davevdb:

supervegan:

davevdb:

supervegan:

push-button-receive-bacon:

seanbarnes:

samburgundy:

quietecstasy:

23 people liked this status.
TWENTY THREE.

This many people are disturbed by images of animal abuse, and not a single one of the people on that list are vegans. 

It’s sad that people consciously shut out images of animal cruelty and then keep on eating meat.

I’d say something but I don’t feel like getting attacked for being a “pushy, preachy vegan” right now. Too tired.

I do not want to see four Chinese kids standing around a fucking dog with a noose around its neck suspended 5 foot in the air clearly dead and, judging by the marks on its body, previously abused.

Just because I eat meat does not mean I advocate animal cruelty. Humans themselves evolved as carnivores, the proof is in the fact that we have canine teeth to rip through meat.

Stop trying to insinuate that because I eat meat I advocate animal cruelty. It’s false and actually quite insulting.

Another prime example of a vegan trying to take the moral high ground.

Why do vegans insist on being stupid. In the civilised world we do not eat dogs or cats or similar type animals, we eat meat from animals bred for meat. If no one ate meat, the world would have to compensate and grow more crops. All of the fields made for grazing would have to be turned into growing fields, and all the leftover animals. They would be slaughtered in their millions. Pigs are born to be eaten, they serve no other purpose.

‘…vegan trying to take the moral high ground’.

No. Vegans have the moral high ground.

‘How’, you say?: because 23 people (on this status alone) don’t like to see animals being abused, then there are an additional few people on this post don’t like to see animals being abused. Their morals dictate that animal cruelty is a bad thing (hence them not wanting to see it), yet they continue to support it by buying the products that come from this abuse, which goes against their own morals. So, of course, vegans are on higher ground, morally, because we see the suffering of animals, do not like it and, regardless of whether we make a difference as individuals, we stop supporting the cruelty done to them in our name.

‘Just because I eat meat, does not mean I advocate animal cruelty’.

Where do you think your animal products come from? All animal products involve slavery. Meat involves death. Dairy involves rape, infanticide and torture. That isn’t cruel though, right? You might not agree with the abuse done to companion animals, but that is totally different. You need to be more specific because you absolutely cannot give a single fuck about ‘animals’ as a whole and still think of them as nothing more than slaves for your selfish desires.

‘We have canines… Are carnivores… Blah, blah, blah…’

I think you meant omnivore. You are a carnist though, since you don’t need to eat meat but choose to. Your choice to eat meat is as much a ‘belief’ as my choice not to, so stop trying to make it sound like what you do is normal. 

That said, you are not even an omnivore. All herbivores (which is what humans are) have canines. Your body is not built to eat meat, in any aspect. Read here.

‘In the civilized world we do not eat cats and dogs’

You call vegans stupid yet did not see how incredibly racist that statement is. You sound just like Morrissey!

China breeds dogs and cats for consumption, just like we breed pigs and cows (I am aware of some instances of companion animals being stolen for this trade, but this is not the norm). You have been brought up to think it is OK to eat cow, someone from China is brought up to think it is OK to eat cat. In moral terms; you are exactly the same. 

‘If no one ate meat, the world would have to compensate and grow more crops…’

You do realise that, in order to grow and produce the flesh that you eat, animals need to be fed, right? 

There are around 70 billion livestock animals worldwide each year, killed for flesh. There are just over 7 billion people. If we manage to feed all of those non-human animals, why do struggle to feed comparatively few people? Livestock animals eat around 65% of the world’s crops. Take them out of the equation and feeding every human wouldn’t be an issue (there are other issues, I know). You could also free up a lot of land since there would not need to be as much food grown and there wouldn’t need to be any land for farmed grazing.

Veganism isn’t going to happen overnight, so don’t try and pull the ‘I eat a few pigs to save the slaughter of millions’ bullshit. It’s weak and it makes you look like an idiot. Read here for a more in depth answer to that particular hypothetical gem.

‘Pigs are born to be eaten, they serve no other purpose.’

This one statement makes the rest of my post utterly futile. This is the kind of anthropocentric mentality that prevails throughout the carnist society. It’s all about what non-humans (and humans) can do for you, not how can you be of any help to them.

