A Vegan Proposal

Please note: This is something I wrote years ago, in Digital Expressions so if some parts don't seem quite relevant, that's probably why. Also, there is no filter/mods on DE, and left to my own devices I am sometimes rather profane. I did try to clean the profanity out of this thread, but if there is still some remaining then by all means let me know and I'll get right on editing it out.

For some reason, the internet seems to be a haven for vegans--not people who believe that they shouldn't eat meat, but people who believe that I shouldn't eat meat. These people refer to meat, as I saw one idiot write, as "murdered meat, raped (yes, she wrote 'raped') milk, and stolen eggs." First, this is inherently stupid, but more than that, it trivializes the actual crime--who in their right mind would want to equate the killing of a pig to the murder of a human being, or taking a chicken's eggs to stealing the work of another person? And it can only be described as disgusting to say that the violation of another person's body is no more offensive than milking a cow.

My first impulse--and, I believe, the correct one--is to tell these people to clean my hairy redneck *** with a straw (I advise you to try not to visualize that). However, I have seen an idea--it's not mine although I certainly wish it was--that might be a workable compromise.

The main argument of vegans is that no animal chooses to be killed and eaten. This is true, of course--no animal wants to be eaten by humans or by other animals.

However, there is a difference between prey and predator animals--first, they are different. Deer do not prey on wolves, nor do rabbits prey on hawks or marmots on ferrets. While some animals do prey on scavengers or meat eaters--such as insect-eating birds being a major food source for many animals, or among fish where the rule is basically to eat anything you can fit in your mouth--the general rule is that prey animals eat only plants while carnivorous animals eat only meat.

Again to the crux of the matter--deer do not choose to eat only plants. Naturally, were they given a choice, they would choose not to be prey; I can't imagine a deer wanting a pack of wolves to run it to exhaustion, cut the tendons in its back legs with their teeth, tear its throat out, then tear chunks of its flesh out and gulp them down while it's still twitching in the agonies of death.

Therefore, with the choice being between predator or prey, Vegans, with their refusal to eat anything but plant matter, have taken the option of being prey.

Those of us who wish to pursue a natural human diet, therefore, now have exactly what we need--prey that chose to be prey! We can kill them in a humane manner, of course, and make sure they're cooked properly. Those of us who wish to wear leather can wear "Human(e) Leather" which will not irritate our consciences; and vegans, in the spirit of aiding us in compassionate meat and leather consumption, can even get tattoos in designs which will work well with an article of clothing--some may even wish to tattoo lines on their bodies to aid skinning or tailoring!

Moreover, this does two other things--one is that it reduces human population. Vegans, as a whole, usually decry the human race as evil, and any measure which will reduce the human population will doubtless meet with applause and widespread cooperation and approval. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, the practice of eating vegans will remove from our population the most stupid and morally stunted among us, thereby profiting humanity as a whole.

...it is not improbable that some scrupulous people might be apt to censure such a practice (although indeed very unjustly) as a little bordering on cruelty, which I confess, hath always been with me the strongest objection against any project, howsoever well intended.
--Jonathon Swift, A Modest Proposal, 1729

Quote:

---

My first impulse--and, I believe, the correct one--is to tell these people to clean my hairy redneck *** with a straw (I advise you to try not to visualize that).

---

Too late... :barf:



Well, I guess I can say that this thread almost made me smile.

It seems like a good idea, but I do not believe one should stop with the consumption of merely vegans. There is a very limited amount of vegans on this planet and we would deplete this resource almost instantly. I am in general in favour of cannibalism as it is beneficial to everyone except the consumed individuals. All comfort is based on the discomfort of others and as the human race strives for comfort to the extreme extent, that it does not only affect other species negatively, but it also causes their complete extiction, every decrease of human comfort will slightly increase the comfort of other life forms. I believe human life is a superfluous luxury anyone would gladly sacrifice for the welfare of Mother Earth.

In all seriousness, I detest anyone who dares shove their beliefs on me. I recognize and uphold your right to an opinion, and I expect the same courtesy to be extended to me. Now pass the chicken.

I was confused for a moment as I wasn't sure if this was meant to be a straight satire, as Swift's was, but I see what you're saying now and your point is well taken indeed.

So long as Vegans are free to not eat meat, and people who do enjoy meat, such as myself and you good sir, are allowed, then everything should be smooth sailing. Here's hoping it stays that way.

Take care all.

