Encyclopaedia Metallum: The Metal Archives

Message board

* FAQ    * Search   * Register   * Login 



This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  
Author Message Previous topic | Next topic
megalowho
Metalhead

Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 4:33 am
Posts: 473
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2012 11:38 am 
 

Vegetarian since 2008, planning to go vegan upon graduation and employment (next year, hopefully).

It's for moral reasons, which have been alluded to already in this thread, but I won't press them unless asked. (But I'll also add that there are great environmental reasons for eliminating animal products from your diet.) I suspect people are more likely to reflect meaningfully on moral questions of their own accord; when confronted by an opponent, they tend to become hostile and defensive, leading to frustration on both sides. I've learned this through unpleasant experiences.

That said, here are a couple resources worth exploring:

Introductions to animal rights philosophers: http://www.thevegetariansite.com/ethics_phil.htm
Earthlings documentary: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjNufzH4Wl8

Top
 Profile  
TheEvilSocky
Metalhead

Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 12:34 pm
Posts: 590
Location: In your basement
PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2012 11:41 am 
 

Quote:
If you put a 2-year-old in a room with a live bunny and an apple, I highly doubt he/she would eat the bunny and play with the apple

Haven't been in the room with many two-year-olds, have we?
But really doesn't it kinda weird you out that you sound exactly like Haley from american dad? the stereotypical vegan? does this not bother you?
_________________
The Book Of Wayne Another shitty bedroom project

Top
 Profile  
mindshadow
Echoes in an empty cranium

Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2011 8:36 am
Posts: 1966
Location: Panopticon
PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2012 11:54 am 
 

Forbinator wrote:
If you put a 2-year-old in a room with a live bunny and an apple, I highly doubt he/she would eat the bunny and play with the apple."


Hows that a fair analogy, they wouldn't be able to reach the fucking dials on the cooker for a start Jeeeez :roll:


How about if it's a vicious killer rabbit which eats the kid! never thought of that did you :tongue:
_________________
Outgunned, outnumbered, though never outclassed

Top
 Profile  
henkkjelle
Veteran

Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 3:54 pm
Posts: 3018
Location: Netherlands
PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2012 11:59 am 
 

If you put a 2-year-old in a room with a live bunny and an apple, I highly doubt he/she would eat the bunny and play with the apple

Replace the apple with a Kiwi and see what happens. I'm pretty sure that a 2 year old wouldn't be attracted to a hairy and brown fruit. Does that mean that humans weren't made to eat a kiwi? ofcourse not.. The 2-year old has no idea how to eat it. Just like he/she has no clue that you can actually eat the furry bastard. Replace the live rabbit with a piece of caramelized grilled rabbit. I'm pretty sure the 2-year old would be attracted to it.

You just became the Ray Comfort of veganism,
_________________
It creeps along in shadows on the hill.


Last edited by henkkjelle on Sun Oct 28, 2012 12:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top
 Profile  
Xlxlx
May contain traces of nuts

Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2011 2:16 pm
Posts: 5232
Location: Argentina
PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2012 12:02 pm 
 

That rabbit/apple analogy is ridiculous. The kid would play with the rabbit because kids like small, soft, furry things (who the hell doesn't?) and eat the apple because by that age he most likely has learned to recognize it as food. Besides; live rabbit = cute pet. Dead rabbit = tasty dish. Damn, even my three year old brother comprehends that.
_________________
Under_Starmere wrote:
THESE GILLS BREATHE HATERADE

KolmeNoitaa wrote:
(...) microwaves are your best friends. You'll learn to cook anything and everything by nuking it.

Top
 Profile  
Forbinator
Metalhead

Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 10:20 pm
Posts: 532
Location: Australia
PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2012 12:15 pm 
 

megalowho wrote:
Vegetarian since 2008, planning to go vegan upon graduation and employment (next year, hopefully).

It's for moral reasons, which have been alluded to already in this thread, but I won't press them unless asked. (But I'll also add that there are great environmental reasons for eliminating animal products from your diet.) I suspect people are more likely to reflect meaningfully on moral questions of their own accord; when confronted by an opponent, they tend to become hostile and defensive, leading to frustration on both sides. I've learned this through unpleasant experiences.

That said, here are a couple resources worth exploring:

Introductions to animal rights philosophers: http://www.thevegetariansite.com/ethics_phil.htm
Earthlings documentary: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjNufzH4Wl8

Thanks for that. As you can see I'm still learning how to engage with omnivores!

henkkjelle wrote:
If you put a 2-year-old in a room with a live bunny and an apple, I highly doubt he/she would eat the bunny and play with the apple

Replace the apple with a Kiwi and see what happens. I'm pretty sure that a 2 year old wouldn't be attracted to a hairy and brown fruit. Does that mean that humans weren't made to eat a kiwi? ofcourse not.. The 2-year old has no idea how to eat it. Just like he/she has no clue that you can actually eat the furry bastard. Replace the live rabbit with a piece of caramelized grilled rabbit. I'm pretty sure the 2-year old would be attracted to it.