You’re right: a pig serves no other purpose to you except making you not hungry anymore. For some people they offer companionship. But, by and large, their purpose here is to be food.

What is your purpose to a pig? You do absolutely nothing for a pig except cause him pain, misery and untimely death. If a pig were to kill you because of how useless you are to him, would that be fair? That’s different, though, because you’re human, right?

A pig is not here to ‘serve a purpose’ for you as much as you are not here to serve a purpose for him. You both have your own lives that you are entitled to. You both have a desire to be free and live as you please. The only difference is, the pig has been put into a system where his basic right to a life is taken away, and you have not.

Putting an animal into the farming system does not make him a mindless drone, he still has the same desires.

I don’t even know where to start with this.  Propaganda like this is almost as bad as the stuff coming from the tea party.

It’s funny when people think that ‘I don’t even know where to start with this’ is a credible argument that absolves their ignorance. What it basically means is ‘I don’t want to acknowledge this information so I will insinuate that it is so stupid that it is not worth my time say why it is stupid. I’ll throw in some sensationalist words like ‘propaganda’ and ‘Tea Party’ to show how serious I am, too’.

Most of my post was not scientifically based, more based on moral logic. But, for the parts I think you were referring to as ‘junk’ and ‘psudo-science’, please peruse the following:

Eating meat and claiming to be against animal cruelty is ridiculous. Nothing to do with science here (psudo, or otherwise). Just absolute, unadulterated, self-serving, illogical bullshit.

“Agriculture, particularly meat and dairy products, accounts for 70% of global freshwater consumption, 38% of the total land use and 19% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, says the report, which has been launched to coincide with UN World Environment day on Saturday.” - Source

“As much as 80% of the global soybean crop and 40-50% of the annual corn crop are fed to cattle, pigs, chickens, and other animals used in agriculture”

“Typically, 3 kg (6.6 lb) of grain is needed to produce just 1 kg (2.2 lb) of meat”

“According to his research, chickens fed a diet of corn and soybeans can only utilize 20% of the protein present in those grains, meaning that 80% is simply wasted; for pigs, 90% of the protein they are fed in grain is lost”

Source for above 3 quotes.

The only outside source I had used in the previous post was to further explain how human beings are herbivores. Do you think that there is going to be many sources out there that acknowledge this fact and remain carnist?

Plus, a lot of the organizations that research this kind of information are usually environmental/animal rights/human rights ones. It’s not exactly good business practice to actively publish information that says how shit your product/practices are, is it? Come on, now; use you brain… 

So, now you know ‘where to start’ with all this ‘Tea Party’-esque propaganda: by disproving the above.

I was stating that backing your pseudoscience with biased sources was ridiculous.

Wonderful how you just used another obviously biased source to support your argument.

Moral logic? Then why try to source pseudoscience articles to back it up?  Can you not see why I made the connection to the Tea Party?  They use “moral logic” to back up what they believe in as well, does that make them right?

Actually the illogicality of being against animal cruelty while eating meat is entirely based on your morals.  I, having personal direct experience growing up on small family farm, do not define raising animals for milk, eggs, or meat as being cruel.  This is entirely based on my personal morality.  Therefore, for me to be against animal cruelty but eat meat is entirely logical, not “Just absolute, unadulterated, self-serving, illogical bullshit.”

For example, chickens.  We have about 20 free range laying hens.  When I say “free range,” I don’t mean let out in a cage on a grass paddock.  I mean, literally FREE RANGE.  Our chickens can literally go wherever they want, there is no pen or cage.  They go all over our farm yard, which is in the middle of  wide open field, not surrounded by fences.  Yet, they return to the chicken house each evening and in winter they choose not leave the chicken house at all.  Why? Because we feed them and give them shelter.  This is not forced upon them, they could leave at any time.  We collect their eggs but I think this is pretty a amicable relationship, given that they haven’t run away. 