If you weren't such an abrasive ass, Redneck, I would give you a high five for that one. :)

I got EoEO banned for this post and all I got was this lousy edit!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jrgen

It seems like a good idea, but I do not believe one should stop with the consumption of merely vegans. There is a very limited amount of vegans on this planet and we would deplete this resource almost instantly. I am in general in favour of cannibalism as it is beneficial to everyone except the consumed individuals. All comfort is based on the discomfort of others and as the human race strives for comfort to the extreme extent, that it does not only affect other species negatively, but it also causes their complete extiction, every decrease of human comfort will slightly increase the comfort of other life forms. I believe human life is a superfluous luxury anyone would gladly sacrifice for the welfare of Mother Earth.

---

This made me laugh :p

I want to try to be vegan for a week just to see if I can do it :tongue: I propose a challenge.

Hey vegans, guess what? Life is built on death. Organisms die, they either decompose or get eaten, but either way they're going back into the ecosystem. It's called progress. When I die some bacteria are going to have themselves some lunch. That's life (quite litreally). Deal with it.

Besides which the way our world's going cannabilism is pretty much going to be a necessity. Kinda like Logan's Run.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maxx Power

Hey vegans, guess what? Life is built on death. Organisms die, they either decompose or get eaten, but either way they're going back into the ecosystem. It's called progress. When I die some bacteria are going to have themselves some lunch. That's life (quite litreally). Deal with it.

Besides which the way our world's going cannabilism is pretty much going to be a necessity. Kinda like Logan's Run.

---

The complaints of this thread are those vegans who push their views on others, and now you're doing the same thing. Smooth.

I have to agree with a lot of the other posters in here.
Having others' beliefs - be they religious, ethical, or otherwise - foisted upon me is a pain. While I fully understand vegan beliefs about the sanctity of life, I don't much appreciate it when I'm treated as something less than human for not being a vegan.

Hence why I'm happy that no vegans ever treat me like that:)
I've got a number of friends who are vegetarian and vegan, for reasons ranging from personal to religious.

Quote:

---

Therefore, with the choice being between predator or prey, Vegans, with their refusal to eat anything but plant matter, have taken the option of being prey.

---

I'd disagree. Being herbivorous doesn't equate to being prey. Eating meat doesn't make one any less suceptible to being eaten, so eating plants doesn't make one less strong and self-determining.
You wrote of the importance of choice - deer don't choose to be prey, they become it.
Vegans choose not to eat animals or animal byproducts, because they feel it is wrong to do so. Not because they want to assume the role of the deer, which has no control over its status; rather, they don't want to benefit directly from the killing of another animal.

I'm reminded of a rather cynical and quite stomach-churning joke from primary school:

"How do you solve all the world's problems?"

"Get the hungry to eat the homeless".

Jrgen--
Please tell me you were joking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big D

"How do you solve all the world's problems?"

"Get the hungry to eat the homeless".

---

Soylent Green is people! PEOPLE!!!

Wouldn't it be more fun to explain to vegans/vegetarians that their salad is still alive, and that the practice of vegetarianism discriminates against plants?

Some of the more honest ones admit this:
I'm not a vegetarian because I love animals, I'm a vegetarian because I hate plants. -- A. Whitney Brown The Daily Show

Who wants to eat a skinny vegan, anyway?

Hmm, Vegan. It sounds like some race of beings in Star Trek. In any case, I bet they are delicious.

This reminds me of PETA. They were comparing battery farms to Auschwitz. :grr: As I remember I started a thread about that which spun WAY out of control a while back. Anway I'll stick with my Filet Mignon, lots of nice amino acids.

There are carnivorous deers on an island off the coast of Australia...*cough* :ty:

i have the same view on vegans that i do on homosexuals; do what you will, just don't try to get me to do thge same. i'm fine with vegans, they don't bother me. however, when i get a vegan coming up to me saying i'm supporting murder by eating a hamburger, that tends to piss me off. the last time that happened i calmly put my burger down before saying that they are entitled to their own oppinion but to **** off, after that i took the beef patty out of my burger and tossed it into their salad (i'll leave it at that).
point being plants are living things too. they breath (co2) and need water and nutrients like we do. if you're so wraped up in this thing that killing is wrong, when you eat lettuce you're eating a "murdered" plant.
all this said i go back to my original point. you eat what you like and i'll eat what i like, but because you say killing is wrong and i'm only following an instinct that kept us alive for the past 100,000 years, don't come near me because i'll end up getting edgy and you will get cut.

