The image of obesity and gluttonous eating is basically a person chomping on wings with grease running down their shirt and hands with like ten used napkins in-front of them that somehow didn't manage to make them any cleaner. The calorie content of each of the people was literally the same, about 2,000 calories a day and yet they found that meat eaters were significantly more likely to be obese? You can't just chalk that up to be a coincidence. The thing Americans need more than anything is fiber, which is primarily found in plant based foods and whole grains. Cut fiber out of your diet and you're basically fucked. Humans are basically 75% herbivore and 25% carnivore. Going on a carnivorous diet as a human is as stupid as putting a dog on an herbivore diet. And yes, weight gain and weight loss is not contributed to simply calories in and calories out. This is common knowledge to anyone who keeps up with basic modern day nutritional knowledge. What you eat determines when and how your body holds on to fat. Not to mention, these burgers and wings you mention consistent of many carbs, which is again, the primary cause of obesity, whereas people who go on "carnivore diets" or "keto diets" will eat burgers and replace the bun with lettuce or nothing at all. It is biology. The misinformation you are spreading is similar in nature to the exact reason people struggle so hard with dealing with their obesity, so please, educate yourself before you spread more poison. |
โ Truth be told, I'm quite proud of my house blend. To attain my flavor and fragrance, I use five different types of coffee beans. โ |
Simply put its a choice of belief along with cultural upbringing. As a dog and cat owner I could never even think about that but I eat other meat without much thought.  thought this was kinda funny |
 |
Korrvo said: Ryuk9428 said: The thing you linked literally just gave examples of obsess vegans that exist. I'm not sure what you're on about.Bitch please, when have you ever seen a fatass vegetarian/vegan? Its practically common sense that eating plant based foods is better for you than chowing down on hamburgers and wings. The image of obesity and gluttonous eating is basically a person chomping on wings with grease running down their shirt and hands with like ten used napkins in-front of them that somehow didn't manage to make them any cleaner. The calorie content of each of the people was literally the same, about 2,000 calories a day and yet they found that meat eaters were significantly more likely to be obese? You can't just chalk that up to be a coincidence. The thing Americans need more than anything is fiber, which is primarily found in plant based foods and whole grains. Cut fiber out of your diet and you're basically fucked. Humans are basically 75% herbivore and 25% carnivore. Going on a carnivorous diet as a human is as stupid as putting a dog on an herbivore diet. And yes, weight gain and weight loss is not contributed to simply calories in and calories out. This is common knowledge to anyone who keeps up with basic modern day nutritional knowledge. What you eat determines when and how your body holds on to fat. Not to mention, these burgers and wings you mention consistent of many carbs, which is again, the primary cause of obesity, whereas people who go on "carnivore diets" or "keto diets" will eat burgers and replace the bun with lettuce or nothing at all. It is biology. The misinformation you are spreading is similar in nature to the exact reason people struggle so hard with dealing with their obesity, so please, educate yourself before you spread more poison. If you think its the little bit of bread that you're eating with the hamburger that's making you fat and giving you cholesterol levels to induce a heart attack then you're delusional. Ever heard of heart attack grill? Its a satire on American obesity and one of the main themes of it is that all the food have obscene amounts of meats, greases, and sauces on them. The Italians eat lots of carbs through various breads, pastas, and pizzas and they're fine. Its because Americans eat way too much meat that we're so fat. Its consistent across the globe, high meat consumption equals high obesity... http://www.gdnonline.com/Details/204941/Kuwait-2nd-most-meat-consuming-country-in-the-world "The most meat consuming countries in the world are also ranked as the most obese nations. Kuwait ranks first in Arab region and 2nd worldwide on the index of excessive obesity." |
Ryuk9428Aug 29, 2019 1:11 AM
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
Ryuk9428 said: From a health perspective, given the ridiculous amounts of unhealthy hormones and other shit that's put in industrialized meat products. You'd be better off eating cakes, cookies, and drinking sodas than eating that stuff. If you really are looking to be healthy, you need to cut as much meat, especially red meat, out of your diet. One of the biggest reasons why Americans are so unhealthy is because we eat more meat than any other country in the world. The only countries that can keep up with us, are, not surprisingly, Gulf Cooperation Middle Eastern nations that also have extremely high obesity rates like Kuwait, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates. If that is how you see it, then you're heavily misinformed. As someone who follows a strict diet myself, it's not about what you eat, it's about how much you eat. Especially if you don't count your calorie intake, it will all easily add up. Meats are necessary for a healthy diet, since meats contain the most protein out of all the food groups, so red meat isn't bad, it's how you cook it that's bad. Like for example when you always buy food and don't prepare it yourself. Most store-bought cooked foods have additives added into it to make it tastier and for it to sell better, making it unhealthy. But if you cook it yourself, you know what's going in and out. I know this because I eat about 0.4 Kilo of meat a day. You say Cake,cookes, sodas are better than meat? How? The reason sweets are frowned upon by fitness people is because it has so much calories with no nutritional value and you only have a limited (for most people 2000 calories) calorie intake in a day to get all your nutritional needs. A typical Breakfast/Lunch/Dinner is already 2000 calories, so if you eat those + sweets then you're going over the limit, thus weight gain. Again, the weight you gain/lose heavily depends on the calorie intake you consume. The reason vegans are thinner and skinnier than non-vegans is because First vegetables have little to no protein content, which makes vegans lose fat and MUSCLE at the same time. While non-vegans only lose fat. Second, while meats are calory-dense, vegetables are the opposite. meaning, you need to eat a fuckton of veggies just to reach 2000 calories. Third, Vegans themselves follow a strict diet, meaning they know how much and what they need to eat. They're much more disciplined than non-vegans who tend to overeat. So vegans can eat more sweets and still be at the calorie-limit while non-vegans will have much of a harder time. I'm not saying that Meat* is healthy alone, ofcourse it's unhealthy if you only eat Meat without a balanced diet. |
-ShinzoAug 29, 2019 1:56 AM
  |
| With the supplementation of vitamin b12, it's possibly to live a healthy life on a vegan diet. More so, it's been linked to decreased risks of heart disease, diabetes, cancer and other health factors. Also they live longer on average. |
| It's cultural. And it is pretty immature to not consider this a valid reason considering that our entire set of moral values stems from our culture. If you want to confront these values, make a point yourself but don't belittle the influence of cultural environment. |
jal90Aug 29, 2019 2:07 AM
