We (those of us who don't support the cruelty, death and exploitation of animals) can (and do) *do everything* by not supporting such products, or certainly as far as out part in the process is involved.
Thereore *everyone* has the same power / oppertunity, if you *choose* to not cause pain, suffering and the death of trillions of animals a year, simply by making some lifestyle changes.
Those that don't actually GAF about animals (or indirectly anyone else) will carry on causing them pain, suffering, death and exploitation of course (and continue to try to justify it for their own selfish reasons).
It's a nice sound bite, but does not hold up to any scrutiny in the modern world.
It's like saying you should only drive a car if you are prepared to service it yourself, and drill for and refine the oil for its fuel.
Or (taking a more DIY angle) only using toilet if you are prepared to plumb it in yourself.
There are a multitude of products I consume where I would not or could not acquire or produce them myself. It's the foundation of pretty much every business that is built on the convenience of the customer.
Much the same argument can apply to the tomato. You could look at the fact that it's force grown under glass at high environmental cost, or alternatively transported very significant distances around the world just so that you can have a tomato any time of the year, and not just when they are in season locally. There is nothing "natural" about being able to buy a strawberry at this time of the year, but I am sure I could do that as well.
Last time I checked you could milk a cow or collect eggs from a chicken without killing it...
So at best there is justification for going vegi if you object to chopping up Daisy.
It *is* necessary if I want meat, unless I am going to only have a diet of road kill!
(I assume road kill is acceptable? Waste not want not and all that!)
It's nothing like either. I was talking of things that have a direct consequences (esp death) to others or things that you cause that are antisocial, like littering. Get caught littering and you may well get community service and that could easily be litter picking.
See, some people can't be asked to do something, they have to be made to, and if they don't because of peer / social pressure, the law will often kick in to make them. Take all the examples of people 'refusing' to wear a mask in a shop. It doesn't matter what they think about the whole thing, even if they think it's all a scam / conspiracy, that's what we are supposed to do to benefit *everyone* they should be no (bogus) exceptions (just because they are ignorant of the potential consequences of their actions).
formatting link
Again, nope. You should be prepared to unblock it if you put stuff down it that blocks it, especially if you do so knowing the chances are that it will.
formatting link
The issue with the above is:
Some people really haven't ever considered the real world facts re the animal involvement of their food choices.
Many simply don't want to watch footage or the actual action that shows the consequences of their choices because it's too uncomfortable.
Many may be able to watch such but are so conditioned they allow their cognitive dissonance to ignore it on the ground that it 'has to happen'.
Back to one of my first posts here on the subject. You have to take a test to drive a car (because you could inadvertently kill someone if you don't), you have to take a test before you become a vet (because you could kill inadvertently someone if you don't) .. but you don't have to take a test to pull the trigger on an animal and watch it being butchered when the consequences of doing what you do *will* cause the death of someone?
formatting link
Of course? But if you gave 'most people' the choice of car tyres where some required the death of an animal and the others didn't, and everything else was equal, don't you think 'most people' (when asked to actually consider the consequences of their choices) would choose the ones that didn't involve animals?
And you do realise that anyone can eat vegan foods or use vegan products?
Depending on how much of a distraction from the spirit of the point you wanted that particular rabbit hole to take you?
Assume it was 'at high environmental cost' of course, when it needn't be.
Of course.
Yup? But again, the fact that you can, doesn't mean that we should be able to.
Unfortunately that's because you only see the immediate affect on the animals John.
~50% of the egg laying chicks are macerated (unwanted males).
(Nearly?) All of the male dairy cows are either killed at birth or killed after a few months (veal). The dairy cows are killed after ~6 years, not the ~20 they might live in the wild.
See above. Now, egg producing industry accepts the mail egg chicken thing is 'an issue' and so they are working on ways to minimise the number of males that get born. More unnatural manipulation of the species to further our exploitation of them.
Something isn't necessarily if it's a want (not a need).
I *want* all sorts of things but I'm sure you would be willing to stand up and defend yourself if I tried to take them from you.
Again, your assumption that if *you* didn't take them, other animals wouldn't?
It's bad enough an animal should die needlessly because of us, even worse when you deny some other (wild) animal potentially *surviving* on it (unless you are in such a desperate position you need roadkill to survive)? ;-(
Even if we take that as consumed by the entire worldwide population of 7 x 10 ^ 9 people, that would be over 11,000 each - every many woman, child and baby. The fact that you are claiming that is just in the US - even if you allow for a significant amount being exported it does not add up.
As a *family* of five adults, I doubt we even eat a whole pig in a year...
You seem to be doing a harry - pointing to a web page that disagrees with what you argue:
"How many animals are killed for food in the US each year?