Aerio--
I figure to stick with normal animals... None of the animals in Australia are normal except sheep--and they were imported.

Seriously, though, I'm sure there are other exceptions to the rule here and there, but in general....

I might have to add the post someone else made to this when I first publicized it (since it was over the Internet, I hesitate to say "published") on DE.

Eat vegans? Pfft, I have an even more modest proposal: eat the children.

Actually, to address the reaction to the commentary "rape milk"... do you even know what the word "rape" means. And I'm impatient, so, if you don't, it means "forcibly use/exploit/take"- not always a sexual act, obviously. Still, aside from the inflamatory use of the word, it's accurate. A little on the overly dramatic side, but true. They're still pretty dumb, but I HATE it when either side of an argument says stupid stuff without understanding the context of that which they mock. Learn your oponent's view, THEN degrade it.

Still, yes, consuption of various organisms is a perfectly natural and healthy activity. Eating people, however, is a VERY GOOD way to cause innumerable disorders. Cannibalism is an unhealthy practice in any species more advanced than insects. Even most scavengers and vermin won't eat their own. And the ones that do, tend to be poorly equipped to survive as a species.

This thread makes me sick.

Abstaining from eating animals is not a backwards practice, it is an attempt to reduce exploitation of other beings. As with any other issue, too many people cross the line from educating others who are willing to learn to becoming propaganda peddling machines, and I'm sure that they will soon realise that these are not effective methods of activism.

If I can eat [getting all the nutrients I require to survive], be clothed and use medication/toiletries that do not actively promote the suffering of animals, then why should I do otherwise? For fashion? For mere taste? Such a notion strikes me as ridiculous.

Quote:

---

If I can eat [getting all the nutrients I require to survive], be clothed and use medication/toiletries that do not actively promote the suffering of animals, then why should I do otherwise? For fashion? For mere taste? Such a notion strikes me as ridiculous.

---

Convenience? You can't really realistically do that. If you did wish to do that, you'd live in a mud-and-wattle hut and grow your own crops. If you're willing to do that, more power to you, but most of us aren't, we enjoy the benefits that further technology has brought us and will continue to live as we do. The problem isn't so much that someone chooses to eliminate a few animal deaths from their concience (bear in mind, of course, that animals are killed in the making of just about every food we eat, from getting sucked into wheat threshers to being slaughtered by pesticides), but that they'd have the audacity to condemn us for our lifestyle, as well as the fact that they take the moral high ground over something as simple as not killing quite as many animals as we do.

Not to mention the HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of animals that have to die and suffer because of clearing out all the land that we do for our crops. You want murder on a mass scale, it doesn't get bigger than that.

Yeah, I know that animals are killed so that I can eat carrots and alfalfa, and contrary to what people may think, that bothers me to. Having to kill plants bothers me as well. Yes yes, death is inevitable and people need to take advantage of other lifeforms in order to survive.

As for being hoity-toity, "nyer nyer! I've eliminated lactose intolerance and high cholesterol!" :D

Audacity for condemning your lifestyle? Damn straight I condemn animal cruelty!

Slightly off topic, but not all human infleuence on animal populations is bad, If we (and other predators) did not keep many herbivore populations in check they would over breed.

While I agree that conservationists do keep some eco-systems in check, and are doing their part in trying to revive the populations of many endangered species, I still hold the view that we've completely bastardized the planet for the sake of greed.

Udsuna: I want murder on a mass scale? I don't think you know me well enough to be able to make that statement.

I beileve in the Christian God, and he gave man dominion over all the animals therefore, anyone who doesnt is well within their own right to do so and so am i.

Thanks for posting this RN, you are right.

Calliope--
First of all, Udsuna's comment was to reflect that if you want to speak of murder on a mass scale, then it doesn't get ay more massive than that. I very seriously doubt he/she was saying that you approve of genocide.

Abstaining from the eating of animals on the basis that "exploitatioin" of animals is wrong is basically the art of not being human for the sake of lesser creatures. The result, of course, is that we become less even than the lesser creatures--which is why for all the vegan condemnation of normal people, prey animals will still be killed and eaten by predator animals. Mother nature and all that....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Redneck

Calliope--
First of all, Udsuna's comment was to reflect that if you want to speak of murder on a mass scale, then it doesn't get ay more massive than that. I very seriously doubt he/she was saying that you approve of genocide.

---

Yep... "you want" in this case is a figure of speech that was exactly as Redneck says. Sorry, I just "ass"umed that everyone understood that. And I was calling myself an ass for doing so.