Chiibi said: shotz said: Seriously, if people stopped slaughtering cows and just let all of them live so they keep reproducing more and more and more cows, do you have ANY idea how f*cked the planet would be? Nope, that's incorrect. Most of these cows are born by farmers artificially inseminating them for the purpose of slaughter. If you let them live they'd reproduce at a normal rate. What's fucking the planet is, in fact, the meat industry. traed said: GatesOfOblivion said: I value creatures and encourage people to go vegetarian. It doesn't have to be full vegan if they're not ready for it. The lack of empathy from some posters in this topic repulses me. Cows, and chickens are fully domesticated animals. There are no wild cows and chickens. That means if no one ate cows and chickens there would be no more cows and chickens or we would have an invasive species. So it's not so black and white simple. Also cows are a huge source of methane gas which is a green house gas so choosing to have cows as an invasive species is from a broader point of view not as ethical as letting them go extinct. Veganism as a code of ethics is not logical. Harvesting eggs from chickens doesn't hurt them just some of the processes involved related to it. Milking cows doesn't hurt them just the heavily industrialized method does. The problem lies in the methodology not the act itself. Cows are being bred at gargantuan rates in farms so if your concern is methane gases than you gotta look at the meat industry, not the lack of it. They can still form herds so they won't fall prey easily to predators. They won't become rampant either because they'll actually reproduce at a normal rate for once without human intervention. And one becomes compliant to the processes involved related to it by supporting that industry, that's why vegans don't. If there ever comes a time when the industry is willing to go for the less profitable way for prefential treatment of animals, which means making huge changes to the industry, you can have this discussion about the byproducts being okay. But even then, there's a case to be made about keeping animals in captivity. The act alone isn't all that innocent either. @jal90 I think it's very mature to call into question the validity of the cultural argument because of all the horrible stuff that happened in the past that was culturally accepted at the time. |
AuronAug 29, 2019 2:37 AM
 |
| @Orhunaa It's valid to call that into question with arguments. Not to be smuggy about how people aren't "thinking logically" for adhering to the set of moral values of their cultural environment. I guess I'm just sick of this kind of attitude creeping into every debate on the internet. |
jal90 said: @Orhunaa It's valid to call that into question with arguments. Not to be smuggy about how people aren't "thinking logically" for adhering to the set of moral values of their cultural environment. I guess I'm just sick of this kind of attitude creeping into every debate on the internet. So basically don't be Sphinxter lol. Yeah I agree with that. I do try to encourage people to try to think outside of their environment and culture and adopt beliefs as a conscious decision rather than adopting the stance of the general consensus by default but I'm not gonna be a jerk if one isn't yet able to fully do it. I don't think 'It's cultural' is a valid reason but I realize that it's an understandable one. If I couldn't think outside of my particular culture most of you western folks wouldn't want to talk to me I'm sure, so freethought is paramount. |
|
WatchTillTandava said: culture is rarely arbitrary. Most of the time there are reasons for why it works the way it does, sometimes they are good reasons and sometimes they aren't, but that's often because they are simply outdated or based on misconceptions (such as religious rules about how to best kill animals, which used to be the most humane method but isn't anymore).No reason. It's just people applying their completely subjective personal views and cultural values to everyone else and erroneously assuming they are or should be universal or expecting people to abide by them, which of course they will not and instead the moralizing busybodies will be met with dismissal, derision, or even hostility if they force the issue and try to impose their values on others. It's also a case of people anthropomorphizing animals and assigning arbitrary value to them in some artificial hierarchy based on arbitrary human considerations and relevant only in their own minds. Usually Westerners who eat beef, pork, and poultry talking down to and demonizing East Asians like Koreans, Vietnamese, and Chinese for eating cats and dogs. That Jews and Muslims consider pork consumption to be filthy and barbaric or that Hindus the same for beef, not to mention Jains or people who are even secular or atheistic but practice vegetarianism or veganism for other reasons equally consider them to be ignorant and barbarous or even evil is lost on them. They're complete morally self-righteous hypocrites. You'll never get a more satisfying answer out of them other than some variation of "because I said so" or "because that's the way it is" for why they hold their beliefs. They consider dogs and cats off-limits because they're a pet in the West and maybe they'd extend this to some wild species they consider intelligent like dolphins or whales or just some animals they randomly and arbitrarily believe you shouldn't eat "just because" they didn't growing up, like bush meat/monkeys or flesh of a carnivorous species. Has science even borne out that they're the "most" intelligent? Pigs show signs of remarkable intelligence and memory and pattern recognition above that of dogs, but the same people eat pork. And what metric is being used for gauging intelligence? Is it possible within modern science to have one that isn't anthropocentric? I doubt one species can objectively judge the intelligence of another it cannot even properly communicate with. Thus, the reasoning is always very emotional and primitive and doesn't go beyond that or stand up to logical scrutiny for a fraction of a second. After a while, you get tired of going in circles dealing with such reflexively self-righteous perpetually outraged moralizer ignoramus types and just ignore their nonsense. I don't consider it as somehow any worse to kill and eat one animal for your sustenance and pleasure more than any other. The members of any one species' life are not inherently more valuable than another, and I'd controversially extend that to even humans. Trying meats that aren't widely available outside of certain regions is a hobby of mine. I've had turtle, bear, armadillo, pronghorn, camel, dove, alligator, beaver, muskrat, raccoon, silkworms, jellyfish, reindeer, frog, muskox, iguana, Burmese python, and emu, to name a few, in addition to all the more common animals like beef/chicken/pork/turkey/lamb/goat/duck/rabbit (last two are becoming increasingly rare in the U.S. with decline of rustic cookbooks prevalence from the hunting culture, so now it's more limited to ethnic restaurants and small town places). If I get the opportunity to travel to North or South Korea, I'll try bosintang. If I find myself in Taiji where they have that famed controversial hunt in the cove, I'll try dolphin sashimi. Also this extends to any of the organs and derivative products like brain, blood, kidneys, etc. Only thing I'll never touch again is intestines. So yes, the best thing to do is step over the ideologue preachers with your own active decisions. Don't expect any cogent defense from them. Dismantle them rhetorically if you're up for the alternating sport and tedium of it. Otherwise live unperturbed by and in complete contradiction to their values as you see fit and you'll soon find them and their entire arguments built on quicksand and grandstanding a non-factor. If a cultural rule seems completely arbitrary to you, chances are you're probably just not thinking about it hard enough. So, what about pets then? The reason why certain animals get more moral consideration from us is because they are naturally better suited to provide emotional benefits as pets than other animals. The animal needs to be both emotionally relatable, and logistically viable to be suited as pet. This is why the animals that enjoy this special status are usually mammals and on the smaller side. It also explains why cows couldn't attain that status (because it's not logistically viable for everyone to have a pet cow). How is this arbitrary? It makes total sense. You sure that you aren't the one who is grandstanding here? |
| *lampoons inwardly* |
