Veganism/Oppression of Animals (merged)

A forum for the respectful exchange of views on thought-provoking topics, whether sexuality-related or otherwise; please read the guidelines prior to posting.

Forum rules

Welcome to the Intellectual Discussion subforum.

This forum is the place for intellectual discussions, such as philosophical or scientific debates. There are some guidelines that apply specifically to posts in this forum, of which you will be expected to have made yourself aware before participating. They are as follows:

  • Intellectually stimulating topics only. If you can't have a deep discussion about something, it does not belong here.
  • If you're going to post, have something to say. When you make a new thread, write the initial post in a way that provides an introduction to the topic and invites further discussion. You could tell us how you feel and why, but always aim for constructive responses that further a discussion about the ideas involved, rather than a simple list of people's views. (Instead of asking "Are you a vegetarian?", discuss some of the arguments involved.) This guideline likewise applies for responses to topics.
  • Write using good English. That means full sentences with proper capitalisation, punctuation, spelling and grammar. No one is perfect, though; this is not an invitation to criticise others for minor mistakes.
  • Be nice. This is a forum for rational discourse, not flame wars. No one is always right. Be respectful of other people's views and accept that we are all entitled to our own.

These guidelines will be enforced by the moderators based on their best judgement, and anyone who does not take them seriously will lose the privilege of posting here. Spammers will be banned from the entire forum.

Re: Veganism/Oppression of Animals (merged)

Unread postby Togetik » 16th February, 2017, 7:15 pm

Please don't cite "a study" for wild claims, it'd be nice to actually have said study linked. It also sort of goes without saying, but if it's just one study that goes against mainstream knowledge, and the bulk of scientific research, it's almost certainly an issue with the one study rather than the bulk of scientific knowledge
Last edited by Togetik on 16th February, 2017, 8:23 pm, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
Togetik
Member
 
Posts: 589
Likes received: 79
Joined: 5th February, 2016, 11:24 pm
Country: Australia (au)

Re: Veganism/Oppression of Animals (merged)

Unread postby PHMED » 16th February, 2017, 7:37 pm

freakism wrote:Not all animals are kept in cages and 'tortured' as you put it. Free range, quite often organic, meat and animal produce allow animals to live comfortable lives, undoubtedly more pleasant than any potential life they might have in the wild. Personally I wouldn't eat any produce that I know to have been farmed in such grim conditions created by factory farming - although I am certain that at points in my life I have unfortunately eaten meat, dairy produce or eggs created from such conditions.

I understand where you are coming from, but they are still being slaughtered at the end of the day. There is no humane way of killing a sentient being if they are not asking to be killed by their own will. This is still not acceptable in terms of veganism; if you switched all the animals from farm-factory to "organic" and grass-fed animals, you ill have an even bigger problem because this is not sustainable in terms of the use of land. You would need to destroy even more land just to accommodate for the animals. Despite the "less-cruel" conditions, animal-contributed green house emission will still exist. Get rid of animal agriculture, simple!

freakism wrote:If meat is obtained through the hunting of wild animals, is this more acceptable? Despite mankind having rather more advanced methods, we became a predator. The evolution of our species to be able to use tools led us towards this. If an animal lives a natural life, in the wild, and then I kill it to consume it surely there is little difference to if another predator killed it.

You see, this is the problem. You believe the tools have made it possible for us to eat meat. Understand that our biology says other wise. We cannot take down prey ourselves without these tools. Just look at our biology, we did not grow with these tools in our body--our bodies are not built to take down large pray.

freakism wrote:we have evolved culturally as well. Across the world practically every culture consumes meat, eggs, dairy produce.

Exactly, this is the whole issue. We are so conditioned. It is embedded into our psyche that we should find it completely acceptable to consume meat. It is a global cultural acceptance (for the most part). Which is why when someone who decides to go the other way (in this case, plant-based) you get scrutinized. Most people are blind to the reality, and the meat-industry wants you to stay in this mode of complacency because they are profiting off of it.

freakism wrote:Thus we can consider whether it is ethical to kill another creature for our benefit. But what do these creatures in turn do? Deer eat the bark off of trees (and the occasional bird, apparently) which, with the tree losing its protective "skin", often causes rotting and death. Birds pick at insects and worms, taking them to their young. Lions hunt and devour gazelle as a group. These animals do what they need to survive and pass on their genes. Are we not merely doing the same, based on what we have gained over the millennia? Why is this wrong?

It is unfair to pick one thing that animals do and apply it to humans. Lions sniff each others asses when they greet one another, but you surely don't! Why is it okay to solely participate in ONE activity that other animals do so we could better justify our wrong doings? Also, humans today are not even hunting like the other animals you are trying to compare humans to. We are FORCING animals to BREED, pumping them up with antibiotics and, all while CONTAINING them in a vicinity. No other species on this planet does that. We are a disease not only to the animals that are being unnecessarily slaughtered, but the entire planet. We take millions of fish from the oceans, our oceans are DYING for christ's sake--wake up to the madness!