The quote is supposed to illustrate that in our natural physiological state (ie. only using our hands and teeth, no cooking, no tools) we are not really equipped or motivated to eat animals. You can kill the animal for the child, and dress it up using tasty sauces and cooking of course, but if we're talking about physiological instincts, all that would be kinda cheating. Perhaps this idiot will demonstrate my point a bit better: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUYoukPZLnE

I admit that the quote I used was more emotive than scientific, but I thought it illustrated quite well that we are not "programmed" for violence, but we grow to accept the violence as long as we can disassociate ourselves from it. I got the original quote from Gary Yourovsky if you're interested: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=es6U00LMmC4 I probably should have credited it when I initially used it.
_________________
INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO CHANGE THE WORLD

Top
 Profile  
TheEvilSocky
Metalhead

Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 12:34 pm
Posts: 590
Location: In your basement
PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2012 12:48 pm 
 

Have you ever seen children with animals? really? saying we're not programmed for violence is ridiculous, I've seen children do shit to animals that gave me nightmares, and they didn't even do it for food, they did it cause it was fun.
But I'm not even talking about vegan-ism anymore so I'll bow out here. Just putting that out there, we may kill and eat animals, but children think very little of stapling napkins to a cats back or throwing a dog off a cliff cause it doesn't love them.
_________________
The Book Of Wayne Another shitty bedroom project

Top
 Profile  
swayze
Metal newbie

Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2008 7:10 pm
Posts: 306
Location: Canada
PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2012 12:48 pm 
 

Forbinator wrote:
Free-range hens raised for eggs had their brothers killed at birth, either by maceration or CO2 suffocation. Free-range hens also have a higher rate of pecking the shit out of each other, so they require painful beak-trimming procedures.


Dude, these are local farms I'm talking about. I've been to them to buy stuff. None of this shit is happening. You're getting factory farming and natural farming confused. I'm talking about a house, a couple of wooden buildings, a field with cows in it, a man, a woman, a couple kids, a dog, and a bunch of cats. A farm, not a factory. There are no CO2 rooms. There are no hens running around with murderous intent.

"Free-range" and "organic" are both terms that have been lobbied to the point of that they mean nothing anymore, and so the studies on them can't be interpreted as results on actual organic foods. Legally, "free-range" is something like a half-hour outside of a cage per day. That's a factory farming issue, as is beak trimming and CO2 rooms. The China Study itself was done with low-quality, factory meat, and so it doesn't apply to what I'm talking about. More and more studies are coming out on grass-fed beef and game meats, and they show that they're good for you. As for the animal suffering when being killed, the shit they do in gigantic factory-farming operations is not normal; it's fucked up. But the issue there isn't just about the animal being killed, it's about the animal having a miserable, painful existence its entire life. This is again an issue with the system. You'd do better directing your passion at it, and less at people who eat meat.

This all said, I think being a vegetarian is fine. I think it's totally justified, whether morally or financially. But for health reasons? Make sure you're not getting the facts twisted. Both eating meat and not eating meat can be healthy and natural.

Top
 Profile  
Turner
Metalhead

Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2002 2:04 am
Posts: 1050
Location: Germany
PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2012 1:06 pm 
 

Again on the children and animals thing... my god, I took my niece to a petting zoo when she was 3 or 4 and you'd have to be one callous arsehole to run one of those things. All those cute little bunnies...

That being said, I don't think we need to stop eating animals. When I can I'd like to minimise any suffering the animals go through, but it doesn't really bother that a cow feels a couple of moments of pain before it dies - that's the idea of being eaten by one of your predators, and when you think about it, the zebra out on the savannah getting chewed half to death by a pride of lions have it much worse... hell, go for a swim off the coast somewhere near Perth and tell me being eaten by a shark doesn't hurt.

Top
 Profile  
henkkjelle
Veteran

Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 3:54 pm
Posts: 3018
Location: Netherlands
PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2012 1:11 pm 
 

The quote is supposed to illustrate that in our natural physiological state (ie. only using our hands and teeth, no cooking, no tools) we are not really equipped or motivated to eat animals. You can kill the animal for the child, and dress it up using tasty sauces and cooking of course, but if we're talking about physiological instincts, all that would be kinda cheating.

Ofcourse we are motivated to eat animals. They are tasty. We like tasty things. And only using hands and teeth? Well, sorry to say this, but that doesn't make any sense. Humans have evolved to use tools, and cooking helps us to better absorb the nutrients in our food.
_________________
It creeps along in shadows on the hill.

Top
 Profile  
Uncolored
Death Metal Fundamentalist

Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2003 10:19 am
Posts: 750
Location: Italy
PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2012 1:30 pm 
 

I'm meat free since 1994 but I don't think metal was one of the reasons of my choice. I always get antivivisection flyers during my tapetrading years and after informing myself better I quitted omnivorism.
nowadays I also do vegan and antispeciesism activism but not on metal forums. most people on the internet doesn't give a fuck so why wasting so much time and energy?
_________________
Germaniac wrote:
Caller Of The Storms may be black, but he has an aryan heart.