Only_Brad said: I often ask people why it's horrible to kill dogs or cats for food. They never answer logically. The funniest answer is "these animal are not meant to be food, they are meant to be man's friend". Meant by who? God? Your religion? Your culture? In my opinion, if you're not vegetarian you have no right to criticize what meat others eat. Idk if it's true or not but supposedly eating carnivores like cats and dogs isn't tasty/healthy for you. Other than that I think it's because these animals have evolved/grown with humanity for thousands of years thst they're seen as family members to varying degrees. Or simply more useful alive than food. For example, cats have been used to control rats in grain stores. Dogs have used as hunting companions for thousands of years. Even today they're used for similar reasons if not a member of the family. |
Railey2 said: WatchTillTandava said: culture is rarely arbitrary. Most of the time there are reasons for why it works the way it does, sometimes they are good reasons and sometimes they aren't, but that's often because they are simply outdated or based on misconceptions (such as religious rules about how to best kill animals, which used to be the most humane method but isn't anymore).No reason. It's just people applying their completely subjective personal views and cultural values to everyone else and erroneously assuming they are or should be universal or expecting people to abide by them, which of course they will not and instead the moralizing busybodies will be met with dismissal, derision, or even hostility if they force the issue and try to impose their values on others. It's also a case of people anthropomorphizing animals and assigning arbitrary value to them in some artificial hierarchy based on arbitrary human considerations and relevant only in their own minds. Usually Westerners who eat beef, pork, and poultry talking down to and demonizing East Asians like Koreans, Vietnamese, and Chinese for eating cats and dogs. That Jews and Muslims consider pork consumption to be filthy and barbaric or that Hindus the same for beef, not to mention Jains or people who are even secular or atheistic but practice vegetarianism or veganism for other reasons equally consider them to be ignorant and barbarous or even evil is lost on them. They're complete morally self-righteous hypocrites. You'll never get a more satisfying answer out of them other than some variation of "because I said so" or "because that's the way it is" for why they hold their beliefs. They consider dogs and cats off-limits because they're a pet in the West and maybe they'd extend this to some wild species they consider intelligent like dolphins or whales or just some animals they randomly and arbitrarily believe you shouldn't eat "just because" they didn't growing up, like bush meat/monkeys or flesh of a carnivorous species. Has science even borne out that they're the "most" intelligent? Pigs show signs of remarkable intelligence and memory and pattern recognition above that of dogs, but the same people eat pork. And what metric is being used for gauging intelligence? Is it possible within modern science to have one that isn't anthropocentric? I doubt one species can objectively judge the intelligence of another it cannot even properly communicate with. Thus, the reasoning is always very emotional and primitive and doesn't go beyond that or stand up to logical scrutiny for a fraction of a second. After a while, you get tired of going in circles dealing with such reflexively self-righteous perpetually outraged moralizer ignoramus types and just ignore their nonsense. I don't consider it as somehow any worse to kill and eat one animal for your sustenance and pleasure more than any other. The members of any one species' life are not inherently more valuable than another, and I'd controversially extend that to even humans. Trying meats that aren't widely available outside of certain regions is a hobby of mine. I've had turtle, bear, armadillo, pronghorn, camel, dove, alligator, beaver, muskrat, raccoon, silkworms, jellyfish, reindeer, frog, muskox, iguana, Burmese python, and emu, to name a few, in addition to all the more common animals like beef/chicken/pork/turkey/lamb/goat/duck/rabbit (last two are becoming increasingly rare in the U.S. with decline of rustic cookbooks prevalence from the hunting culture, so now it's more limited to ethnic restaurants and small town places). If I get the opportunity to travel to North or South Korea, I'll try bosintang. If I find myself in Taiji where they have that famed controversial hunt in the cove, I'll try dolphin sashimi. Also this extends to any of the organs and derivative products like brain, blood, kidneys, etc. Only thing I'll never touch again is intestines. So yes, the best thing to do is step over the ideologue preachers with your own active decisions. Don't expect any cogent defense from them. Dismantle them rhetorically if you're up for the alternating sport and tedium of it. Otherwise live unperturbed by and in complete contradiction to their values as you see fit and you'll soon find them and their entire arguments built on quicksand and grandstanding a non-factor. If a cultural rule seems completely arbitrary to you, chances are you're probably just not thinking about it hard enough. So, what about pets then? The reason why certain animals get more moral consideration from us is because they are naturally better suited to provide emotional benefits as pets than other animals. The animal needs to be both emotionally relatable, and logistically viable to be suited as pet. This is why the animals that enjoy this special status are usually mammals and on the smaller side. It also explains why cows couldn't attain that status (because it's not logistically viable for everyone to have a pet cow). How is this arbitrary? It makes total sense. You sure that you aren't the one who is grandstanding here? I agree that the utility rationale is a good explanation of people's behaviour. However I do have a fundamental disagreement on assigning moral worth to animals on the basis of their usefulness to humans just like I'd with assigning moral worth to humans on the basis of their usefulness to other humans. This is too anthropocentric for me to not find objectionable. By the way I'm not implying you said otherwise, just wanna put this out for good measure. |
|
| I actually have a different point of view than most. I wouldn't find it more or less horrible to eat dogs and cats compared to cows and pigs for instance, wild dogs and cats that is. I wouldn't go slaughter my dogs to eat them lol. I think in general you should not eat what you personally wouldn't be able to kill. If the thought of cutting of the head of a chicken makes you sick, stop eating meat cause THAT is hypocritical. Everybody is hiding behind the filled shelves of supermarkets but you should know that you yourself kill what you eat. What I personally think is horrible though is eating the smallest of animals, where one plate consists of several dead animals. Thing is, I love to eat meat, if it's from an animal that can actually fill my stomach more than once. But we're still talking about lives here. I am grateful for the animal that gave its life to feed me, but I am getting sick of for example eating snails. A life is still a life, except that you don't eat just one snail, you eat ten at once. That's 10 animals killed for the lowest amount of meat that won't even fill your belly. That's for my sense of morality cruel, compared to a pig that will fill not only yours, but also many other peoples belly. |