It is not acceptable to say, "We have evolved to eat meat"--first of all no evidence truly suggests this, but stop and think about that for a minute. Is it even healthy for us? That should be your biggest concern. Meat consumption is not optimal for human health. We cannot deal with the high levels of cholesterol, trans and saturated fats that other species who are meant to eat meat can truly thrive on. There is a reason why fruits and vegetables make people feel BETTER. When is the last time you ate meat and actually felt ALIVE and WELL? This is completely different from feeling full, mind you. I recommend you try a green smoothie and eat a steak and tell me which one makes you feel better! I am sorry, but there are so many dense nutrients in plant-based foods and for anyone to argue that meat is an acceptable diets is BLIND, and FOOLISH.

freakism wrote:Also, your arguments about certain chemicals causing cancer

My focus was never on how chemicals cause cancer. In fact, many of the chemicals we say cause cancer in our foods have less of an affect on cancer rates than ANIMAL PROTEIN. This is a fact--read The China Study.

freakism wrote:starchy foods have recently been found to contribute towards cancer. A certain prevalence of carbohydrates in the diet can lead to obesity and diabetes. Fat contributes towards obesity little, as it is so difficult to break down (hence why it is difficult to lose weight), instead it is the basic sugars - obtained from fruits, vegetables and plant based matter - that are stored as fat in our bodies and cause blood sugar levels to rise. No food is perfect, for every problem that meat can contribute towards I can almost guarantee that there will be a plant based one to match it.

Please understand that the sugar in found fruits and vegetables are completely different sugars than the HIGHLY PROCESSED and REFINED SUGARS you find in your cereal boxes, breads, pastas, ice creams, packaged meats, yogurts, milk, etc. etc. There is a REASON why fruits have fiber. Fiber helps to slow down the digestion process, which makes the intake of sugars from fruit a lot more sustainable for your body. The fiber prevents insane sugar spikes compared to that of highly refined packaged foods. Get educated on food, please!

freakism wrote:Separately, please can I remind you that your condescending attitude and tone does not help you make your point. This sub-forum is a place for courteous discussion. I know that at times others have displayed a similar attitude towards you in this thread, but I have seen it from you rather more consistently - you make some interesting points but these often feel undermined by the way you write down to others. Please take the time to read through what you have written and consider whether you are expressing yourself in the best way before you press submit.


I am completely aware that I may be coming off aggressive, but I want to be very upfront about this: this is a subject that I talk about time and time again with everyone, and I get the same, tired and cliché arguments/stances against a plant-based diet/veganism. If I am coming off rude (which are not my intentions, I sincerely apologize). I am only here to present the evidence to you all and for you to make a decision. I am trying to EMPOWER you to make a decision on your behalf.
PHMED
Member
 
Posts: 101
Likes received: 4
Joined: 15th November, 2016, 9:32 pm
Location: Westwood, CA
Country: United States (us)

Re: Veganism/Oppression of Animals (merged)

Unread postby Togetik » 16th February, 2017, 8:27 pm

We are FORCING animals to BREED, pumping them up with antibiotics and, all while CONTAINING them in a vicinity. No other species on this planet does that.


This is kind of a misconception, just like the whole "Humans are the only species that wages war!!" thing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aphid#Ant_mutualism
User avatar
Togetik
Member
 
Posts: 589
Likes received: 79
Joined: 5th February, 2016, 11:24 pm
Country: Australia (au)

Re: Veganism/Oppression of Animtals (merged)

Unread postby ConnorM » 18th February, 2017, 4:06 pm

PHMED wrote:
ConnorM wrote:I have a couple of points to make. First of all, if we're going on about how we "aren't meant to eat meat" or whatnot biologically, well, we're also not meant to eat grain grasses.

An herbivorous species is not a species that solely engages in the consumption of grass.

ConnnorM wrote:Indeed, until the invention of the windmill for milling grain into finer powder, and the ability to grow wheat in areas where it was previously unavailable, teeth would literally be "ground down" by simple, mostly vegetarian diets over time. Now of course, there is significant evidence that these people ate butter - which is a fantastic source of fat and calories for an otherwise lacking diet - but, being as this is well before the invention of veganism, I'll count it as vegetarian. So, humans aren't designed to eat grains, indeed, we created all of the major grain grasses, except rice, which was less modified by selective horticulture than wheat, or rye, or millet, or buckwheat, or oats, or corn, which comprised the majority of post-agrarian revolution pre-industrial diets. So what does it matter that we've only been eating meat for 300,000 years or so when we've only been eating grains - which comprise much, if not most, of our diets, for the majority of people in the world - for about 10,000 years? We've been eating meat for at least 30 times longer than we've been eating grains, yet you don't seem to be against the eating of grain as "unnatural".

I am so sorry, but this is just plain ignorance and I feel very sad for you. You are using time lines as an argument to convince others that certain foods are better than others. I am deeply saddened by this.


(Emphasis mine)
You call me ignorant, yet you yourself don't seem to understand the difference between grasses and grain grasses.
Furthermore, your argument against meat works against your repudiation of my argument that grain is unnatural. You continue to say that
PHMED wrote:You see, this is the problem. You believe the tools have made it possible for us to eat meat. Understand that our biology says other wise. We cannot take down prey ourselves without these tools. Just look at our biology, we did not grow with these tools in our body--our bodies are not built to take down large pray.