DeathRiderDoom wrote:
otherwise my life is nothing but sex, sightseeing, beer, bands, target, skating, malls, being chauffered around, and American snaxx (tm)

Top
 Profile  
Forbinator
Metalhead

Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 10:20 pm
Posts: 532
Location: Australia
PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2012 2:06 pm 
 

swayze wrote:
Forbinator wrote:
Free-range hens raised for eggs had their brothers killed at birth, either by maceration or CO2 suffocation. Free-range hens also have a higher rate of pecking the shit out of each other, so they require painful beak-trimming procedures.


Dude, these are local farms I'm talking about. I've been to them to buy stuff. None of this shit is happening. You're getting factory farming and natural farming confused. I'm talking about a house, a couple of wooden buildings, a field with cows in it, a man, a woman, a couple kids, a dog, and a bunch of cats. A farm, not a factory. There are no CO2 rooms. There are no hens running around with murderous intent.

"Free-range" and "organic" are both terms that have been lobbied to the point of that they mean nothing anymore, and so the studies on them can't be interpreted as results on actual organic foods. Legally, "free-range" is something like a half-hour outside of a cage per day. That's a factory farming issue, as is beak trimming and CO2 rooms.

But did you notice how all the hens on the farm were female? (obvious tautology) What happened to the males? Most egg farms source their hens from a breeder, who definitely would have macerated or gased the male chicks after hatching, as it's not profitable to raise and feed non-egg layers. The family farm you describe probably does not do its own breeding, but if it does, I again ask you where are the males? I agree that if you have low stocking rates on a free-range egg farm, the feather-pecking/beak-trimming is less of an issue, but at the current demand, and with human population growth, stocking rates will only increase. Trying to decrease stocking rates is generally a losing battle, although I'd admit there would be some family farms/hobby farms with low stocking rates (and low profitability).

A field with cows in it sounds nice. If we're talking dairy cows, then I posted links earlier which reveal truths about all dairy farms (intensive and otherwise). If we're talking about beef cows, then the welfare is a bit nicer (although we still have branding, castration, dehorning, ear-tagging). Even though grass-fed beef sounds nice, it takes about 10kg of grass to grow 1kg of beef, and in the meantime you have methane emissions that rival that produced by the world's transport http://science.howstuffworks.com/enviro ... ne-cow.htm. The land used to grow the 10kg of grass could instead have been used to grow 10kg of vegetable matter to feed directly to humans, instead of the 1kg of steak. No wonder there's a food shortage. http://www.fammed.wisc.edu/sites/defaul ... atives.pdf

swayze wrote:
The China Study itself was done with low-quality, factory meat, and so it doesn't apply to what I'm talking about. More and more studies are coming out on grass-fed beef and game meats, and they show that they're good for you. As for the animal suffering when being killed, the shit they do in gigantic factory-farming operations is not normal; it's fucked up. But the issue there isn't just about the animal being killed, it's about the animal having a miserable, painful existence its entire life. This is again an issue with the system. You'd do better directing your passion at it, and less at people who eat meat.

This all said, I think being a vegetarian is fine. I think it's totally justified, whether morally or financially. But for health reasons? Make sure you're not getting the facts twisted. Both eating meat and not eating meat can be healthy and natural.

Can you please provide the evidence that meat is good for you? The links of meat with cancer, diabetes and atherosclerosis are virtually indisputable. Also, most animal products are produced in factory farms, even so-called free-range. Well done to you if you have actually visited the farm firsthand to get your products, but this is the exception not the rule, and there are still issues with the breeders that sourced these animals, and the way they are killed. You talk about directing my passion at the industry. As I've said before, the industry will not change unless there is financial incentive to do so. As long as people continue to vote for factory farming with their wallets, cruelty will continue.

Turner wrote:
When I can I'd like to minimise any suffering the animals go through, but it doesn't really bother that a cow feels a couple of moments of pain before it dies - that's the idea of being eaten by one of your predators, and when you think about it, the zebra out on the savannah getting chewed half to death by a pride of lions have it much worse... hell, go for a swim off the coast somewhere near Perth and tell me being eaten by a shark doesn't hurt.

Minimising suffering...but why is it ok to inflict suffering at all? The lions have no choice; they have to rip zebras apart to survive themselves. We humans have a choice though. We also can't reasonably prevent zebras suffering from lion attacks, but we can decide not to inflict additional suffering.

henkkjelle wrote:
Ofcourse we are motivated to eat animals. They are tasty. We like tasty things. And only using hands and teeth? Well, sorry to say this, but that doesn't make any sense. Humans have evolved to use tools, and cooking helps us to better absorb the nutrients in our food.