I don't understand this argument of "millions of animals are killed clearing land out for crops, so killing millions of more animals for everything else is perfectly fine." Following that logic, it'd be like when we went into Iraq and a US general saying, "Oh, it's inevitable that we're going to kill some civilians...so we shouldn't bother trying to protect them. We're going to have to kill at least five thousand to take the country, so who cares if we kill seventy-five thousand?" It's impossible to cut down all animal deaths, assuredly, however that doesn't make anyone who argues we are killing animals a hypocrite.

Now, I'm not a vegan. I love meat, and I'm not going to stop eating it. I, personally, believe that it's just part of the natural food cycle. However, the arguments against eating meat are still valid and the supposed "logic" to discount them is irrational.

While you would have it that vegans/vegos give up their right as humans to exploit other living creatures, I would venture that we never had that right in the first place. How does caring for the welfare of another make you a lesser creature?

Prey animals will still be eaten/killed by predator animals, yes.

Predator animals do not hunt for sport, or greed, or eat more than they need to survive out of gluttony.

if you experience more guilt from eating animals than you experience inconvenience from not eating them, then you should be a vegan.

Quote:

---

While you would have it that vegans/vegos give up their right as humans to exploit other living creatures, I would venture that we never had that right in the first place.

---

By non-human mores, we have that right for the simple reason that we are physically capable of it. By any human moral code, we are capable of distinguishing between right and wrong--this immediately seperates us from every other creature on the planet, from one-celled protozoa to bonobos, and with that superiority comes the right to do as we wish.

Quote:

---

How does caring for the welfare of another make you a lesser creature?

---

How does simply refusing to eat meat have anything to do with caring for the welfare of another creature? Apparently, it's not a problem with you if wolves eat cattle, or if mountain lions eat cattle, or if ticks and mosquitos suck them dry--it's only when humans do it that you're dealing with an evil and cruel act? Hell, at least we wait 'til its dead before we start eating.

Quote:

---

Predator animals do not hunt for sport, or greed, or eat more than they need to survive out of gluttony.

---

To which I can only comment that you are very, very uninformed about predator animals. My own lesson in "Nature is not pretty, cutesy-fuzzy-wuzzy, or fair 101" came at the age of 12, when I saw the devestation a 10-inch-long mink visited upon my pa's chicken-house (That mink, in fact, is a rather entertaining story all on its own that I may share here someday--we assume it escaped from a farm somewhere.). The fact is that predator-animals regularly kill other animals for entertainment or simply because they can, without regard to whether they need or even can eat the meat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Redneck

we are capable of distinguishing between right and wrong--this immediately seperates us from every other creature on the planet, from one-celled protozoa to bonobos, and with that superiority comes the right to do as we wish.

---

We don't know that other animals don't distingush between right and wrong.

Do your research. Anyone who works at a battery farm will tell you that male chicks are fed alive into a mincegrinder because keeping them alive is unprofitable. In a slaughterhouse situation, cattle are killed via a bolt to the head, on the assumption that an electric shock they are dealt beforehand stuns them enough to ensure that their deaths are 'humane'. They're not, especially as slaughterhouse workers don't ga-run-tee that cattle aren't unconscious before killing them. Fancy eating Saint Bernards or any other number of South Eastern delicacies? Rest assured those animals are skinned alive. We wait until they're dead to eat them, sure, but the deaths are far from humane.

It's not a problem for me if wolves or mountain lions eat cattle, because they are carnivores, and we are omnivores with the ability to survive without eating other animals. We have a choice, they don't.

Nature? What is natural about drinking the milk or eating the flesh of another creature?

As Wes said, your argument is flawed. "Lions and Tigers and Bears kill bunny-wunnies and moo-cows, so we can too! Wait, I mean that we kill them because we are superior to lesser beings, yes"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Calliope

Predator animals do not hunt for sport, or greed, or eat more than they need to survive out of gluttony.

---

WRONG! About as wrong as is possible.

Wolves track, hunt and kill for no appearant reason. They just leave the corpse for carion animals. Best guess? For practice and competition.

Most cats will bring down an animal, and never even kill it. They don't KILL for pleasure, they TORTURE for pleasure, and will continue to torment their victim until it finally dies, then they'll put the body somewhere and forget about it. It seems only the typical African lions are an exception to that rule (but they have a harder time getting food, so that makes sence).

And don't get me started on what animals that are both predator and scavenger will do... ferrets, hyenas, and the like are downright NASTY about their prey.