We cannot eat grain without tools. I have said this before, and all you replied to this was that I'm "ignorant". I have, as a point of fact, attempted to eat raw grain, just to see how hard it actually is. It turns out that without cooking or processing it, it is impossible. Let me explain to you the steps it takes to prepare grain grasses to be eaten.
Firstly, you need to plow the field you intend to sow. This requires, at the very least, the use of tools. To do this efficiently, it requires the use of farm animals. In sowing a field, the soil is turned so that the vegetative matter at the top of the soil is composted, and the roots of the vegetation is broken. Then, you have to sow, either by hand, or by machine, either a tractor, or pulled by farm animals. Next after the grain grasses ripen, you have to reap (harvest) the grasses. This requires metal tools, at the very least. Stone is not capable of making a good scythe, for obvious reasons. If you work by hand, you need a scythe. By hand, a properly trained man can work an acre or two per day. A reaping machine, however, can reap fifty or more per day, and a combine harvester can reap two hundred and fifty or more. Next, the grain needs to be threshed. Threshing grain by hand requires dozens of men using flails. It is not fun, nor is it efficient. A threshing machine, such as is built into combine harvesters (hence the name "combine") automatically threshes the grain as it is reaped. After threshing the grain, it is then milled. Milling requires either small, hand-powered querns turning very fast, or massive, wind, water, or muscle-powered mills with a much greater depth on the bedstone in order to grind the grain into a fine-enough powder so that the resulting bread (once you've kneaded it and let it rise) won't grind your teeth down with its coarseness.
These are the tools that humans need just to eat bread. As you can see, your argument that "humans shouldn't eat meat because we don't have the biological tools to hunt" could just as easily apply to grain grasses. Our bodies, you see, aren't designed to eat grains.

Oh, also,
PHMED wrote:We are FORCING animals to BREED, pumping them up with antibiotics and, all while CONTAINING them in a vicinity. No other species on this planet does that.
Ants do that. What you are describing is basic animal husbandry. Some species of ants actually do that. Granted, they don't have an understanding of antibiotics (your whole "pump them full" of medicine bit), but they do what they need to do to survive.

As to your,
PHMED wrote:We are a disease not only to the animals that are being unnecessarily slaughtered, but the entire planet. We take millions of fish from the oceans, our oceans are DYING for christ's sake--wake up to the madness!

This is the kind of self-righteous appeals to emotion that I was talking about. Are humans an extinction event? Yes. Does that make humans bad? No. Life will easily carry on after we are gone, just as it carried on at the end of the Permian, or the Triassic, or the Cretaceous. We are no more a disease on this planet than any other animal - I would like to remind you that rats have probably contributed to more species extinctions than humans have. Life tends to clean the slate, every once in a while. It's like what happened during the Great Oxygenation Event.

Now, let me ask you, since you've gone on about "refined sugars" and all that other nonsense that you're spouting off, how much of your diet is what you yourself grow? What percentage of it? For myself, approximately 10% is what I or my family have grown. Canned tomatoes from my garden make the base of chilis and salsa, and the majority of my breakfasts (when I eat breakfast) come from eggs that my chickens have laid. Apples from the orchard are canned and become apple pie. Wheat and corn from the field are ground and become bread. But you seem to be so brought about into this "we need to be natural" nonsense that you don't seem to realize that the majority of what you eat was sowed and reaped by machine, using gasoline. So how about you "Get educated on food, please!" yourself. I have made my informed decision, thank you, and I'm going to continue to eat the eggs that my chickens lay.

I understand that I'm likely coming off as arrogant here. When people tell me to "educate myself" about my own food - things that I've grown by hand, and tell me that having chickens equivalent to torture, I tend to get defensive. Omelette, Root Beer, Poptart, French Fry, Abigail, Juno, Minerva, Eleanor, Artemis, and Manfred von Chicktofen are all doing just fine, thank you, for eight-year-old laying hens.
Image
User avatar
ConnorM
Sir Conor the Incompetent
 
Posts: 417
Likes received: 88
Joined: 14th December, 2013, 11:21 pm
Location: NY
Country: United States (us)

Re: Veganism/Oppression of Animals (merged)

Unread postby Mawd » 19th February, 2017, 2:49 am

Again with the condescending all caps jackassery. Also for someone who repeatedly asks us not to assume his points you're doing it a lot yourself.

PHMED wrote:
Mawd wrote:Do you even college bro? :rofl: seriously, if you could refrain from sounding like a condescending jerk that would be for the best.

In evolutionary biology, convergent evolution is the process whereby organisms not closely related (not monophyletic), independently evolve similar traits as a result of having to adapt to similar environments or ecological niches

This is exactly what I said, I do not need a definition--you are posting it as if I have misused it in another context. I have clearly been saying this whole time that HUMANS DO NOT SHARE ANY PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF THAT OF CARNIVORES, ESPECIALLY THAT RELATED TO DIGESTION! You and I both understand that the humans are not the same species as that of different carnivores, but what physical traits do we share with them? Is it the intestinal tract? NO. Is it the pH of our stomach acid? No. Is it our teeth? NO. Is it the way we sweat? NO. Is it the amount of time we take to digest food? NO. Is it the protein receptors on our tongue? Hell no! I don't understand how you can ignore all of this evidence, yet find reason to believe we share physical traits with carnivores.