Humans are intelligent enough to eat pretty much anything we want. Hell, the Japanese even figured out how to synthesise a burger from human faeces, and it actually tasted ok. This does not mean we were meant to eat shit. Where you have gone severely wrong though, is to say that we evolved to use tools for meat-eating. Non-human primates (who were completely herbivorous!) had opposable thumbs, and for this trait to evolve it must have benefited their survival somehow (being able to crack open nuts, escape predators by swinging from trees etc.) When humans started to appear we had already inherited opposable thumbs (and therefore tool use) so this trait did not evolve in humans. This means that we learned to use tools, as opposed to evolving to use tools. Also, cooking actually deactivates many nutrients in food. The main purpose of cooking meat is to kill all the Salmonella and disgusting stuff on meat that we have not evolved to handle. And the use of fire to achieve this is again a learned trait, not an evolved trait. Think about it; it doesn't make sense to be genetically programmed to light fires. We use our intelligence to do it. With any argument about evolution, it is necessary to explain how those without the trait would have failed to survive or reproduce. Intelligence is more likely to have evolved by the mechanism of killing off those who were not smart enough to escape predators. In order to say we evolved to eat meat, you would have to first identify the trait that allowed that, and then argue that those without that trait had higher death rates.

Uncolored, I think you make good points! And it was probably invalid of me to assume that metal has anything to do with free-thinking (or especially a non-violent lifestyle!) Most people on the internet don't give a fuck, but maybe I've planted some kind of a seed in the minds of at least a few people.
_________________
INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO CHANGE THE WORLD

Top
 Profile  
mindshadow
Echoes in an empty cranium

Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2011 8:36 am
Posts: 1966
Location: Panopticon
PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2012 2:45 pm 
 

Forbinator wrote:
but why is it ok to inflict suffering at all? The lions have no choice; they have to rip zebras apart to survive themselves. We humans have a choice though. We also can't reasonably prevent zebras suffering from lion attacks, but we can decide not to inflict additional suffering.


Tibetans eat meat because they have very little land on which to grow vegetables.


Make sure you take supplements to guard against;

Vegan populations may have characteristic deficiency, more notably Western countries, unless one uses supplements or eats enriched food, though B12 deficiency is observed in omnivorous, vegan and vegetarian populations frequently and everyone should be tested regularly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_B12_deficiency
_________________
Outgunned, outnumbered, though never outclassed

Top
 Profile  
Forbinator
Metalhead

Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 10:20 pm
Posts: 532
Location: Australia
PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2012 2:52 pm 
 

Yep, I'm sure there are exceptions where some people are forced to eat animal products. In general this is not the case for humans. Are these Tibetans eating fish mainly? If they're eating land animals, then my question is what are the land animals eating? The paddocks used to feed the land animals could feed humans directly, at much higher efficiency.

Vitamin B12 is not produced by the animals you eat. It is produced by bacteria. The reason why vegans are vulnerable to B12 deficiency is that we wash the dirt and shit off our vegetables (which more primitive populations may have been less able to do). To meet our B12 requirements, we could revert back to a state of eating "dirtier" vegetables, or we could just take a pill, which I do. The solution to a lack of B12 certainly is NOT to eat bacteria-infested corpses, secretions and hen periods (in other words meat, dairy and eggs).
_________________
INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO CHANGE THE WORLD

Top
 Profile  
Uncolored
Death Metal Fundamentalist

Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2003 10:19 am
Posts: 750
Location: Italy
PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2012 2:55 pm 
 

mindshadow wrote:
Vegan populations may have characteristic deficiency


b12 last for years, in some people even an aeon!
everyone should do blood tests at least once a year, not only vegans
_________________
Germaniac wrote:
Caller Of The Storms may be black, but he has an aryan heart.

DeathRiderDoom wrote:
otherwise my life is nothing but sex, sightseeing, beer, bands, target, skating, malls, being chauffered around, and American snaxx (tm)

Top
 Profile  
swayze
Metal newbie

Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2008 7:10 pm
Posts: 306
Location: Canada
PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2012 3:00 pm 
 

I'm not going to try to prove that meat is healthy, because I don't want to invest time into this. Over the years, I've spent a lot of hours researching nutrition and I've gathered lot of experiential knowledge through work. I've come to the conclusions that I have, after giving a vegetarian diet a fair shot by the way, and I hold strong convictions that aren't likely to change. I believe that quality meat is good for a majority of people, I think the killing of animals is a normal part of our existence, and I think there are bigger environmental issues that urgently need dealing with than food animals. The "science" can be thrown back and forth all day, but things like environmental and animal-rights issues make this an ideological issue instead of just a nutritional one, which I guess explains the -ism at the end of vegetarian and vegan.