-Shinzo said: Ryuk9428 said: From a health perspective, given the ridiculous amounts of unhealthy hormones and other shit that's put in industrialized meat products. You'd be better off eating cakes, cookies, and drinking sodas than eating that stuff. If you really are looking to be healthy, you need to cut as much meat, especially red meat, out of your diet. One of the biggest reasons why Americans are so unhealthy is because we eat more meat than any other country in the world. The only countries that can keep up with us, are, not surprisingly, Gulf Cooperation Middle Eastern nations that also have extremely high obesity rates like Kuwait, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates. If that is how you see it, then you're heavily misinformed. As someone who follows a strict diet myself, it's not about what you eat, it's about how much you eat. Especially if you don't count your calorie intake, it will all easily add up. Meats are necessary for a healthy diet, since meats contain the most protein out of all the food groups, so red meat isn't bad, it's how you cook it that's bad. Like for example when you always buy food and don't prepare it yourself. Most store-bought cooked foods have additives added into it to make it tastier and for it to sell better, making it unhealthy. But if you cook it yourself, you know what's going in and out. I know this because I eat about 0.4 Kilo of meat a day. You say Cake,cookes, sodas are better than meat? How? The reason sweets are frowned upon by fitness people is because it has so much calories with no nutritional value and you only have a limited (for most people 2000 calories) calorie intake in a day to get all your nutritional needs. A typical Breakfast/Lunch/Dinner is already 2000 calories, so if you eat those + sweets then you're going over the limit, thus weight gain. Again, the weight you gain/lose heavily depends on the calorie intake you consume. The reason vegans are thinner and skinnier than non-vegans is because First vegetables have little to no protein content, which makes vegans lose fat and MUSCLE at the same time. While non-vegans only lose fat. Second, while meats are calory-dense, vegetables are the opposite. meaning, you need to eat a fuckton of veggies just to reach 2000 calories. Third, Vegans themselves follow a strict diet, meaning they know how much and what they need to eat. They're much more disciplined than non-vegans who tend to overeat. So vegans can eat more sweets and still be at the calorie-limit while non-vegans will have much of a harder time. I'm not saying that Meat* is healthy alone, ofcourse it's unhealthy if you only eat Meat without a balanced diet. Protein deficiency is exceedingly rare including among vegetarians because carbs provide almost just as much protein, calorie for calorie, as a lot of meat does. If you eat 900 calories worth of pasta you've already fulfilled 90% of your daily need. The thing about sugar is that it gets processed fairly quickly and easily as waste. The problem with meat is that it clogs everything up. That's why it's linked so closely to heart attacks and diabetes and why it makes you obese even if you eat the same amount of calories as a vegetarian. Not only that but 60% of meat is contaminated with feces and the animals have been pumped with a mind boggling amount of hormones and other chemicals that are not necessary to create sweets like cake and soda. Lots of animals die as a result of deformities and other health complications before they can even be processed for meat. If you eat industrialized meat, you are on a clock when it comes to your life. The only habit more unhealthy would be smoking cigarettes. |
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
Orhunaa said: Gotcha. Perhaps you won't be surprised to hear that I also don't subscribe to assigning moral value only based on how much use something is to humans. I'm only commenting on people saying that the way we treat animals is "arbitrary" or "hypocritical", because it's really not.Railey2 said: culture is rarely arbitrary. Most of the time there are reasons for why it works the way it does, sometimes they are good reasons and sometimes they aren't, but that's often because they are simply outdated or based on misconceptions (such as religious rules about how to best kill animals, which used to be the most humane method but isn't anymore). If a cultural rule seems completely arbitrary to you, chances are you're probably just not thinking about it hard enough. So, what about pets then? The reason why certain animals get more moral consideration from us is because they are naturally better suited to provide emotional benefits as pets than other animals. The animal needs to be both emotionally relatable, and logistically viable to be suited as pet. This is why the animals that enjoy this special status are usually mammals and on the smaller side. It also explains why cows couldn't attain that status (because it's not logistically viable for everyone to have a pet cow). How is this arbitrary? It makes total sense. You sure that you aren't the one who is grandstanding here? I agree that the utility rationale is a good explanation of people's behaviour. However I do have a fundamental disagreement on assigning moral worth to animals on the basis of their usefulness to humans just like I'd with assigning moral worth to humans on the basis of their usefulness to other humans. This is too anthropocentric for me to not find objectionable. By the way I'm not implying you said otherwise, just wanna put this out for good measure. Personally, I believe that the way humanity treats animals is abhorrent. I'm almost certain that the continuous slaughter that we subject entire species to will go down as one of the greatest crimes that humanity has ever committed, but as your post implied this is only tangentially related to the topic of this thread. |
| *lampoons inwardly* |
Ryuk9428 said: Ever heard of breads, pastas, fried rice, pizza? I eat those a lot but if I eat them without any protein, I'm normally starving by the late night. So I cannot do it very often. Maybe do some protein shakes INSERT DRY HEAVING HERE. F*cking disgusting. lol its ridiculous with all the kinds of food out there to say you would die if you didn't eat meat. You have NO clue how picky I am. xD |
  |
Chiibi said: Ryuk9428 said: Ever heard of breads, pastas, fried rice, pizza? I eat those a lot but if I eat them without any protein, I'm normally starving by the late night. So I cannot do it very often. Maybe do some protein shakes INSERT DRY HEAVING HERE. F*cking disgusting. lol its ridiculous with all the kinds of food out there to say you would die if you didn't eat meat. You have NO clue how picky I am. xD Fair enough I'm often called the pickiest eater on Earth by my family. Pastas and pizzas actually have a lot of protein in them. 3 slices of Digornio's frozen pizza from Kroger's has 33 grams in it. Eat a whole pizza and you just got 66 grams. A lot of pastas are fortified with protein and 3 servings will give you 30 grams of protein plus the butter or Parmesan cheese if you use any of that. I don't know if red sauce has any protein but I think it does. Normal protein shakes from the store suck. I recommend a brand called isagenix instead. I always drink the strawberry ones and that's despite the fact that I don't like strawberry in general. The chocolate ones aren't that good though Tbh. If you're hungry late at night. Feel free to eat a snack. You're underweight so don't worry about the calories. |
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
| Well, I DO really like cheese yes, but the whole problem is, my appetite is TINY. xD The thought of eating an entire pizza on my own nauseates me...I am always taking leftovers from when I go out to eat...when I consume any food from a box, I always have a single serving or less. Burgers-I choose the smallest burger on the menu. Chicken legs...I can eat maybe one and a half of one. I'm that kind of eater. Lol About cows: I think a cow could probably outrun a gator? Humans definitely can. I saw a show called "So You Think You'd Survive" that teaches you how. xD it's fast af in a straight line. If it can't outrun a gator, it could probably stomp on its head? |
ChiibiAug 29, 2019 10:24 AM
|
| The thought of eating any animal that has a sophisticated degree of intelligence makes me feel sad. in saying that i think kangaroos are dumb af and i wouldn't eat it, despite it's popularity increasing in au. |