The United States Department of Agriculture reports that 9.59 billion land animals were slaughtered in 2018"
and
"Taken together, more than 55 billion land and sea animals die annually to support the U.S. food supply"
Beats living the 'natural' life you would otherwise sentence animals to
- even the goose realises that - but apparently, you would condemn them to a shortened, brutal, parasite- and disease-ridden existence that you hold worthy as being 'natural'.
You don't live a 'natural' life, it's to your shame that you want to foist it on those that can't answer back.
I think you are getting desperate John, very disingenuous of you to cut the links I was referencing. Here, let me put them back again for you.
formatting link
formatting link
I'm not 'claiming' anything, I'm referencing external information that suggests some figures. Personally, IDGAF if it is just 1 of 50 trillion, one is one too many.
Well, as you seem keen to keep focusing on the (irrelevant) detail rather than the spirit of the discussion ... and that is 'fucktons' of animals are killed each year, just because (in the main) people like how they taste.
See above.
Ah, so the whole world is represented by the US and yet another strawman in an effort to avoid the point.;-(
John, we have already established you don't respect the lives or any cruelty imposed on animals, just because you have been indoctrinated to only see (some species?) as food and that you are honest enough to admit that you are selfish in that fact. Animals die for you to eat them and that's fine by you.
As I said previously, you have therefore set out your stall and I'll not bother discussing it any further with you.
It's not *just* the numbers, it's all the other negatives that surround the breeding, keeping, slaughtering and consumption of animal flesh and their excretions worldwide that is already an issue for us that *I'm* considering, not any single facet of it in isolation.
One person driving on the grass might not be an issue. Thousands of people doing so will be.
Your drive to force people to understand a small part of the food chain they enjoy would be better understood if you put your food where your mouth is, and demonstrated your commitment to the fundamental principles of your vegan diet by only consuming vegetables, fruit, and cereals that were encompassed by being a) in season, b) UK sourced, preferably within walking distance, and c) unprocessed; that is, natural foods.
Somehow, I don't see you doing that. You want to enjoy the full range of your foods, but sourced from anywhere, and transported, stored, and distributed at great cost - something you only mention obliquely when you speak of the delicious but factory-made frankenfoods that have been highly processed to look like and taste like the meat that you refuse to eat.
You know what's good for everyone else - and so your blatherings are worthless.
Tim, I know we disagree on the ethics etc. but I respect your POV.
The point is, from the sites you linked to, I counted around 55 billion (including shellfish etc.) annually in the USA. That doesn't equate to your 90 trillion, not by a long way.
Maybe you meant 90 billion? Or got the 90 trillion figure from elsewhere? Either way, it undermines your argument if the figures you quote don't stack up and people who are less inclined to consider your points might grab that figure as a perfect example that you don't know what you're talking about. Even if you do, IYSWIM.
How about you cut him a break Spike? He has his views and is entitled to air them. If you don't want to see his posts then killfile him. Think of it as slaughtering his posts, if that would make you happy ;-)
(I realise the irony that I'm having a moan about you airing your views. But that's just me airing mine.)
I don't see a problem with this discussion behind an OT header which we can easily chose to ignore.
Tim advocating a Vegan lifestyle seems to be linked to that of his now deceased step daughter and, apart from fact checking, should perhaps be given some latitude.
Well it's sorta easy to if I don't support the suffering and death of animals for no morally justifiable reason?
Unfortunately, your reply indicates to me that you aren't really interested in the spirit of the point but finding any opportunity to take any argument down a rabbit hole.
If I had said it was 10 trillion or 1 million, would that have made any difference to you, as it wouldn't have made the slightest difference to me.
As I have stated, you have (also) set your stall out, you have made it clear you don't respect (some?) animals enough to not cause them suffering and death, simply because you like how their flesh or secretions taste and so there really isn't anything more to say is there?
You can try to think that causing the unnecessary of pain and suffering to innocent, intelligent, highly sentient creatures is morally or ethically acceptable because you think you (we) have ultimate dominion over these creatures when that dominion really means we should *only* care for and protect them, not exploit them.
formatting link
Ego, selfishness, belief, denial, indoctrination or just not fully understanding the bigger picture?
Thanks for your support but it's not needed (because it won't work in any case).
Spuke has 'issues'. He actually believes I (individually) can stop him eating meat and he tries to resist that to the bitter end.
ITRW, I have no such ability / control and so he is fighting ghosts, shooting the messenger and all that.
Because I now ignore him (and others with a similar issue, I gave them all the chance), it obviously makes him / them worse, as you can see from the fanatic escalation of the ridiculousness of his postings.