Top
 Profile  
PhilosophicalFrog
The Hypercube

Joined: Thu May 04, 2006 7:08 pm
Posts: 5497
Location: United States
PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2012 3:07 pm 
 

It seems factually absurd to say people ought not to eat meat, or that there's something "unscientific" about it. There's no brainwashing. We're animals, and fuck tons of other animals (bigger ones) eat lots of smaller/slower animals.
_________________
House of Dagoth - Lo-fi, Noise, Drone
BAPTIST - dr((((((((((((( )))))))))))))ne, Meditation, Ambient - Arrival EP out now!

̿' ̿'\̵͇̿̿\з=(◕_◕)=ε/̵͇̿̿/'̿'̿ ̿

Top
 Profile  
Zodijackyl
Lazy Wizard

Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 5:39 pm
Posts: 4701
Location: United States
PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2012 4:05 pm 
 

Forbinator wrote:
It would seem to me that as metal listeners, we have learned to reject mainstream propaganda and brainwashing techniques such as those used by pop music labels. It is only natural that we would also reject the lies of the meat, dairy and egg industries. So, have any of you also decided to reject and boycott these industries?

Or are you all still believing corporate myths that have no basis in science?


What about the corn industry, perhaps the most pervasive of them all in America? Corn farmers are given five billion dollars per year in subsidies in this country alone, and it drives down the price of high fructose corn syrup to the point where it is cheaper than other forms of sugar. Aside from foodstuffs, the industry also wields their power to promote corn-based biofuels that are produced very inefficiently compared to switchgrass - the decision here is a matter of politics and power, industry influence, not efficiency.

Propaganda in food industries is not only limited to those selling animal products. Could this line of reasoning be applied to selective rejection of other things?

Top
 Profile  
megalowho
Metalhead

Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 4:33 am
Posts: 473
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2012 4:36 pm 
 

It's not a good idea to arrive at a moral outlook simply by observing the behavior of other animals. "Nonhuman animals do X" does not entail "It's okay for me to do X, too".

Top
 Profile  
henkkjelle
Veteran

Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 3:54 pm
Posts: 3018
Location: Netherlands
PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2012 4:36 pm 
 

Hell, the Japanese even figured out how to synthesise a burger from human faeces, and it actually tasted ok. This does not mean we were meant to eat shit.

I dunno, dung beatles eat shit... and it works for them.

What about the B12 thing? study shows that people don't get enough B12 if they don't consume meat, fish, eggs, milk etc etc. You can solve this with pills and such, but if we aren't meant to eat meat/fish/eggs/milk, why is B12 so important to our body?
_________________
It creeps along in shadows on the hill.


Last edited by henkkjelle on Sun Oct 28, 2012 4:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top
 Profile  
Forbinator
Metalhead

Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 10:20 pm
Posts: 532
Location: Australia
PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2012 4:51 pm 
 

PhilosophicalFrog wrote:
It seems factually absurd to say people ought not to eat meat, or that there's something "unscientific" about it. There's no brainwashing. We're animals, and fuck tons of other animals (bigger ones) eat lots of smaller/slower animals.

Forbinator wrote:
Bezerko wrote:
I don't eat meat because I've been brainwashed, I eat it because it's tasty, and an excellent source of protein, iron and other minerals. I drink milk because it's tasty and is a convenient source of calcium, which is excellent for strong bones.

Please see the links I have posted about dairy and strong bones, as well as other links I have posted. Or remain ignorant; this is your choice of course.

Brainwash refers to a state of believing something, despite scientific evidence to the contrary, because it has been repeated so many times (in this case by major corporations who stand to benefit from you believing it). This applies exactly to the milk = strong bones myth. If the belief that milk = strong bones isn't an example of brainwash, what would you like to call it?

I will repost the links from earlier that debunk the calcium myth:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/73/1/118.full
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/143/5/472.short
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/133/3/862S.full
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=MOY ... &q&f=false (see "Osteoporosis" pg 204)

Also:
megalowho wrote:
It's not a good idea to arrive at a moral outlook simply by observing the behavior of other animals. "Nonhuman animals do X" does not entail "It's okay for me to do X, too".


And:
Forbinator wrote:
The lions have no choice; they have to rip zebras apart to survive themselves. We humans have a choice though. We also can't reasonably prevent zebras suffering from lion attacks, but we can decide not to inflict additional suffering.


Throughout this thread I have provided a scientific argument against the consumption of animal products, which you are welcome to refer to, PhilosophicalFrog. Obviously I can't tell people what to do with the information.

Zodijackyl wrote:
Forbinator wrote:
It would seem to me that as metal listeners, we have learned to reject mainstream propaganda and brainwashing techniques such as those used by pop music labels. It is only natural that we would also reject the lies of the meat, dairy and egg industries. So, have any of you also decided to reject and boycott these industries?

Or are you all still believing corporate myths that have no basis in science?


What about the corn industry, perhaps the most pervasive of them all in America? Corn farmers are given five billion dollars per year in subsidies in this country alone, and it drives down the price of high fructose corn syrup to the point where it is cheaper than other forms of sugar. Aside from foodstuffs, the industry also wields their power to promote corn-based biofuels that are produced very inefficiently compared to switchgrass - the decision here is a matter of politics and power, industry influence, not efficiency.