Orhunaa said: Nope, that's incorrect. Most of these cows are born by farmers artificially inseminating them for the purpose of slaughter. If you let them live they'd reproduce at a normal rate. What's fucking the planet is, in fact, the meat industry. traed said: Cows, and chickens are fully domesticated animals. There are no wild cows and chickens. That means if no one ate cows and chickens there would be no more cows and chickens or we would have an invasive species. So it's not so black and white simple. Also cows are a huge source of methane gas which is a green house gas so choosing to have cows as an invasive species is from a broader point of view not as ethical as letting them go extinct. Veganism as a code of ethics is not logical. Harvesting eggs from chickens doesn't hurt them just some of the processes involved related to it. Milking cows doesn't hurt them just the heavily industrialized method does. The problem lies in the methodology not the act itself. Cows are being bred at gargantuan rates in farms so if your concern is methane gases than you gotta look at the meat industry, not the lack of it. They can still form herds so they won't fall prey easily to predators. They won't become rampant either because they'll actually reproduce at a normal rate for once without human intervention. And one becomes compliant to the processes involved related to it by supporting that industry, that's why vegans don't. If there ever comes a time when the industry is willing to go for the less profitable way for prefential treatment of animals, which means making huge changes to the industry, you can have this discussion about the byproducts being okay. But even then, there's a case to be made about keeping animals in captivity. The act alone isn't all that innocent either. @jal90 I think it's very mature to call into question the validity of the cultural argument because of all the horrible stuff that happened in the past that was culturally accepted at the time. Yes, I know. Thing is supply and demand is misdirection. Companies try to manipulate people to keep up demand and will put out an excess supply sometimes just to keep sale numbers up because it allows them to drop prices and maintain same proffit. Cows aren't a native species so they can throw off the environment still were they to be roaming wild. They could be consuming the food native animals rely on. You can't just introduce random animals and expect no consequences. There are people that get their eggs and milk from their own farm animals or someone local rather than a big industry and this is the norm in many countries but that seems to be ignored by many vegans. Oh and let's not forget how farming of vegetables and fruits on an industrial scale inevitably leads to the unintentional death of animals being run over by farm equipment for example which is an oversight most vegetarians and vegans seem to have. Pets are animals in captivity. So release all the dogs and cats into the wild as a foreign species too? Bambi said: The thought of eating any animal that has a sophisticated degree of intelligence makes me feel sad. in saying that i think kangaroos are dumb af and i wouldn't eat it, despite it's popularity increasing in au. What do you mean by sophisticated? Like dolphin and chimp level or like pig and dog level? Kangaroos are kinda cute though like a cross between a deer and a furry dinosaur. |
traedAug 29, 2019 11:56 AM
| โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โฃธโ โ โ โ โกโ โ โกโ โขโ โขธโ โ โ โกโกฐโ โ โกโ โ โข โ โ โ โขธโ โ โขธโ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โฃโ โ โกโ โกโ โ โ โขธโกโขโ โ โขฃโ โ ขโขโฃโ โ โ ธโ โ โ โขธโ โ โขธโ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โขฐโกโกโ โกโกโ โ โ โ โ โกโ โขโขฐโ โ โ โ โ โฃโ โ โ โ โ โ ธโ โ โกโ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ คโขโ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โกผโ โฃงโ โขฟโข โฃคโฃคโฃฌโฃฅโ โ โ โ โ โขโกโ โ โ โ โกโกโ โ โ โกโ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โขตโกโ โ โ โ โ โกฐโ โข โ โ ฑโฃผโกโฃโกโ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ ณโ ถโ ถโ โกธโขโกโฃโขฐโ โ โขธ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โฃโฃโฃโ โ โ โ โ โ โข โ โขโ โ โ โฃผโ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ ดโ ขโขโกโฃโกโ ฃโฃฑโขธโ โ โขทโ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โกฐโ โขโ โ โ โกโกจโขขโกโ โ โ โ โฃโ โ โฃ โ โ โ โ โขโ ฝโ โ โ โ โ โ โกโ ธโ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โขโ โฃโกดโ โ โก โกชโ โฃ โฃพโฃโฃทโกฆโ คโฃโกโ โ โขโฃโก โขโ โ โ โ โ โ โขโกคโกโขโ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โขโฃ โ ดโขโกจโ โกโ คโ โขโฃดโฃพโฃฟโกฟโฃพโฃฟโกโ โ นโฃปโ โ โ โขโ โ บโ โ โกโขโฃดโฃพโฃงโฃโ โกโ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โฃโ โ โกโ โ โ โ โ โฃดโฃฟโฃฟโฃฟโฃฟโฃปโฃฟโฃฟโกโ โ โข โฃทโฃฎโกโก โ โขโกโก โ โ โ โฃฟโฃฟโฃฟโฃฟโฃโ โ โ โ |
Railey2 said: culture is rarely arbitrary. Most of the time there are reasons for why it works the way it does, sometimes they are good reasons and sometimes they aren't, but that's often because they are simply outdated or based on misconceptions (such as religious rules about how to best kill animals, which used to be the most humane method but isn't anymore). If a cultural rule seems completely arbitrary to you, chances are you're probably just not thinking about it hard enough. How is this arbitrary? It makes total sense. No, I actually agree that there is an underlying material basis behind the formation of all culture. Pork was eschewed by Muslims and Jews in ancient dietary restrictions because of health concerns over the fear of trichinosis from tainted meat. Modern refrigeration and safe transport of foods prone to spoilage across long distances didn't exist, nor the same standard of precision and uniformity in cooking temperatures. As a result, the restriction then made sense for health reasons. It's rather the decision of an individual today to identify with or perpetuate that is what I was saying is very arbitrary. Many on this and other topics don't even have a grasp of why they believe or advocate for what they do that goes beyond a "just because" they were raised to believe something is right and little to no introspection outside that. That's what's arbitrary. Railey2 said: So, what about pets then? What about them? First of all, something like keeping dogs as pets wasn't nearly as popularized in every culture. Its increasing popularity in say, Korean culture, in current times is a product of Westernization/globalization that started to take shape post-WWII and accelerated with the internet age and modern communication and travel being what they are. So I don't know why whenever this topic is brought up people refer to dogs as companion animals in the contemporary sense that are universal to the human experience, when that isn't true. Beyond that, many Westerners don't own dogs or cats as pets or own any pet and many have no desire to. It doesn't make any sense to refer to something that may come naturally to one family as something that should inform all human decision-making even for people who live completely differently. I myself do not own a dog. If I did, I would love and care for it as a pet. I wouldn't ever entertain the notion of eating it unless I was in a life or death starvation situation. But on the flip side, I wouldn't have any qualms about eating other dogs that weren't my pet and were farm raised for meat consumption like the dog farms of a certain breed in South Korea. I don't have any mammalian pets. I do however have and have had for years a pet snake; a boa. I have also cooked and eaten snake meat of a different species (Burmese python) myself with lime juice and black pepper right on the stove top and found it delicious. I don't understand the thought process behind the fact that a certain animal can serve as a pet therefore it's the same as your pet? Huh? I also don't feel the same way toward random humans as I do toward humans I actually know well and care about. The same for snakes or dogs or anything else. Everything I haven't decided to place a value on pursuant to the role it fills in my own life is just a different shade of meat - fodder. Railey2 said: The reason why certain animals get more moral consideration from us is because they are naturally better suited to provide emotional benefits as pets than other animals. The animal needs to be both emotionally relatable, and logistically viable to be suited as pet. This is why the animals that enjoy this special status are usually mammals and on the smaller side. It also explains why cows couldn't attain that status (because it's not logistically viable for everyone to have a pet cow). Again, the problem only begins when someone gets morally preachy about it setting what you lay out as the standard for all of humanity and seek to enforce it and browbeat others for disagreement and noncompliance. Trying to implement legislation to this effect to restrict and codify food sales and promoting propaganda in support of it, for instance. And this, it should go without saying, is also a personal view, but I don't place any value in elevating certain animal species above others based on co-evolution alongside