EDIT: Oh, and I'm a little Illinois farmboy... very familiar with the extent to which slaughterhouses work around here. If I was a stupid cow, unaware of my impending death, I wouldn't mind the slaughter method that cows get. That electric shock they get would drop a bull elephant. Sometimes, it kills the cow in and of itself. The only way a cow could take it is if the machine malfunctioned. And, well, they're just cows. Their whole damned species would be extinct if we didn't protect them.

well, cows are what they are because we domisticated them.

They're not a whole lot different than undomesticated buffalo, though.

well yes, I doubt they'd be writing poetry in their wild state.

Quote:

---

We don't know that other animals don't distingush between right and wrong.

---

And we don't know that thunder isn't really angels bowling, either.

Actually, we do, in both cases, through the simple power of observation.

Quote:

---

Anyone who works at a battery farm will tell you that male chicks are fed alive into a mincegrinder because keeping them alive is unprofitable.

---

Given a number of options for killing, being crushed instantly is far swifter and more humane than what animals are guaranteed to suffer in the wild.

Quote:

---

In a slaughterhouse situation, cattle are killed via a bolt to the head, on the assumption that an electric shock they are dealt beforehand stuns them enough to ensure that their deaths are 'humane'. They're not, especially as slaughterhouse workers don't ga-run-tee that cattle aren't unconscious before killing them.

---

In Georgia, at least, the cattle are killed by means of a machine that's basically a pneumatic hammer--it delivers approximately 3000 foot-pounds of pressure to the animal's skull, instantly. You could run an elephant through that machine, assuming it would fit into the stall, and it would be dead before it knows it.

Quote:

---

Fancy eating Saint Bernards or any other number of South Eastern delicacies? Rest assured those animals are skinned alive.

---

Most of them are actually killed quickly--not because it's more humane, but simply because it's more efficient. However, this differs from American slaughterhouses (and those of most of the world) because of the common Asian belief that adrenaline makes the meat taste better and thus a painful or fearful death (in Korea, where I spent a year, they beat one dog to death in front of the others, then get to work and slaughter the rest) results in better meat. I don't agree with it myself; thus why I didn't eat dog while I was over there (except once, and they didn't tell me what it was until after I tried it. I disliked the taste intensely, but that's probably because the stuff was mixed with kim'chi, which is the vilest concoction known to man.).

Quote:

---

It's not a problem for me if wolves or mountain lions eat cattle, because they are carnivores, and we are omnivores with the ability to survive without eating other animals. We have a choice, they don't.

---

And is it a problem for you when they kill unnecessarily? When they kill an animal for practice, or when a mountain lion kills an entire pen of sheep, or kills a deer, eats its fill, and goes out hunting again while the rest is left to rot?

Quote:

---

Nature? What is natural about drinking the milk or eating the flesh of another creature?

---

Everything. Nature is not kind, fair, or cutesy-wootesy.

Quote:

---

As Wes said, your argument is flawed. "Lions and Tigers and Bears kill bunny-wunnies and moo-cows, so we can too! Wait, I mean that we kill them because we are superior to lesser beings, yes"

---

Actually, I was rather careful to differentiate between "by non-human mores" and "by any human moral code". For animals, it's fine to kill other animals and eat them. For humans, it's also fine. Animals are different than humans, and thus we have different reasons than they.

Quote:

---

If you weren't such an abrasive ass, Redneck, I would give you a high five for that one.

---

Considering recent actions taken, I will respond to this in the only manner allowed:

THANK YOU SIR, MAY I HAVE ANOTHER!!!

There is no universal right and wrong and no living being including humans can tell the difference between two imaginary things, which are impossible to define. Morals differ greatly depending on the surroundings and have absolutely nothing to do with being human. All forms of life seek nothing but survival and morals are merely a way to stay within the norms of your current society and that way be more likely to survive.

Redneck - first you argue that we can eat animals because we're superior, now you're arguing that we can do it because other animals do it. Which is it?

as long as they aint forcing there views on me, I dont care. Boohoo humans eat meat so do hundreds of other species, protest to them too.

Raistlin--

Quote:

---

Redneck - first you argue that we can eat animals because we're superior, now you're arguing that we can do it because other animals do it. Which is it?

---

As mentioned above.....

Quote:

---

Actually, I was rather careful to differentiate between "by non-human mores" and "by any human moral code". For animals, it's fine to kill other animals and eat them. For humans, it's also fine. Animals are different than humans, and thus we have different reasons than they.