Propaganda in food industries is not only limited to those selling animal products. Could this line of reasoning be applied to selective rejection of other things?

Not being an American, I don't know much about the issue, but if injustice is being done, you have the power as a consumer to vote against the injustice with your wallet.
_________________
INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO CHANGE THE WORLD


Last edited by Forbinator on Sun Oct 28, 2012 5:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top
 Profile  
inhumanist
Metal freak

Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2011 5:09 pm
Posts: 4140
Location: 50 Forts Along The Rhine
PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2012 5:04 pm 
 

Forbinator wrote:
you have the power as a consumer to vote against the injustice with your wallet.

That "power" is even more ridiculous than regular voting. Conscious buying is a lame excuse for real action and a changes nothing but your conscience. The reaction (in the form of cunsumerist propaganda = advertising) of the market to preserve the industry always easily overpowers the "action" taken by the so called conscious buyer.
_________________
Celtic Frosted Flakes wrote:
Compared to how it is here in Sweden, fascism sounds like paradise.
Metantoine wrote:
If Summoning is the sugar of fantasy metal, is Manowar the bacon?


Last edited by inhumanist on Sun Oct 28, 2012 5:12 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Top
 Profile  
henkkjelle
Veteran

Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 3:54 pm
Posts: 3018
Location: Netherlands
PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2012 5:07 pm 
 

Posting my edit from my last post because it was edited just after Forbinator posted another comment.


What about the B12 thing? study shows that people don't get enough B12 if they don't consume meat, fish, eggs, milk etc etc. You can solve this with pills and such, but if we aren't meant to eat meat/fish/eggs/milk, why is B12 so important to our body?
_________________
It creeps along in shadows on the hill.

Top
 Profile  
iAm
Wastelander

Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2007 12:18 am
Posts: 5626
Location: Land of sin and debauchery, aka Reno Nevada
PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2012 5:08 pm 
 

Most farms are owned by private investors, their subsidiaries and families so voting against a cruel practice one company has is not an option. However, bringing attention to your senator or governor and outlawing that practice state wide can be done although it needs a large amount of support and funding.
_________________
iamntbatman wrote:
If the U.N. flew a bunch of C130's over Syria and rained down boxes of Thin Mints, they'd be standing in a giant circle hand-in-hand singing like goddamn Whoville residents within an hour.

I hate music

Top
 Profile  
Forbinator
Metalhead

Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 10:20 pm
Posts: 532
Location: Australia
PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2012 5:22 pm 
 

henkkjelle wrote:
Posting my edit from my last post because it was edited just after Forbinator posted another comment.


What about the B12 thing? study shows that people don't get enough B12 if they don't consume meat, fish, eggs, milk etc etc. You can solve this with pills and such, but if we aren't meant to eat meat/fish/eggs/milk, why is B12 so important to our body?

Forbinator wrote:
Vitamin B12 is not produced by the animals you eat. It is produced by bacteria. The reason why vegans are vulnerable to B12 deficiency is that we wash the dirt and shit off our vegetables (which more primitive populations may have been less able to do). To meet our B12 requirements, we could revert back to a state of eating "dirtier" vegetables, or we could just take a pill, which I do. The solution to a lack of B12 certainly is NOT to eat bacteria-infested corpses, secretions and hen periods (in other words meat, dairy and eggs).


inhumanist and iAm: It seems that the argument here is about the best strategy to effect change, and the answer to this is definitely not black and white. For "voting with your wallet" to be effective, it ideally needs a large number of people doing it, with petitions and creation of awareness. On the other hand, one person does make a difference; there are many estimates floating around on the internet of exactly how many animals each individual vegan "saves" per year by choosing not to eat them or their secretions. Petitioning the government for change can work, but change will only occur if it is economically viable for the producers.
_________________
INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO CHANGE THE WORLD

Top
 Profile  
Napero
GedankenPanzer

Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 4:16 pm
Posts: 8403
Location: Finland
PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2012 8:36 pm 
 

I was just about to lock this thread, because the first page is an utter disaster, and Mr Forbinator's attitude is disgusting high-horse preaching bullcrap... eh.. beetcrap. But since there seems to be some semi-intelligent discussion going on, I'll leave this open for now, and hope it improves. If you return to your preachy attitude and I find out about it when I wake up in the morning, I will make you wear your soapbox as a collar and your vegan butt as a hat. Seriously.

If animal suffering indeed was the greatest problem in the world, we'd be pretty damn well off right now. But the worst problem with today's industrial meat is actually the farming of soybeans for that purpose (and others, including fuel and feeding vegans), because that is doing horrible things to our planet. I don't have the will to elaborate, though, this thread sucks so far.
_________________
Chest wounds suck (when properly inflicted).
-Butch-

Top
 Profile  
Against Such Things
Metalhead

Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 8:16 pm
Posts: 450
Location: Southern Maryland
PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2012 9:00 pm 
 

If it is somehow morally wrong to kill an animal, then doesn't that make predators murderers? Yet, I've never seen moral vegetarians/vegans start campaigns to kill off wolves and such. What is your stance on this, forbinator?
_________________
Wilytank wrote:
I once knew a guy that stole another guy's virginity and sold it on the black market for some FUCKIN' WEED.