humanity or their use being harnessed by humans. I don't think it's somehow an ethically superior stance to boast of enslaving an entire species to humanity's whim over the course of thousands of generations, and a golden retriever or Dalmatian that serves some purpose to humans isn't anymore inherently valuable to Earth or the universe than a beetle. I don't care one bit for the heavily anthropocentric view toward all things that Christians and other Abrahamic religion practitioners or their secularized variant in modern liberals seem to take. It's definitely not the be-all end-all of ways to view the cycle of life in the world and our role within it. Railey2 said: You sure that you aren't the one who is grandstanding here? Seeing as you're on the other side of the argument, it doesn't surprise me to hear you say that, but I don't see how. I'm stating my opinion on the matter and it only applies to me - If someone chooses to not eat dog or cat meat or not eat beef or pork or only eat fish or live as a full vegetarian or even vegan doesn't affect me in any way and I'm not personally bothered by it, whatever their motivation. When they try to preach this view as some morally absolute correct stance everyone should adhere to or be threatened or shamed, an argument I've heard countless times by those coming from that side for years and have dismantled repeatedly, that's when we will enter into conflict. |
WatchTillTandavaAug 29, 2019 12:58 PM
| Huh... I thought it was pretty obvious, especially if you grew up with dogs/cats. They are practically family so of course it would feel a wrong to eat their own species. I won't criticize others for doing though, not like I would need to in this part of the world. |
| @Chiibi protein shakes are actually quite good if done well, especially with peanut butter and banana It turned eating healthy into a sweet treat to look forward to for me |
โ Truth be told, I'm quite proud of my house blend. To attain my flavor and fragrance, I use five different types of coffee beans. โ |
| Meat is meat , people just don't make sense |
 "I want to show that woman the true Yoshikage Kira. I want her to hear how I feel deep inside. That I want to take your slender neck into these hands and strangle you to death." |
Railey2 said: Lolsebca said: well you're incorrect, because there can actually be no confirmation that existence is real.@Railey2 Question asked a justification to a judgement often voiced. Denying its premise, would deny the judgement. And my answer targetted morality as the reason given. I bothered because this is the answer I deem correct. You're talking about minds, but with that you're presupposing that minds exist, which objectively speaking, you have no real way of knowing. Therefore, everything you just said is wrong. Do you see now how unconstructive this line of thought is? It's such a waste of time. If you wanna plainly deny cognition, good luck using cognition to think an answer to say so. Existence is not real? The illusion of existence makes it all up for me. Objectively speaking, it is but an opinion that the observable universe might be thinking. However, the only thing we scientifically know able to judge might be life. I assign judgement to cognition, this postulate being the one I deem most probable. Yet, I still say, the world does not give shit you eat your own species or other animals. |
 |
Chiibi said: Well, I DO really like cheese yes, but the whole problem is, my appetite is TINY. xD The thought of eating an entire pizza on my own nauseates me...I am always taking leftovers from when I go out to eat...when I consume any food from a box, I always have a single serving or less. Burgers-I choose the smallest burger on the menu. Chicken legs...I can eat maybe one and a half of one. I'm that kind of eater. Lol About cows: I think a cow could probably outrun a gator? Humans definitely can. I saw a show called "So You Think You'd Survive" that teaches you how. xD it's fast af in a straight line. If it can't outrun a gator, it could probably stomp on its head? In that case, I'd suggest foods that are somewhat high in calories but are actually not that filling. So I'd suggest potato chips as a late night snack. You can eat hundreds of calories worth of potato chips and barely feel like you ate anything. Don't need to eat an entire pizza. I don't do that either, that really would be a tremendous amount of food, I usually eat half the pizza. The Isagenix shakes also don't feel like a lot of food. Soda is usually pretty easy to drink without feeling like you consumed very much. I think you're a girl right? That's what it says on your profile. In this case, you're in luck because your body is naturally made to be healthy with a higher percentage of body fat compared to muscle. In this case, you really don't have to worry too much about what kind of weight you gain if you're really underweight. All you really have to do is focus on getting your weight into the normal range. I know that's easier said than done because it can be difficult to eat without feeling like you're full all the time, but I think meat would actually be problematic because meat is a very filling part of the meal. You need foods that have a high amount of calories without feeling like you ate very much. So my suggestion about cakes and cookies would actually be a bad one because those feel very filling, but potato chips will be great. |
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
| We've just branded it as horrible. If you raise a child a certain way, they'll think eating dogs and cats and whatever else is normal. It's just what we've come to believe as a society. |
| หโโง๊ฐแ โฑ เป๊ฑ โงโห |
Korrvo said: peanut butter and banana Despise both. xD @Ryuk9428: yes, I am a girl. :3 I don't think I'm going to change my eating habits though; I just need to focus on getting much iron atm...then we will see. @shotz: Wolves are endangered. Bears....unlikely to go after a cow unless the cow goes into the woods. Lions:...maybe a couple of mountain lions could take one cow. Hippos: eat plants. But they are the #1 killer animal in Africa. o_o They've killed millions who take boats into their territory. Nasty mofos. xD Hyenas: are scavengers. They will eat a cow when it is dead and rotting. |
ChiibiAug 29, 2019 3:22 PM
|
Peaceful_Critic said: traed said: Saying everywhere might be a stretch. That said, it's important to note, that these animals that have been on the farms(in the case of pigs and cows at least) are fat(which would make them better for predators) and had no exercise, so they really can't fight. This would be a huge disadvantage they'll have over wild species. However, let's say this is the case, that if we sent them out, they'll become invasive. The other species are also important to vegans and nothing about that ideology states they can't kill off of self-defense(so if it becomes a human problem then it would be okay). Even so, this problem would be self-caused by the meat industry. The reason why we have so many is that they have been forced breed and one of the main causes deforestation is the land used to graze cattle with more plants to feed those cattle.Actually you don't even have to be vegetarian. As I've mentioned earlier things like mussels, clams, and oysters are literally brainless animals and the main argument by vegans and vegetarians is pain and suffering. Though theoretically something without a brain can feel pain in a different way but that would also apply to plants not just animals so veganism wouldn't go far enough and one would need to be fruitarian to be consistent. Also reducing meat consumption has an impact. Also depends on the type of meat of an animal with a brain. Chicken is more environmentally ethical than beef since cows take more space and because chickens aren't as intelligent that also makes them not as bad to eat from that standpoint. Then there also is freeganism and the buddhist version of vegetarianism where what is eaten may differ by circumstances in the moment. A buddhist monk may eat meat if it's an offering and freegans can eat all the meat they want without financing the meat industry because they get their food free eating throwaways. Cows don't have predators all over where they are lol Chickens maybe since they can't fly much but roosters can be pretty aggressive and territorial