Hi I never said that my argument relied on human omnivores requiring the physical traits of obligate carnivores. I've repeatedly called humans omnivores and not carnivores.
I have repeatedly said we do not need to share the same physical traits as obligate carnivores to benefit from meat. Or rather I have never implied that we needed their physical traits. Actually, clearly we don't have the same teeth as either true herbivores or carnivores so. I'd hazard that supports us being omnivores.
The trait I am saying we share, the trait we are talking about is the ability to consume meat to survive. Like I've been saying this whole time we have shared traits that enable us as omnivores.

I often show definitions to show how I am using them, it can provide needed context. Apparently despite my doing so you still misunderstood me. As I recall I originally called it a convergent evolution that human omnivores can process meat for sustenance similar to carnivores. You decided to say the exceedingly rude and condescending:

Dude, are you even in college? Convergent evolution is a concept that explains why two UNRELATED species may have the same phenotype. HUMANS DO NOT EVEN HAVE THE SAME PHENOTYPES AS CARNIVORES WHEN IT COMES TO DIGESTION, so this premise of convergent biology further debunks your argument.


Which is the whole reason I found it necessary to provide you with a definition. A definition I adhered to. I further unpacked what I meant by phenotype as well. Either you're choosing to ignore this, you're overwhelmed by the volume of responses here or you are simply too emotional to reason this out right now.

*Honestly when I go to such care in what I say having points completely ignored to have you write a paragraph of you straw manning me it's quite disheartening. I never made reference to obligate carnivore physical traits. I still think the burden of proof is on you that humans are natural herbivores given the overwhelming contrary context of our society and repeated classifications of humans as omnivores. Anyway tonight I'm going to eat several meat products and gain nutrients from them without becoming sick. Tonight billions of people will do the same and miraculously survive while living off the nutrients they provide.


PHMED wrote:
Mawd wrote:Yes humans evolved the capacity to render and process meat as part of an omnivorous diet despite not sharing all of the associated traits as carnivores.

But you're not stating which traits! WHAT TRAITS? What traits do we share that are exclusive to carnivores? If you could list some biological digestive traits that we share that are exclusive to carnivores, I will be convinced. I will wait.

Also, chimps eat only an average of 3% meat in their diets--if they eat too much meat, they will get sick. Meat eating is not at all necessary for a chimp. Species that are designed to eat meat can sustain levels of meat eating at incredibly high levels and not fall ill to the nutritional composition of the meat.


Traits, see above.
As can be proven by the amount of primarily meat eating humans alive today, by all the body builders, by the chefs, by the many other people that fall along a spectrum of meat eating, they rely on much more than 3% of their diet. Also watching chimps eat each other, scavenge various food sources, they are omnivorous. They're classified as omnivores. Just like how I repeatedly call humans omnivores.

See above*.

PHMED wrote:
Mawd wrote:I'm not cherry picking, the loss of the saggital crest and the associated amount of muscle mass is an established fact of our human evolution, one that is closely related to the diet of our ancestors at that time. In our earliest known hominid ancestor it was directly linked to heavy chewing. It's a well established theory that by reducing the amount of time required to find, secure, and eat/process food, we freed up time for other pursuits. I.E. our ancestors found more time to socialise and develop culture and communication by switching to foods that were less tough of which meat would have played a part.

You're choosing to ignore this important facet of our evolutionary history precisely to better support your own claims. This explanation of human development is extremely established. You should be learning it in any paper on evolutionary zoology that cares to have a section on the development of humans.

Please refrain from confusing people who are reading this thread. Human brain developmental theory is well developed in MULTIPLE areas of science, there is not one theory that solely fits the ENTIRE claim of the reason for a large brain in humans. Which is exactly why you are CHERRY-PICKING a SPECIFIC THEORY THAT IS PANNING IN YOUR FAVOR. There are an immense amount of theories that support the evolution of a humans brain: these theories range from CLIMATE, ECOLOGY, and SOCIAL INTERACTION! There is no fundamental theory of human brain development, and it sure as hell does not include the consumption of meat!


Hi, I'm talking about how the change in diets to a less restrictive and more opportunistic diet also helped our cultural and mental development due to the process of finding and consuming food requiring less energy.
Requiring less energy to do an important task is one of the drivers of evolution. I really hope I do not have to explain why.
I never said I had one catch all theory of human brain development. I said why the dietary changes supported it.
I think you are likely the person here most confused on this.
Like I said before the loss of the saggital crest on the hominid skull is linked to a loss of jaw musculature and an expansion of the cranium. The suspected reason why we lost all that musculature is that we found ways to consume food -plant and animal- that required much less chewing, this freed up time for other activity.

PHMED wrote:
Mawd wrote:The point is that you excluded one of our most important seasonings to try and fit your case. Salt is arguably our most important seasoning and one very important in bringing flavour to meat and it's not a plant. The important point I'm making is that you didn't say salt was a seasoning. I'm not sure if you misread here. Some plants are used as seasonings, correct. Though I am not sure how that takes away from what I'm calling out here. Nice obnoxious use of FACT though.