He then try's to give me genuine help / advice on other subjects, further demonstrating he is lacking when 'human' intercommunication is concerned. He can't help it, I don't blame him.
So for his own good, I now leave him just spray his own keyboard with his bile and frustration and therefore any eventual meltdown will be of his own doing. I am not willing to be his care in the community.
I cut the rest of the stuff since I was replying only to one specific point - i.e. that the numbers you quoted were not credible or even backed up by the site you linked to.
(the numbers they give are also questionable)
Well you said it above...
but not the 80 x 10 ^ 12 that you mentioned.
Ah, so if it suits *your* agenda it's fine to make up BS stats on the fly then?
So if that is the key point, why discredit it with bogus statistics?
While we are at it, lets also sweep aside this notion that its all about, and only about taste preference. Now don't get me wrong - many meats and meat based products are indeed delicious as I am sure you will remember.
However animal products not only represent very good source of many nutrients. They supply a wide range of natural materials used not only in food preparation, but also clothing, insulation, brushes, (yay more DIY links), fertiliser, tableware, a vast array of drugs and medicines, plastic manufacture, detergents, solvents, chemical manufacturing agents, colourants, polishes, soaps, perfumes, beers, wines... the list is endless, and much of this is deeply woven into the world economy.
*Vast* numbers of jobs and industries depend on animal products.
As they saying goes, when you breed a pig for food, you can make use of everything but the squeal! Man has had millennia to find practical uses for everything we get from animals - this about way more than just food.
So if you wish to have various livestock animals go back to the brink of extinction, you better have a plan to keep the world economy going along with it as well. If you think some advertising on TV is "pushback", you may find the response more robust when you try taking away people's livelihoods as well.
I did, and it does.
Nice try, but not letting you get away with that. *You* claimed 80 trillion in the US alone this year. That was not supported by the site you linked to, so I am assuming that is your claim and not a quote.
(and even if it was a quote - some basic sanity checking might not be a bad idea if you are going to rest an argument on it)
- yes I know - that's not the point! (the point being something nebulous that will shift as required huh?)
No, all we have established is that you don't believe I respect the lives of animals. That is your problem not mine.
You don't seem to understand that someone raising livestock professionally can care about their animals where the motivation is common decency and humanity and not all "just about profit". (think about it for a moment, if you did not like animals, are you seriously going to commit to a life of very hard work looking after them?)
You also don't appear to comprehend how someone can both care for an animal's well-being while alive, but then also eat it. Again, this is a failure in your understanding.
Indeed. If it bothered me I might consider a vegetarian diet.
That's fine - however if you are going to post BS to further your agenda, then I will call you out on it, respond or not as you please.
Yeah, well I am looking at the bigger picture including not just the negatives but also also the positives.
T i m has less of a PoV than he is a regurgitator of fabulous figures fed to him by those he would believe.
My view is that he needs help of some sort, and in a roundabout way I'm trying to encourage him along that path by showing him where he's wrong. Others have tried this approach too. Only he has to reach the point where he can realise that he has a problem, and then he will be able to progress from there, and agreeing with him or ignoring him may well make him worse rather than better,
His diet may not be helping, as there was a three-month period after starting it when he was the T i m we all knew, but after that time he started his wild crusade. This is approximately the time span when B12 stores run out, which can lead to mental confusion and other mental effects - there plenty of info out there on this.
Whilst that played a part (her cause of death was bowel cancer, a known risk involved with the consumption of processed meats and she loved her ham etc), it's more coincidental in that daughter, after supporting her half sister though and after the end (dealing with her funeral arrangements etc), was triggered to look at her own lifestyle, morals and ethics and went from vegetarian to vegan in veganuary 2020, and we joined her to both support her, plus align our own lifestyles with our moral beliefs.
That's part of the point of the whole open discussion thing here. I am open / looking for facts from the 'other POV', but likewise, ideally when it's open and honest.
It's potentially very difficult to get that from someone who has a background, a vested interest in the animal agriculture 'industry' for all sorts of perfectly understandable (in irrational) reasons.
Again, within reason I have some interesting conversations on the subject here with the 'normals' (including you <g>). I suspect that many agree with the idea of not subjecting animals to suffering and death in principal and are aware they are supporting it themselves in their purchases, just they aren't in a position (mentally or physically) to make that move and don't comment.
Others will deny any cruelty (because none was applied 'intentionally') and suggest that killing them for no reason (other than taste) can be done 'humanely' (when humane means 'showing compassion and benevolence).
Some have stated they DGAF about animals, and their unnecessary suffering and death (although in some cases that's likely to be logical inconsistency or bravado etc).
The trolls are trolls and can easily be ignored (to their apparent increasing frustration).