so it's questionable some still. Pigs uhhhh no when a pig is set loose in the wild it actually turns into being more like a wild boar. There are several places wild boar are already a problem. And I already debunked veganism and vegetarianism in the strictest sense of ther terms as being logically flawed. I already explained such processes are not an absolute given and requirement for things like milk and egg production. As I already pointed out there even is literally brainless animals we eat. If vegans were logical they would be for changing of processes and for reduction of consumption of animal byproducts to make that possible rather than think it's inherently morally wrong to consume animal byproducts. They would advocate for the production of mussel, clams, and oysters as possible sources of protein instead of saying eating meat is murder. Oh and let's not forget honey is also an animal byproduct and that it can help restore damaged ecosystems to farm bees. It doesn't matter if it can be done if it isn't actually being done. Realistically there are too many people and it's too expensive to eat even byproducts ethically. Oysters do feel pain making it just as immoral to eat them. Honey is debated among vegans. You're reading into the grammar wrong. I said not everywhere not everywhere they do not. No predator in wild means environmental harm which in turn harms animals. Predators in wild means harm to the animals. Keeping the meat industry means harm to the animals. It's a lose lose lose situation there. Harm is unavoidable in the given circumstances and in all scenarios is caused by human choice. So the real ethics question doesn't lie in the ethics of if causing the death of an animal is wrong because here it's unavoidable. It's a matter of what is the best as a whole in the short and long term for animals including humans. You know what the other major environmental damage is? Palm oil manufacturing. That isn't a meat or animal byproduct. That is in no measure by any stretch a scientific fact as far as I am aware. Oysters have a central nervous system so they can respond to external stimulus but they lack a brain to process that information as pain as we know it is what the normal view of understanding is. As I already explained in another post if you extend the notion of the possability of something feeling pain that isn't commonly accepted by science majority as such then you have to admit plants may also feel pain. This means any root vegetables and so on are immoral to eat. There even is evidence to support they might. It should not be simplified to a matter of pain vs no pain but rather a spectrum of pain. A fish doesn't feel pain like a dolphin would. Pain is a weak argument against meat and byiproducts to begin with anyway because there are painless ways to kill animals or you can genetically modify them to feel no pain. |
| โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โฃธโ โ โ โ โกโ โ โกโ โขโ โขธโ โ โ โกโกฐโ โ โกโ โ โข โ โ โ โขธโ โ โขธโ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โฃโ โ โกโ โกโ โ โ โขธโกโขโ โ โขฃโ โ ขโขโฃโ โ โ ธโ โ โ โขธโ โ โขธโ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โขฐโกโกโ โกโกโ โ โ โ โ โกโ โขโขฐโ โ โ โ โ โฃโ โ โ โ โ โ ธโ โ โกโ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ คโขโ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โกผโ โฃงโ โขฟโข โฃคโฃคโฃฌโฃฅโ โ โ โ โ โขโกโ โ โ โ โกโกโ โ โ โกโ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โขตโกโ โ โ โ โ โกฐโ โข โ โ ฑโฃผโกโฃโกโ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ ณโ ถโ ถโ โกธโขโกโฃโขฐโ โ โขธ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โฃโฃโฃโ โ โ โ โ โ โข โ โขโ โ โ โฃผโ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ ดโ ขโขโกโฃโกโ ฃโฃฑโขธโ โ โขทโ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โกฐโ โขโ โ โ โกโกจโขขโกโ โ โ โ โฃโ โ โฃ โ โ โ โ โขโ ฝโ โ โ โ โ โ โกโ ธโ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โขโ โฃโกดโ โ โก โกชโ โฃ โฃพโฃโฃทโกฆโ คโฃโกโ โ โขโฃโก โขโ โ โ โ โ โ โขโกคโกโขโ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โขโฃ โ ดโขโกจโ โกโ คโ โขโฃดโฃพโฃฟโกฟโฃพโฃฟโกโ โ นโฃปโ โ โ โขโ โ บโ โ โกโขโฃดโฃพโฃงโฃโ โกโ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โ โฃโ โ โกโ โ โ โ โ โฃดโฃฟโฃฟโฃฟโฃฟโฃปโฃฟโฃฟโกโ โ โข โฃทโฃฎโกโก โ โขโกโก โ โ โ โฃฟโฃฟโฃฟโฃฟโฃโ โ โ โ |
| raises the question as to why people are so against cannibalism - it's just another type of meat, isn't it? |
AnimeFreak-San said: is this a male gender issure...human issue...mental illness perhaps? |
| I've always wondered the same thing |
 |
| Yeah, very hypocritical. The worst is when I tried to bring this up on a forum and someone was like, "Cows aren't intelligent. I can play catch with my dog." Bitch, you never even gave the cow a chance. |
QPR said: Lol, dogs. You see, this is my point. That cow up there is intelligent. I wish I didn't have to eat them and would like to be a veggie (I have never seen a vegan that doesn't look ill) but I believe you need meat for your own health. However I refuse to eat animals that have higher level feelings like dogs, dolphins, elephants etc. I hope an alternative to meat comes up that doesn't taste like ass. |
Railey2 said: It IS hypocritical since it's people who decided on which would be a pet and which would be food. Chickens make great pets and overall are quite low maintenance compared to dogs or cats plus you can have their eggs, they are just as emotional, intelligent and make great companions but most wouldn't even give them a chance since it's already been ingrained into our culture that chickens are meant to be eaten.Only_Brad said: You said it yourself, it's cultural.I often ask people why it's horrible to kill dogs or cats for food. They never answer logically. The funniest answer is "these animal are not meant to be food, they are meant to be man's friend". Meant by who? God? Your religion? Your culture? In my opinion, if you're not vegetarian you have no right to criticize what meat others eat. At some point, people recognized the value that certain animals can provide to us on a personal level, so these animals now enjoy special protection. Pets are hugely benefitial to the emotional development of a child, for example. They also have psychological benefits for adults and elders, as they provide comfort, can prevent loneliness, and can even heal trauma to some extent. So that's what we use pets for, and the special consideration we extend to them is a natural consequence of the role they play for us. Does that seem logical enough to you? CondemneDio said: how is it hypocritical? Pets clearly fulfill a different role than say.. farm animals. It'd be hypocritical if there was no difference between these groups, but as I've described above, this clearly isn't true. Unless you want to make the case that cows and pigs are just as suited for everyone to use as pets as cats, lol.Hypocrisy fueled by tradition, nothing more. |
Maou_heika said: chicken aren't as emotionally relatable because they aren't mammals, so they're probably worse suited than house cats. Railey2 said: It IS hypocritical since it's people who decided on which would be a pet and which would be food. Chickens make great pets and overall are quite low maintenance compared to dogs or cats plus you can have their eggs, they are just as emotional, intelligent and make great companions but most wouldn't even give them a chance since it's already been ingrained into our culture that chickens are meant to be eaten.You said it yourself, it's cultural. At some point, people recognized the value that certain animals can provide to us on a personal level, so these animals now enjoy special protection. Pets are hugely benefitial to the emotional development of a child, for example. They also have psychological benefits for adults and elders, as they provide comfort, can prevent loneliness, and can even heal trauma to some extent. So that's what we use pets for, and the special consideration we extend to them is a natural consequence of the role they play for us. Does that seem logical enough to you? how is it hypocritical? Pets clearly fulfill a different role than say.. farm animals. It'd be hypocritical if there was no difference between these groups, but as I've described above, this clearly isn't true. Unless you want to make the case that cows and pigs are just as suited for everyone to use