I don't need to exclude salt to fit my case, nor did I do it intentionally. Do not assume things about my argument. Both carnivores and herbivores have salt receptors on their tongues, salt is fundamental to all animals, especially mammals. Just because their is salt in meat, it doesn't mean it is okay to eat the meat for that sake. The salt content in raw meat is negligible to the salt content that we, humans, put on our meat while we are seasoning our food during the cooking process. There are only about 45 milligrams of sodium in cooked meat without added salt, this is not the average amount of sodium humans are eating today, I can tell you that right now. When salt is added to meat as a seasoning, it loads on an average of an extra 1,500 milligrams. This is an OVERLOAD to your sensory glands and is quite excessive.


In your words:
*We don't have fat receptors on our tongue which renders meat TASTELESS to us without seasoning (it is not ironic that seasoning is a plant).

I was simply pointing out that you had neglected salt. It did seem rather odd when you said that seasoning is a plant. Which let me infer my responses towards you. Seeing as you continue to assume things about my argument in some of the most obnoxiously condescending ways I've seen for a while; I will continue to infer things using your own words.
I'm confused why you now think I was arguing for eating meat because of the salt content it has. I'm confused why you would argue that in the same breath as telling me to not assume things about your argument. I was simply responding that salt is our primary seasoning for providing meat with taste.

PHMED wrote:And I'm not going to respond to the rest of what you have said due to time constraints and productivity of discussion.


Most of the rest of what I said amounts to please stop sounding like such a colossal prick. Also please stop being so self righteous.
However as I and ConnorM have repeatedly touched upon the agricultural industry is heavily invested in the use of animal products. Animal products also find their use in medicine, and a wide spread of other technological industries.
Animal products are extremely important to cellular agriculture particularly when testing for the presence of plant pathogens.
Also the agricultural industry is still exceedingly destructive to the environment based on the volumes of oil and other petrochemicals required to harvest, store, transport, and re-mineralise plants and soil.
The sheer logitstics of releasing every animal from the meat industry is an impossible task. It would likely require billions in employee funding alone, it would also require constant animal derived testing and vaccination to prevent a disease from decimating their populations.
Using Sea World and their at most a few hundred marine mammals as a model for rehousing the billions of animals of the farming industry is massively naive. It's completely laughable as a model of rehousing billions of land based mammals that have undergone millennia of human dependency.

ConnorM has already explained why tool use helps us eat both plants and meat products efficiently. Before humans had the tools to hunt we mostly found meat in our diets through scavenging. I think it is a huge fallacy to argue based upon what we can naturally do unaided given that we find much of our human ability derived from tool use. Why even our memory is further developed through tools.
Mawd
Appearing to Disappear; Community Ambassador
 
First name: Max
Posts: 7357
Likes received: 111
Joined: 6th March, 2011, 5:37 am
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Country: New Zealand (nz)

Re: Veganism/Oppression of Animals (merged)

Unread postby TeenageGaymer » 19th February, 2017, 11:42 am

I'm not the biggest fan of meat its take it or leave it. I avoid pork, not Muslim or Jewish, (technically you can't actually be gay an Muslim) Pigs are the worst treated and I hate it when my dad makes bacon or sausage, the smell makes me want to throw up. I only eat chicken, turkey, steak and burgers(come on, its America!) When it comes to meat, I'd try lamb but not so common around here. I like sea food a lot, but cocktail shrimp is pretty gross. Not the biggest fish fan. I'll eat technically any food from a plant except bananas, not a fan of the taste, they belong elsewhere in my body.
"The most basic principle to being a free American is the notion is that we as individuals are responsible for our own life and decisions" - Ron Paul
Currently playing: The Legend of Zelda: Windwaker HD, The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time 3d Master Quest, Super Mario Galaxy 2, occasionally Splatoon and Smash
Image
User avatar
TeenageGaymer
New Member
 
First name: Phoenix
Posts: 40
Likes received: 1
Joined: 18th February, 2017, 9:25 pm
Location: Orchard Park, New York
Country: United States (us)

Re: Veganism/Oppression of Animtals (merged)

Unread postby PHMED » 20th February, 2017, 4:16 pm

ConnorM wrote:We cannot eat grain without tools. I have said this before, and all you replied to this was that I'm "ignorant". I have, as a point of fact, attempted to eat raw grain, just to see how hard it actually is. It turns out that without cooking or processing it

You speak as if I claimed the creation of tools was a bad thing and a "push in the wrong direction". I never said the creation of tools was a bad thing for humans, I said the creation of tools has encouraged us to eat things that we were not meant to eat, which is the deadly animal protein that we get from animals.

In The China Study, the biomedical research did a twenty two year study in the lab on the effects of animal protein. He found that the causes of cancer were not at all related to carcinogens, but animal protein. There is no arguing against this, the study was so rigorous and still stands to this day. And it has nothing to do with the antibiotic/hormones that we put into the animals. It is solely the protein that you get from the animals that induces cancer.