Top
 Profile  
slayerhatesusall
Metalhead

Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 7:45 pm
Posts: 1804
Location: United States
PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2012 10:01 pm 
 

My brother is a vegan and listens to metal. Luckily he is not a whiny douche like the op and doesn't complain when the rest of our family eats meat. He doesn't run up to me when I'm eating meat and preach to me why I shouldn't and how evil I am and try to convert me to a vegan lifestyle, and I respect him for that. Since my mom cooks for the family I eat vegan meals very often and many of them are delicious, many times I go 2+ weeks without eating any meat. However some of the food he eats is godawful crap that makes me want to puke especially alot of soy made crap he eats, his disgusting smelly fake cheese that smells like vomit and tastes horrible is the worst. Give me real cheese anyday, thank you very much.
_________________
Polygonum- New harsh noise ep Through the Cracks free to download

Top
 Profile  
VoidApostle
Metal newbie

Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 8:00 pm
Posts: 183
Location: Within The Vacuum of Infinity
PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2012 10:12 pm 
 

This may come off as incredibly stupid, but it's just a thought...

Are live stock really suffering? I mean, animals that are in captivity have it alot better than those in the wild. An endless supply of food, and they never have to worry about predators or disease. And how can something without a conscious even suffer? Animals function completely on instinct. If a cow is being abused, it's not thinking about how ghastly this slaughterhouse is and hoping that one day someone will liberate her and all her cow brethren. If it reacts at all, it's simply because of a pre-programed response to pain for the sake of survival. It doesn't know that it's in pain, it doesn't even know that it's alive.

Again, sorry if I sound like a massive dumbass. And for the record, I don't advocate animal abuse.
_________________
"Behold! The portals of darkness are open and the shadows of the dead hunt over the earth..."

Top
 Profile  
conquer__all
Metal newbie

Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 5:49 pm
Posts: 240
Location: United States
PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2012 10:49 pm 
 

I love streak, roast beef, lamb, sausage, all beef hotdogs...meat is awesome and it taste good! I want through a few vegetarian phases over the years but I always come back to meat because theres nothing like a medium-rare porterhouse hot off the grill. I have eaten vegan a few times and to be honest it has done nothing for me. I never felt bad for animals getting killed for food, but hay, if veganism is for you all the power too yah!
_________________
CHAOS REIGNS!!!

Top
 Profile  
Erotetic
Metalhead

Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 8:05 pm
Posts: 814
Location: New Zealand
PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2012 11:16 pm 
 

Forbinator wrote:
CrushedRevelation wrote:
I can see your point, but then that would defeat the purpose of the act, or sport of fishing. It is sort of like hunting, so I can see how some would see it as reprehensible, but I'm not one to lose sleep over this way of thinking. I always try to be as humane as possible to minimise harm to the animal, but being labelled a torturer is something I will have to live with I guess...

Minimising harm is still harm, and it's a completely unnecessary form of harm. If you don't understand, I suggest impaling your face with a hook and letting us know the result.


I'd suggest you read Nagel's famous essay What Is it Like to Be a Bat? before you pursue this line of argument in the future.

(I would be bored as fuck and want to kill myself if I was forced to stand in a field full of cow shit doing nothing but eating grass all day long in the hot sun ... but I shouldn't skip over relevant biological differences and infer that cows, unable to commit suicide, would feel how I would feel and would be grateful for me to kill them.)
_________________
В Ожидании Смерти

Top
 Profile  
Erotetic
Metalhead

Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 8:05 pm
Posts: 814
Location: New Zealand
PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2012 11:39 pm 
 

Against Such Things wrote:
If it is somehow morally wrong to kill an animal, then doesn't that make predators murderers? Yet, I've never seen moral vegetarians/vegans start campaigns to kill off wolves and such.


I've yet to meet a vegan who doesn't distinguish between moral and non-moral agents. moreover, they'll commonly distinguish [so-called] 'necessity' from what isn't necessary, and thereby permit lions and Africans to eat goats, and only look down on the rest of us if we 'choose' to eat them instead of eating vegetarian food.