as pets as cats, lol. Not to say that they would make bad pets, but there's certainly better. In any case, they (perhaps predictably, given their usefulness) fell into a different role, and one that doesn't come with privileges. Again, I don't see how this is hypocritical. Chicken clearly have properties that make them different from cats and dogs. Only because they'd hypothetically also make good pets, doesn't mean that it's hypocritical, because unlike cats and dogs they're also good meat- and eggfarms. So that's what they're mainly used for. Actually I changed my mind slightly upon further consideration. The thing is that even if chicken and dogs were completely equal in any way shape or form, it still makes sense for society to specialize and exclusively use one species as pets while exclusively farming the other. Because at the end of the day, we want to eat meat, but we also want to own pets. It doesn't make psychological sense to muddy the waters by having both species as both meatfarms and pets simultaneously. Either way, the role that is assigned to the species would dictate how they will be treated, so even if the roles are arbitrarily assigned, it STILL doesn't mean that you'd be hypocritical for treating one kind differently based on the arbitrary role. Because we have to have the roles one way or another if we want it all. And we do want it all. Lolsebca said: The illusion of morality should make it all up for you as well then, but clearly you don't give a fuck about actually engaging with a topic if you can be obnoxiously pretentious while saying nothing instead.Railey2 said: well you're incorrect, because there can actually be no confirmation that existence is real. You're talking about minds, but with that you're presupposing that minds exist, which objectively speaking, you have no real way of knowing. Therefore, everything you just said is wrong. Do you see now how unconstructive this line of thought is? It's such a waste of time. If you wanna plainly deny cognition, good luck using cognition to think an answer to say so. Existence is not real? The illusion of existence makes it all up for me. You basically just said "morality doesn't exist everything is subjective lulz", and you did it while writing purple because you want to stand out very badly. Seriously my dude. This is just really really bad. |
Railey2Aug 30, 2019 10:14 AM
| *lampoons inwardly* |
| It all depends on the country and it's culture, the tradition and what has been past from generation to generation. But as previous posts you can't criticize if your a meat eater others who eat non traditional meat, especially oriental cultures And since things like these lifestyles of eating will never change in a grand scale the best is in my opinion that's these animals that are consumed don't suffer when they are killed, which is not like that in some cases.. |
| sic mundus |
Yarub said: I ate horses and donkeys a bunch of times. It's no biggie, they all taste the fucking same. ah yes my favorite meal, donky with a side of horse |
 |
photophobic said: I was under the impression that human meat was incredibly unhealthy for you.raises the question as to why people are so against cannibalism - it's just another type of meat, isn't it? ...but that's mostly because of video game mechanics |
โ Truth be told, I'm quite proud of my house blend. To attain my flavor and fragrance, I use five different types of coffee beans. โ |
| In a lot of cultures there's what's considered "taboo meat" which from animals that humans in that culture consider either sacred, pets, disgusting, or any other thing. In North America people generally avoid eating animals like cats, dogs, goldfish, horses, hamsters, and other animals that are commonly used as pets because their relationship with them makes them not seem like a valid food source. In India cows are sacred and aren't for eating, but also 30% of people there don't eat meat at all. In Jewish and Muslim culture a lot of animals aren't allowed to be eaten because they're considered unclean or unholy, such as pigs and shrimp. Legally animals that are endangered or threatened generally can't be hunted/fished because there's not enough of them left. This is usually to allow their numbers to rise back up, but it's also to reinstate value in these species that were previously seen as just a thing to kill for meat. Some whale species have escaped the endangered species list but still can't be hunted since letting people see them as food again would just make their numbers fall back down. |
  |
| I don't know if I'm supposed to feel bad for eating a rabbit infront of my pet rabbit, I mean, I'll eat any kind of animal, they mostly taste the same, just with different pinches of salt. |
  |
davidman001 said: Yarub said: I ate horses and donkeys a bunch of times. It's no biggie, they all taste the fucking same. ah yes my favorite meal, donky with a side of horse A donkey stew or donkey ragu over pasta is very tenderly made and popular in northern Italy (cities like Verona). I can see why eating certain reptiles or insects or even some seafood variants like gangly cephalopods can feel strange and alien, but I don't get why anything about donkey would seem more strange or off-putting than a pig or a chicken. |
Railey2 said: As someone who has pet chickens let me just ask you how much have you interacted with chickens? How much do you know about how they behave, how they react to situations and display their emotions? Chickens make good pets, I can tell you that from personal experience. I've also had dogs in the past but I always ended up getting more attached to my chickens compared to my dog.Maou_heika said: chicken aren't as emotionally relatable because they aren't mammals, so they're probably worse suited than house cats. It IS hypocritical since it's people who decided on which would be a pet and which would be food. Chickens make great pets and overall are quite low maintenance compared to dogs or cats plus you can have their eggs, they are just as emotional, intelligent and make great companions but most wouldn't even give them a chance since it's already been ingrained into our culture that chickens are meant to be eaten. Not to say that they would make bad pets, but there's certainly better. In any case, they (perhaps predictably, given their usefulness) fell into a different role, and one that doesn't come with privileges. Again, I don't see how this is hypocritical. Chicken clearly have properties that make them different from cats and dogs. Only because they'd hypothetically also make good pets, doesn't mean that it's hypocritical, because unlike cats and dogs they're also good meat- and eggfarms. So that's what they're mainly used for. Actually I changed my mind slightly upon further consideration. The thing is that even if chicken and dogs were completely equal in any way shape or form, it still makes sense for society to specialize and exclusively use one species as pets while exclusively farming the other. Because at the end of the day, we want to eat meat, but we also want to own pets. It doesn't make psychological sense to muddy the waters by having both species as both meatfarms and pets simultaneously. Either way, the role that is assigned to the species would dictate how they will be treated, so even if the roles are arbitrarily assigned, it STILL doesn't mean that you'd be hypocritical for treating one kind differently based on the arbitrary role. Then why do other countries take offence against the Yulin festival? The Chinese have arbitrarily decided that dogs can be eaten, is it not hypocrisy on part of those who try to stop them (unless they are vegan or vegetarian)?Because we have to have the roles one way or another if we want it all. And we do want it all. |
More topics from this board
Poll: » Do you love yourself? ( 1 2 )Absurdo_N - Oct 2 |
60 |
by JaniSIr
»»
12 minutes ago |
|
» does anyone have nerd skills?XMGA030 - 9 hours ago |
6 |
by XMGA030
»»
16 minutes ago |
|
» Would you watch Assad's Twitch Streams?vasipi4946 - 2 hours ago |
4 |
by Exhumatika
»»
16 minutes ago |
|
» how do I get to watch anime morePOLARMANE - Yesterday |
4 |
by narikuu
»»
56 minutes ago |
|
» Have you ever done any mischief in your younger years that your family is still unaware of to this day?fleurbleue - 8 hours ago |
7 |
by XMGA030
»»
1 hour ago |