And one may claim that plants have protein as well, but it is not true. The researcher again did a rigorous study and found that the effects of plant-based protein (much like the beneficial grains we use tools to eat) on carcinogens had no affect on cancer growth, nor was cancer induced whatsoever in the rat study. You can continue to use your tools for whatever you want to eat, but you're clearly making the wrong decision by eating animal protein, especially that of casein which is highly concentrated in eggs, milk, etc.--foods you have claim to enjoy on your farm everyday. You are not being healthy by eating these foods when the evidence/studies suggests otherwise. It's your farm versus the science, who do you expect for us to believe?

ConnorM wrote:Ants do that. What you are describing is basic animal husbandry. Some species of ants actually do that. Granted, they don't have an understanding of antibiotics (your whole "pump them full" of medicine bit), but they do what they need to do to survive.

Would you have even known this if someone hadn't posted a link? Furthermore, did you even care to read the Wikipedia link? The relationship between the ant and that of the aphid is a mutual relationship where each benefits from one another; the aphid is protected from the ant, not tortured and destroyed by it. The ant and the aphid have a mutualistic relationship and benefit from each other. The animals we put into the slaughterhouses do not benefit from our torture, they have no benefit for being in the slaughterhouses.

ConnorM wrote:This is the kind of self-righteous appeals to emotion that I was talking about. Are humans an extinction event? Yes. Does that make humans bad? No. Life will easily carry on after we are gone, just as it carried on at the end of the Permian, or the Triassic, or the Cretaceous. We are no more a disease on this planet than any other animal - I would like to remind you that rats have probably contributed to more species extinctions than humans have. Life tends to clean the slate, every once in a while. It's like what happened during the Great Oxygenation Event.

That is not self-righteous at all, that is science. The oceans are dying at the hands of the animal agricultural industry. According to you, we should have an attitude that speaks, "Sure, let's keep doing this even if we know it's bad for us and the planet". You're not making any sense, and I like to think of you as someone who is smarter than this. Humans have the capacity, according to you and Mawd to think on higher level than any species on this planet--we have the ability to reason like no other. We have the science that suggests oceans are being depleted by the animal agriculture industry, but according to you we should just ignore this and fuck shit up. Sure, there are absolutely other contributors to the depletion of oceans but animal agriculture is still the number one factor despite other factors. We should still ignore it, according to you.

ConnorM wrote:Now, let me ask you, since you've gone on about "refined sugars" and all that other nonsense that you're spouting off, how much of your diet is what you yourself grow? What percentage of it? For myself, approximately 10% is what I or my family have grown. Canned tomatoes from my garden make the base of chilis and salsa, and the majority of my breakfasts (when I eat breakfast) come from eggs that my chickens have laid. Apples from the orchard are canned and become apple pie. Wheat and corn from the field are ground and become bread. But you seem to be so brought about into this "we need to be natural" nonsense that you don't seem to realize that the majority of what you eat was sowed and reaped by machine, using gasoline. So how about you "Get educated on food, please!" yourself. I have made my informed decision, thank you, and I'm going to continue to eat the eggs that my chickens lay.

How is refined sugar nonsense? Are you just typing just to talk for the sake of talking?

I don't grow my own crops, I do not live on a farm and it is quite sad that I know more about nutrition than you do. At this point, you are assuming things about my argument that I have never even said to begin with. You're talking about the food industry's tactics to mass produce for the population, when I am talking about the consumption of meat as being an unnatural process for our biology. The logistics of the food industry is not the debate here, so please just sit down and go somewhere with your "talking in circles" remarks. You don't even make sense at this point. Nothing you say is supported other than the fact that you seem to be a farmer. You're ridiculous and a sad person.

ConnorM wrote:I understand that I'm likely coming off as arrogant here. When people tell me to "educate myself" about my own food - things that I've grown by hand, and tell me that having chickens equivalent to torture, I tend to get defensive. Omelette, Root Beer, Poptart, French Fry, Abigail, Juno, Minerva, Eleanor, Artemis, and Manfred von Chicktofen are all doing just fine, thank you, for eight-year-old laying hens.

You're coming off as both arrogant and inflexible to the truth of things. The reality is that you are harming your body. You are so blind to it that you find reason to argue with me. You look past all the evidence because of the "nutritious" eggs your chickens lay. Keep eating the eggs (which is literally a chickens period, lol).
PHMED
Member
 
Posts: 101
Likes received: 4
Joined: 15th November, 2016, 9:32 pm
Location: Westwood, CA
Country: United States (us)

Re: Veganism/Oppression of Animtals (merged)

Unread postby freakism » 20th February, 2017, 5:25 pm

PHMED wrote:In The China Study, the biomedical research did a twenty two year study in the lab on the effects of animal protein. He found that the causes of cancer were not at all related to carcinogens, but animal protein. There is no arguing against this, the study was so rigorous and still stands to this day. And it has nothing to do with the antibiotic/hormones that we put into the animals. It is solely the protein that you get from the animals that induces cancer.

And one may claim that plants have protein as well, but it is not true. The researcher again did a rigorous study and found that the effects of plant-based protein (much like the beneficial grains we use tools to eat) on carcinogens had no affect on cancer growth, nor was cancer induced whatsoever in the rat study. You can continue to use your tools for whatever you want to eat, but you're clearly making the wrong decision by eating animal protein, especially that of casein which is highly concentrated in eggs, milk, etc.--foods you have claim to enjoy on your farm everyday. You are not being healthy by eating these foods when the evidence/studies suggests otherwise. It's your farm versus the science, who do you expect for us to believe?