I'm sure anyone thought history, trying to increase the wellbeing of some at the cost of others came up against push back, likely only from those who are making financial gain from any suffering or want to protect any gratification they may gain themselves.
We start with the 'fucktonnes' (save me proving a number that will give people an opportunity to deviate from the point) of live stock that are artificially raised, killed soon after birth (I than you for that fact as per male egg chicks), or kept in unnatural surroundings and numbers (chickens, fish, pigs), often mutilated to protect them from the consequences of that situation (beak trimming, tooth cutting, tail removal etc), fed man made foods (often causing habitat destruction and thousands of feed miles) before being gassed or electrocuted and killed ... and then work down (to pets etc) from there.
My biggest regret? Not aligning my lifestyle with my morals sooner.
Had I 'made them up' then you would have had a point.
Do you think I have that sort of information to hand, or that I looked it up somewhere (several places in fact)?
But we digress again, the *actual* number doesn't really matter, once it's gone over none. ;-)
See above.
It seems to be the case from the replies of some (even) here?
I do indeed.
But at a cost many consider to be 'too high'.
And many now being substituted with non animal based alternatives, not only because of pressure from consumers, the marketing opportunity to those consumers but the ethics of some of the manufacturers. Once they go to non animal based / derived materials they say 'we are *proud* to ...'.
And I dare say many got a good living from slave / fur trading or being wheelwrights, blacksmiths and 'machine operators' but times change.
I know, it's also about (ignoring the cruelty aspects for now), the waste of resources, habitat destruction, the pollution, the human suffering (health, mental stress for the slaughter men / butchers / meat packers) and GW gases etc etc.
What?!? You think we care about man-made animals not existing any more? Why would we?
It's called 'the future' John. You know, technological solutions for a technological age.
Just what the slave traders, hangmen, torturers and witch finders said.
The point being 'people livelihoods' have been changing since the beginning of time and no more than it is today. When I started work, if you worked hard and kept your nose clean you would have a 'job for life'. That's no longer the case, even pre pandemic.
I didn't and it doesn't. ;-)
It only does if you are applying black and white rules to a principal John.
I am saying that 'fucktonnes' of animals are bred, made to suffer (if only mentally) and killed for no reason. You are then arguing with (just the) 'fucktonnes', not the general spirit of the message.
NO I DID NOT.
Statement made by Scion: ">80 trillion? Are you sure? That sounds like a lot."
Reply by me, referencing *just* the USA. "*This* is just in the USA and just *this year*." (< emphasis put on 'This' in the cope it clarifies the focus of my reply).
This >>>>> "
formatting link
formatting link
" Here is another kill counter for you that talks in trillions ... like I said, not that I care as soon as it's more than one:
formatting link
See above. Crossed wires.
I'm not. See elsewhere. I guess this could be a function of being a right brainer ... I only need enough weight_of_evidence for me to get the spirit of something, I'll not get bogged down with the details if that isn't *the point*).
Quite. ;-)
No, I don't 'believe' you don't? You don't?
It becomes all our problems, if we all have to live with the consequences of it all.
Before gassing them to death and cutting their throats, specifically when they are very young?
See, working in an animal sanctuary, even for money, is all about the animals. Working as a domestic pet vet is the same. Checking that a macerator is doing what it should efficiently isn't part of the oath most vets or RSPCA officers believed they signed up for.
Of course, when there is some good money to be made?
Why is it then that many livestock (specifically) have 'given up' their livestock, to a sanctuary because the emotional stress / pressure has just got too much for them?
formatting link
formatting link
formatting link
>
Quite, because it's an oxymoron John.
Try replacing 'caring' with 'looking after their own fanatical interests' and you may be nearer the truth.
Or are you saying that people take up jobs in the animal flesh industry because that's how they can best demonstrate their love of animals?
It really isn't John.
Ok, first principals (playing your game):
Person A loves animals and protects them over long and enriched lives till they die a natural death in their old age.
Person B loves animals, only allows them to live for a fraction of their natural lives then kills them.
Which one of those two would you put money on for *actually* caring for animals, given the two choices?
I know, as I have said, you have very clearly 'set out your stall'.
As and when I actually do (rather than it being your opinion of what I do, as above), you are more than welcome to.
If you were one of the fuckloads of animals, I'm not sure *you* would find many positives mate.
And that would be a terrible shame. Luckily there will be some 'sheep' still living in the sanctuaries, well for a least for a good 6 years after all the others that went off in the truck in the other direction.
A bullshit artist would only reference a bullshit website and think it's the right thing to do.
No, you probably don't care. You just hate the idea that more than one person eats meat and meat products and that their loved ones are willing to cook them.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.