---

Jrgen--
Wrong. Completely false. If you say that the sky is green when it's really blue, then you're wrong--it's not green for you and blue for me, it's blue and you're wrong. Likewise, if you say that, for the most common example, murder is not wrong, then it's not fine for you and wrong for me--it's wrong, and you're incorrect. It may be people in certain "surroundings" don't see something as right or wrong, but reality is what it is, not what people would like it to be or claim it is.

He wasn't using "right and wrong" as factuals, but as morally right and wrong - and in that sense, he's right. There's no definitive morals - morals change based on an individual's values.

Certain animals eat meat because that's what they have to do to survive. We don't have to. That's fact. Animals that do eat meat kill for survival: whether that's protection or for food. We don't have to kill animals. That's also a fact.

Now, you say we are "different" from animals. How does that difference justify the unnecessary death of millions of animals?

Anyway, as I've already said, I eat meat. I don't look down on vegetarians nor do I consider myself high-and-mighty. I value animal life, but I just don't care enough not to eat meat. Just like I don't like pollution, but I drive my car. I don't like a wasting natual resources, but I'll leave the TV on while I'm on the computer. I just don't care enough to change my lifestyle.

However, Redneck, the difference between you and me is that I recognize and accept my depravity, while you try and justify it.

Quote:

---

Certain animals eat meat because that's what they have to do to survive. We don't have to.

---

And other omnivores? After all, if any animal that could live without meat did so, there wouldn't be such a thing as an omnivore....

Quote:

---

Animals that do eat meat kill for survival: whether that's protection or for food.

---

I'm afraid that's completely false. Simple observation of a housecat with a mouse will show you that animals do indeed kill without needing to to survive--they kill for food when they already have plenty; they kill for practice; or they kill for simple entertainment. (BTW, I read somewhere that housecats actually "play" with caught prey because not having lived in the wild they don't know how to deliver a "deathblow", be that cutting the throat, cutting off oxygen (like leapords do, for example) or whatever. Myself, I've seen a cat that had been running wild before my folks had it 'play' with prey as cheerfully as any cat from the pet shop (in fact, the dang thing was declawed--she catch mice, bring them to my room to 'play' with them, and then since she was declawed, then unless I was there to take the mouse, tell her what a good girl she was, and flush it down the toilet (it was probably very, very wrong of me to holler "surf's up!" while I did so...), she would basically catch mice elsewhere in the house and relocate them to my bedroom) but anybody got more info on this?) Like I said earlier, my own introduction into just how cruel nature can be came at about 12 when a mink got into my pa's chicken house. Killed one, ate its fill, then killed 8 more--and we caught it in a Hav-a-Hart trap the second night when it was going back for more.

I value animal life too--but humans come first.

Quote:

---

And other omnivores? After all, if any animal that could live without meat did so, there wouldn't be such a thing as an omnivore....

---

You said yourself that humans are different than animals. We have the capacity to make moral decisions. If all the bears jumped off a bridge, would you do so too?

Quote:

---

I value animal life too--but humans come first.

---

Humans could survive quite easily on a non-animal diet - so that argument doesn't make sense.

Quote:

---

You said yourself that humans are different than animals. We have the capacity to make moral decisions. If all the bears jumped off a bridge, would you do so too?

---

Like I said, the fact that animals do it is different from the reason we do it--I just wanted to take a moment to shoot down the idea that without humans animals somehow live in peaceful harmony with each other. So no, I wouldn't jump--but I'd dang sure be at the bottom with a skinning-knife....

Quote:

---

Humans could survive quite easily on a non-animal diet - so that argument doesn't make sense.

---

If they wanted to spend their lives eating mostly tasteless food and taking vitamins to provide the nutrients they can't get on a non-animal diet. I didn't say that humans need animal meat to survive, but thanks anyway for pointing out the fallacy of that argument--just in case I might make it in the future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Redneck

Jrgen--
Wrong. Completely false. If you say that the sky is green when it's really blue, then you're wrong--it's not green for you and blue for me, it's blue and you're wrong. Likewise, if you say that, for the most common example, murder is not wrong, then it's not fine for you and wrong for me--it's wrong, and you're incorrect. It may be people in certain "surroundings" don't see something as right or wrong, but reality is what it is, not what people would like it to be or claim it is.