The China Study is a book, based on a 20 year long observational study (that is- they looked a sample of a population).
The "Diet, Life-Style and Mortality in China" study revealed that levels of stomach cancer are higher in China. The study acknowledges that it is limited by the fact they have looked at a genetically homogenous group. No mention is made of the fact that there are a number of cultures which consume animal products and yet have low levels of cancer and "western" diseases. The study discusses how deaths due to malnutrition have fallen since the end to the 1940s, partially due to adoption of western diets. However one of the significant contributors towards mortality was the intake of wheat. A plant.

There is not a single iota of evidence that suggests that carcinogens do not contribute towards cancer and that animal protein is the sole cause

Peto literally points out that the rapid prevalence of cigarettes is the most pressing cause of premature death in China.


Your arrogant and condescending attitude towards Connor, and others, is quite shocking if I'm honest. Especially considering the lack of rigour that you are applying to your owns sources and judgment.
Be nice. This is a forum for rational discourse, not flame wars. No one is always right. Be respectful of other people's views and accept that we are all entitled to our own.

These guidelines will be enforced by the moderators based on their best judgement, and anyone who does not take them seriously will lose the privilege of posting here.
GTF House Cup 2016 - Team Middle Earth
User avatar
freakism
Head tllt boy ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 
First name: Harry
Posts: 504
Likes received: 127
Joined: 13th June, 2016, 12:44 pm
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: Veganism/Oppression of Animtals (merged)

Unread postby PHMED » 20th February, 2017, 5:44 pm

freakism wrote:The China Study is a book, based on a 20 year long observational study (that is- they looked a sample of a population).

No it was not, you silly goose. He performed the studies in the lab first before he did the observational part of the study. The study was not all solely observational, please know what you are talking about it. Nor was the "observational" part of the study done solely off of observation. Did you even read The China Study? I doubt you have, so stop talking like you know what you are talking about, you sound stupid right now.

freakism wrote:No mention is made of the fact that there are a number of cultures which consume animal products and yet have low levels of cancer and "western" diseases. The study discusses how deaths due to malnutrition have fallen since the end to the 1940s, partially due to adoption of western diets. However one of the significant contributors towards mortality was the intake of wheat. A plant.

There surely are, if you actually READ THE CHINA STUDY you would know this. They discussed that many cultures who ate animal protein at levels of less than 5%, which was the EXACT percentage of protein levels that were seen in the rats who developed no forms of cancer despite high levels of carcinogens, had incredibly low levels of cancer. Actually, the entire study has published data that suggests the more animal protein consumed, the higher rates of cancer in all parts of the world.

freaksm wrote:There is not a single iota of evidence that suggests that carcinogens do not contribute towards cancer and that animal protein is the sole cause[/size]

Dude, the China Study talks about this, what are you talking about? I am also taking a society and genetics course this quarter at my university and we read papers that suggests carcinogens and your genes are not the sole determinants of your health outcomes and that there are OUTSIDE influences that facilitate the progression of diseases such as cancer.

How do you explain then, in the china study, the MOST DANGEROUS CARCINOGEN AFLATOXIN, did not lead to cancer when low levels of animal protein were consumed by rats? The book goes into great detail on how the mechanism by which aflatoxin works is induced by animal protein.


freakism wrote:Your arrogant and condescending attitude towards Connor, and others, is quite shocking if I'm honest. Especially considering the lack of rigour that you are applying to your owns sources and judgment.

Dude, you're the one who is being arrogant. You are inflexible to the evidence. You just want to be right, which is pathetic on your end. You are solely trying to win an argument which is no longer worth my time because you are not even listening, nor do you know anything about this subject. You know NOTHING, I am educated on this topic (not an expert), but EDUCATED. There is a difference between the two, and I know for a fact that you are not educated, but ignorant when it comes to nutrition. It is okay, however, because I am trying to help you learn some things but you continue to close yourself off to it.

freakism wrote:Be nice. This is a forum for rational discourse, not flame wars. No one is always right. Be respectful of other people's views and accept that we are all entitled to our own.

I am being nice and I am also having rationale conversation! People can have views, but that doesn't necessarily mean that their views are right. People have the right to educate others, and you seem to have a problem with that.
PHMED
Member
 
Posts: 101
Likes received: 4
Joined: 15th November, 2016, 9:32 pm
Location: Westwood, CA
Country: United States (us)

Re: Veganism/Oppression of Animals (merged)

Unread postby ConnorM » 20th February, 2017, 8:29 pm

PHMED wrote:Would you have even known this if someone hadn't posted a link? Furthermore, did you even care to read the Wikipedia link? The relationship between the ant and that of the aphid is a mutual relationship where each benefits from one another; the aphid is protected from the ant, not tortured and destroyed by it. The ant and the aphid have a mutualistic relationship and benefit from each other. The animals we put into the slaughterhouses do not benefit from our torture, they have no benefit for being in the slaughterhouses.