All of your moral logic is based on the fact that you are assigning human qualities to animals.  While this may seem logical in a “disney” like world where animals talk and have feelings like humans, it is entirely illogical in the real world.  Chickens are, for lack of a better word, dumb as shit.  They basically have 4 functions. Eat, sleep, lay eggs, and poop.  Their emotions basically fall between 2 catagories, completely unaware or complete freaked out.  They are not people.

This doesn’t mean that I think it’s ok to starve them, physically abuse them, or otherwise be cruel to them.  It does mean that realistically when you take eggs from a chicken, they do not have human feelings like a child being taken away from it’s mother or whatever else you might assign to the situation.  They hop off the nest and continue to peck for bugs, etc and poop.  PS, we feed them wheat and then are free to eat bugs or whatever they feel like, their eggs are quite rich in protein (thick, deep orange yolks) and quite tasty.  No corn or soy beans and wasted protein here, though that was more information from another biased source anyways haha.

All the facts you just posted and twisted to your means can be interpreted completely difference based on what you trying to prove. 

70% of the worlds fresh water consumption? Golly! Oh wait, that’s ALL agriculture, including your vegan diet.  Is that not a worthy use of fresh water?  Also the statement is that it’s 70% of our consumption of fresh water, not 70% of all fresh water.

“As much as 80% of the global soybean crop and 40-50% of the annual corn crop are fed to cattle, pigs, chickens, and other animals used in agriculture”

“Typically, 3 kg (6.6 lb) of grain is needed to produce just 1 kg (2.2 lb) of meat”

These figures are all fine and well, but there is no reference to the nutritional value of the meat or grain that was used to produce it.  Would a person get the same amount of protein out of 3kg of grain as they would 1kg of meat?  How much of that 3 kg of grain would actually be edible after it’s made it something that people eat?

“Do you think that there is going to be many sources out there that acknowledge this fact and remain carnist?”  Of course I don’t think there will be many outside sources that would present that as fact, because it’s absolute bullshit haha.

Use your brain. Disproving you? I think you just did it for me.

• The Guardian referencing the UN - Biased!
• The HSUS referencing the UN (amongst others) - Biased!
• Multiple UN reports on global agriculture and sustainability - Psudo-sceince!
• Redefines ‘abuse’ and ‘cruelty’ based on ‘family farm’ experiences and tries to pass off on others like his experience is the par.
• Fails to understand that an act of cruelty doesn’t become less cruel based on the reason behind/result of that cruelty.
• Fails to understand that all oppressors are operating under their ‘personal morality’ and that this does not justify their oppressions.
• Ascribes certain values to chickens but will probably get all bent of out of shape when I mention that mentally challenged people sometimes have less mental faculties than chickens.
• Insinuates that all animal use is justified because his chickens have learnt where their food comes from.
• Insinuates that someone has to be able to comprehend their exploitation/oppression for it to be valid.

Regarding the stats I posted: 

They were never meant to be an all encompassing view of the animal agriculture industry (certainly, not as concise as your experiences on a small family farm seem to be in terms of global agriculture!).

The HSUS document is pretty much a condensed UN report (did you look at the sources at the bottom of that report? Did you even read the report?), but the HSUS is not a vegan organization, anyway.

Agriculture is a good use of fresh water, yeah. But when (as it says) most of it is going towards meat and dairy, it is not going to good use. So what if it is 70% of ‘our fresh water consumption’ and not ‘total fresh water’, are you seriously denying that there is a global fresh water shortage?

A person would get far more protein out of 3kg of grain (depending on the grain) than 1kg of meat, are you even for real? That isn’t even to mention how much saturated fat, cholesterol, residual drugs and other bullshit they wouldn’t be getting. I suppose that these figures take into account that the reader is not a nutritionally ignorant fuckhead…

Grain is made low-grade because it is fed to livestock. Even with low-grade grain; I’m pretty sure any one of the millions of starving people throughout the world would prefer to eat that than die…

The fact that we are herbivores is ‘bullshit, haha’. Fuck, how can I even argue with that. Really, top drawer!

I asked you to use your brain. If this is an honest attempt at doing so then I feel sorry for you and those who have educated you. 

(NOTE: any questions asked that I have asked in here, I do not really require an answer to. Reblog, if you please, but I won’t be engaging you any further).