---

Actually, the sky is colorless, just like everything in this world except light itself. The names of colors are only personal as you have no way of knowing in which way I interpret the colors I see and I have no way of describing it. Your blue could very well be identical to my green and what we call the colors only explain what the listener of the description would see if he saw the item being described with a certain color himself. What or who could possibly be the judge of what is right and wrong? Every action imaginable, including murder, is beneficial to some and adverse to others.

Quote:

---

Humans could survive quite easily on a non-animal diet

---

No, they couldn't. Without the help of modern medicine and industry, providing self-inflicted-malnutritionists (I hope I got that one right) with most of the meat-substitutes they need, vegeterians and most certainly vegans wouldn't be able to survive for very long.

Vegeterians don't eat meat, so they eat more of other things. They get enough calcium, protein, vitamins and even iron (with the help of modern food industry). They wouldn't be very active or producive in a wild setting, but they'd live, if they have the physical protection they need from the stronger, all-eating-fully-nutritioned humans.

Vegans however, not eating meat or dairy products, would perish very quickly in a rural setting. Without tofu, soya and artificial vitamins ( a very pricey and difficult to manufacture product, by the way, and one of the reasons the only living vegans are from a high socio-economical setting), vegans wouldn't live for very long.

It's quite simple, really - modern society has many illnesses... it mistreats humans and animals alike. Vegans want to change that... however, they fail to see that without the help of the same modern setting and enviorment they live in, their deaths would be inevitable. "Don't kill the cute animals, but please keep on producing all these wonderful vitamins that I rely on to live!"

Quote:

---

Actually, the sky is colorless, just like everything in this world except light itself.

---

And how do we know the cat is on the mat and the mat is not on the cat? I would debate this at length, but I don't get this philosophical unless I'm very, very drunk--and then, most likely, nobody would be able to understand my typing anyway.

Quote:

---

Your blue could very well be identical to my green and what we call the colors only explain what the listener of the description would see if he saw the item being described with a certain color himself.

---

Uh, no. Blue is not green, it is blue. If you look at something blue and you see green, then the problem isn't my lack of open-mindedness, it's your eyesight.

...

Not, before anyone brings it up, that I do not lack in open-mindedness, just that it isn't a problem. Asche proved that 25% of the population is closed-minded and intolerant, and I'm rather proud to be in that 1/4.

i could never be a vegan im chewing on a cow as we speak :eek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Redneck

Quote:

---

Your blue could very well be identical to my green and what we call the colors only explain what the listener of the description would see if he saw the item being described with a certain color himself.

---

Uh, no. Blue is not green, it is blue. If you look at something blue and you see green, then the problem isn't my lack of open-mindedness, it's your eyesight.

---

But what if you are both looking at teal?
The world isn't set up in clear black and white all the time. in most arguments both sides have a point. There are a few cases where there is one side that is 100% wrong, but most of the time it's not the case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YukiKiro

if you're so wrapped up in this thing that killing is wrong, when you eat lettuce you're eating a "murdered" plant.
all this said i go back to my original point. you eat what you like and i'll eat what i like

---

Have you ever heard the origin story that God told us to live in harmony with the animals and to devour the plants and fruit?

I'm not a vegan, in fact, I'm not really a vegetarian. I'll eat whatever the hell fills my stomach when I hungry. If it came down to my survival, I'd cut off my own right hand (it's the cleanest one) and cook it. If it came down to the survival of someone I cared about, I'd cut off my own right hand and cook it and force feed it to them. No one deserves to starve to death.
To all vegans though: animals get eaten in plenty worse ways than by being killed with a sleep pill and getting lopped up. I consider the "humane" animal murder to be more merciful in that aspect. Although, I will say it's a shame we breed certain animals just to be eaten. As long as we don't do anything to frak up the balance of nature, whatever!
(FRAK: from Battlestar Galactica, the stupidest word to replace profanity, ever)

I'm a vegan, but merely because sometimes I get wrapped up in the reality of eating once living things. Or unborn babies, for that matter.
I know of all this hoity toity nutritional value and substancial needs of eating meats. But I've seen people go thier whole lives perfectly healthy without eating any form of animal bi-product.
In the end, if I'm chewing on a cow, I start thinking about cows and cows' pathetic lives and stepping in thier own dungs. Some people say they aren't intelligent enough to notice, and somehow I agree, but to think that at one time they were even MOVING by themselves makes me sick to my stomach.
To the post about plants 'living', sure, they are living. But they have no will of thier own and do not feel pain. Thier structures aren't really capable of that. But animals do feel pain.
At the moment I have no idea why I'm a vegan (despite eggs). Cows actually WANT to be milked. It pains them to no ends if they are not milked and we're just helping them out a little. But I suspect that is only attributed to free range cows... :skull2: Oh, nevermind.