The first part of this (that is, the bolded) is called ad hominem. In Latin, that means "to the man", symbolizing an attack on the other arguer's character rather than their argument. No, I had not seen the link to wikipedia, when I made my response, I looked solely at your post, and I had not seen Jesse's post. The source of the information I have about aphid farming among ants is the book Adventures Among Ants: A Global Safari with a Cast of Trillions by Dr. Mark Moffett, a renowned photographer and entomologist. It's one of my favorite books. My dad bought it for me when I was thirteen, actually, because I had taken an interest in nature photography. So yes, I did indeed know that particular species' of ants farm aphids. I also happen to know that there are "slaver" ants, who attack different ant colonies and steal their larvae, then force the larvae to feed them. Or, how about the fact that Weaver ants build fortresses? Weaver ants build dedicated treetop nests specifically 'manned' by older, less valuable drones with minimal larvae, in specific doctrines dedicated towards reducing casualties from intra-colonial strife. Ants fascinate me, and for a history major, yes, I do indeed know a thing or two about them.

However, I feel at this point that I cannot have a civil discussion with you. These are examples of you attacking other people in this thread alone.

PHMED wrote:Did you even read The China Study? I doubt you have, so stop talking like you know what you are talking about, you sound stupid right now.


PHMED wrote:You just want to be right, which is pathetic on your end. You are solely trying to win an argument which is no longer worth my time because you are not even listening, nor do you know anything about this subject. You know NOTHING, I am educated on this topic (not an expert), but EDUCATED.


PHMED wrote:I like to think of you as someone who is smarter than this.


PHMED wrote:I do not live on a farm and it is quite sad that I know more about nutrition than you do. [...] You're ridiculous and a sad person.


PHMED wrote:I am so sorry, but this is just plain ignorance and I feel very sad for you. You are using time lines as an argument to convince others that certain foods are better than others. I am deeply saddened by this.


At what point are you "being nice and [...] also having rationale conversation"? (edited to fit grammatically)
You have attacked multiple people ad hominem, and instead of a discussion you are pointing to a single correlational study and claiming that because of it you are right and everyone else is wrong. Further, you appear to lack the self-reflection to understand that that is arrogant. Now, I'm not a scientist myself. I am a historian. However, my sister is working on her doctorate in neuroscience, working in two labs, one of which is dealing with digestive behavior. I'll grant you, from what she's explained to me about her lab, it's dealing with some sort of re-uptake of medicine in rodents and how that effects their hydration levels or something. Like I said, I'm not a scientist.

To use an ad hominem myself, I'm going to take her word for it rather than that of a person who "know[s] more about nutrition than [I] do" yet doesn't know the difference between pastural grasses (which you can't eat, unless you ferment them into silage and then bake into a truly horrendous and not very nutritious "bread") and cereal grasses (which comprise the vast majority of the diets of the vast majority of people around the world), and doesn't seem to have the understanding of science enough to know that correlation does not equal causation.
Image
User avatar
ConnorM
Sir Conor the Incompetent
 
Posts: 417
Likes received: 88
Joined: 14th December, 2013, 11:21 pm
Location: NY
Country: United States (us)

Re: Veganism/Oppression of Animals (merged)

Unread postby Ethán » 20th February, 2017, 9:00 pm

I feel sorry for all the nice normal vegans.
Twink enthusiast
User avatar
Ethán
Is shaking
 
First name: Ethan
Posts: 4007
Likes received: 637
Joined: 4th November, 2015, 3:49 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Country: Australia (au)

Re: Veganism/Oppression of Animals (merged)

Unread postby freakism » 21st February, 2017, 8:54 am

Ω wrote:I feel sorry for all the nice normal vegans.

:werd:
GTF House Cup 2016 - Team Middle Earth
User avatar
freakism
Head tllt boy ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 
First name: Harry
Posts: 504
Likes received: 127
Joined: 13th June, 2016, 12:44 pm
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: Veganism/Oppression of Animals (merged)

Unread postby Pity » 21st February, 2017, 12:31 pm

freakism wrote:
Ω wrote:I feel sorry for all the nice normal vegans.

:werd:


:werd:
Image
User avatar
Pity
hotty & disgraced member
 
First name: Marcus
Posts: 3028
Likes received: 477
Joined: 19th July, 2015, 11:50 pm
Location: Apex, NC
Country: United States (us)

Re: Veganism/Oppression of Animals (merged)

Unread postby TeenageGaymer » 21st February, 2017, 4:19 pm

Pity wrote:
freakism wrote:
Ω wrote:I feel sorry for all the nice normal vegans.

:werd:


:werd:

"Oliver the bisexual cashier from from charrolette NC" I still prefer "Kristian the asexual from Waterloo"
"The most basic principle to being a free American is the notion is that we as individuals are responsible for our own life and decisions" - Ron Paul
Currently playing: The Legend of Zelda: Windwaker HD, The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time 3d Master Quest, Super Mario Galaxy 2, occasionally Splatoon and Smash
Image
User avatar
TeenageGaymer
New Member
 
First name: Phoenix
Posts: 40
Likes received: 1
Joined: 18th February, 2017, 9:25 pm
Location: Orchard Park, New York
Country: United States (us)

Previous

Recently active
Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], CommonCrawl [Bot] and 6 guests