Two notes...

First, anyone with a delicate stomach may wish to look away....

Eggs are not unborn animals. fertilized eggs are unborn animals, so if you raise your own chickens or (possibly, I ain't sure) if you eat free-range eggs, then you may be eating unborn animals. Otherwise, the process in chickens is just like in human women--the egg (as in that first cell) comes out of the ovaries, isn't fertilized, doesn't implant in the uterine wall (nevermind that in chickens it wouldn't anyway), and is eventually ejected along with other stuff.

And that's as detailed as I'm gonna get about what unfertilized eggs are.

Likewise, while cows (again, like human women) feel a great deal of pain if the milk isn't drawn out of their udders (most often, women who don't want to breastfeed take some kind of hormone that will stop the milk production--otherwise, if they don't nurse they'll be hurtin'...), milk cows are often fed hormones so that, basically, their body thinks they're pregnant or just-calved, and keeps producing milk.

Quote:

---

ave you ever heard the origin story that God told us to live in harmony with the animals and to devour the plants and fruit?

---

To which I refer you to Genesis, Chapter 9, in which God allows us to eat animals--although blood is still not allowable. Other restrictions were later placed on which animals can and can't be eaten, but until then people were allowed to eat anything from cow to (theoretically) tiger.

Albeit THAT, Free range eggs are not made by a load of chickens cramped in a dark room. It's just not safe to eat them anyway.

Quote:

---

Albeit THAT, Free range eggs are not made by a load of chickens cramped in a dark room. It's just not safe to eat them anyway.

---

Actually, the best way to do it is to give them plenty of light--basically, chickens lay eggs in summer, so you extend the day with artificial light so that the chickens still think it's summertime and keep laying eggs even when it's "out of season".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Redneck

Quote:

---

ave you ever heard the origin story that God told us to live in harmony with the animals and to devour the plants and fruit?

---

To which I refer you to Genesis, Chapter 9, in which God allows us to eat animals--although blood is still not allowable. Other restrictions were later placed on which animals can and can't be eaten, but until then people were allowed to eat anything from cow to (theoretically) tiger.

---

I was merely pointing out that eating plants could never equal eating animals because it was our first intended food source. I wouldn't eat meat at all if I didn't think it was allowed by God.

Also, when we eat eggs (this may sound disgusting) we're actually eating chicken placenta. There are actually some countries that consider human placenta to be a delicacy. *shudders at that thought*

Quote:

---

Also, when we eat eggs (this may sound disgusting) we're actually eating chicken placenta. There are actually some countries that consider human placenta to be a delicacy. *shudders at that thought*

---

Actually, it's worse than that... a chicken egg is the unfertilized egg cell, plus the lining and tissue that would have become the placenta if the egg cell had been fertilized... I'm not going to say what that's called in human women.

And it can't be worse than kim'chi.

Quote:

---

Kimchi is a generic name for a multitude of seasonal and regional varieties of pickled or fermented vegetable side dishes flavored with seafood and spices, and high in vitamins, minerals, and lactic acid.

---

And the Korean variety, at least, consists of fiery, fetid inedibles that will with even the merest taste make your breath capable of knocking the steam out of a packmule's fart at 90 yards.

This condition cannot be changed for at least two weeks short of brushing your teeth with bleach.

Quote:

---

Animals that do eat meat kill for survival: whether that's protection or for food.

---

Killer whales will fling young seals about with their tails, apparently for fun, before they eat them.

While they're still alive.

On the other hand, I do not condone unneccesary violence or suffering towards animals. For example, I buy free-range over battery chicken, where possible. However, humans are omnivores. We do not have the proper digestive system to live efficiently off of vegetables (our appendix is vestigal, for a start, and we can't digest cellulose). The animals we eat are not self-aware, and if we didn't eat them, they wouldn't exist in the first place. Call it a symbiosis, if you like. We feed the animals, allow them to breed, protect them from predators and illness, and then we consume them. From a species point of view its a win-win. However, because these species are almost entirely dependant on us, whereas we are no longer entirely depenant on then, you could see it as a favour to the animals that we still raise them for food. Otherwise, evolutionarliy, they'd be toast.

Whew, that was longer than it needed to be...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Redneck

And it can't be worse than kim'chi.

---

You could never be more right.