(I'm an antinatalist, so that whole line of argument puzzles me. dinosaurs went extinct...if sharks have to die in the name of enforcing morality, so what? what's necessary about the survival of immoral creatures? it seems like they're merely making it up as they go along, creating comfortable loopholes so they don't need a consistent worldview)

It really puzzles me how they talk about equality (they complain about what's called 'speciesism', which is like racism, our putting human mere-interests ahead of the rights of other species), but then permit every form of animal-caused suffering to exist and be deemed permissible except those caused by one species...ours. seems remarkably speciesist, to me--as though we don't even get to be regarded as equally a part of nature as the other animals (fair enough for them to say 'we should know better', and that's why equality is a mistaken virtue, but they need to drop the 'speciesism' rhetoric in that case). Most puzzling of all is the idea that our behaviors in question are immoral because they cause suffering that could be prevented, but yet suffering is worth ignoring so long as it wasn't caused by a man ... as though a deer hates a bullet in the head from a farmer but loves when screw-fly larvae bore through their eyeball. Given that a fish doesn't say 'oh, good, I'm only being ripped apart by a shark, not a man', it's weird that the vegan finds consolation in this and manages to be apathetic about the majority of the suffering that goes on in the animal world. ... they say 'it's necessary', as though this advances the argument. Suppose it was proven that a pedophile would shrivel up and die if they abstained from molesting children. ...would we permit molestation by pedophiles but not by anyone else, or would we say 'good riddance'? ... the vegan only has empathy for the suffering of some victims, and since it makes little difference to the victims, what rationale have we to be vegan? (compassion?...clearly the vegan's 'compassionate' attitude is grossly exaggerated).
_________________
В Ожидании Смерти

Top
 Profile  
metaldiscussor666
Metalhead

Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 9:09 pm
Posts: 560
PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2012 11:44 pm 
 

First off, we're omnivores. Killing animals is natural for us.

Forbinator wrote:
It would seem to me that as metal listeners, we have learned to reject mainstream propaganda and brainwashing techniques such as those used by pop music labels.

This is not exclusive to metal heads.

Quote:
It is only natural that we would also reject the lies of the meat, dairy and egg industries. So, have any of you also decided to reject and boycott these industries?

Or are you all still believing corporate myths that have no basis in science? For example:

"we evolved to eat meat"

I figured this out by myself. Almond milk has practically the same amount of calories as skim milk, yet twice the calcium. If cow milk had more calcium. I would certainly drink it.

There is absolutely no harm in milking a cow. Not to the cow itself, not to anyone else.


Quote:
"you need cow milk for strong bones"

It's certainly helpful. If someone finds milk tasty and enjoys the benefits of drinking it, why should I care?

Quote:
"vegetables will make you faint due to lack of protein and iron"

I honestly have never heard this before.

Quote:
"food animals don't feel pain and suffering any more than plants do"

Tell me, in a world where we drop bombs on people. In a world where all sorts of fucked up shit happens, why the hell should I care about some stupid animal whose death is completely inconsequential to anything- no, whose death is beneficial to my well being? I don't really want to sound like a jackass, however, i'm just going to say this. This is hippy bull crap. If we're such pacifists, than we should just kill ourselves before we kill a single solitary being. That's what I call a logical fallacy.

Quote:
"animal slaughter is done by caring humane people"
If osama bin laden offered me a delicious steak, would I accept it? Consider this hypothetical situation. Should it matter that this person is evil? Do I accept this steak from this evil man? To further embellish this hypothesis, let's say I didn't even know osama bin laden was the one who made me a steak. Does it make a difference? No.

Quote:
I participated in legalised, institutionalised animal abuse until December 2011, when I realised that there was absolutely no justification for it. I think that those of you who continue to consume animal products either haven't been pressed to justify yourselves, or subscribe to unscientific myths such as those above.

Congratulations. Also, no. How on earth did you come to this conclusion?
_________________
http://www.last.fm/user/metaldiscussor

Top
 Profile  
Erotetic
Metalhead

Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 8:05 pm
Posts: 814
Location: New Zealand
PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 12:10 am 
 

Forbinator wrote:
...animals are killed for dairy and eggs right? Young males especially are superfluous to the industries and are discarded, generally via inhumane conditions and treatment. If I went into a hospital and stole a bunch of babies, I expect that I would end up in prison and the victims would be highly traumatised.

and if you killed someone else's offspring and mated with her, we would put you in prison. However, it doesn't follow that we should lock up gorrilas for doing this.

Forbinator wrote:
I've found that avocado has removed any "need" to consume cheese.

I've found that it's like eating margerine straight from the knife. horrible fruit!

Forbinator wrote:
I don't know what you're alluding to when you talk about neuroscience though. Are you trying to suggest that animals don't feel pain and suffering?

(see earlier post re Nagel's essay)

Forbinator wrote:
Your comparison to Christianity is the exact opposite of the truth as well. Omnivores only eat animal products because of childhood indoctrination (much like religion), and have the production process hidden from them.

similarly, you could fantasize that I'm only an atheist because I 'haven't heard the good word yet'. however, you're both wrong, and wrong to assume, that the only reason people don't agree with you is because they're ignorant.

Forbinator wrote:
If you put a 2-year-old in a room with a live bunny and an apple, I highly doubt he/she would eat the bunny and play with the apple.

given that we both take evolution for granted, I'm not sure what this sophistry is supposed to achieve. at some point caveman began catching rats and chasing down weak herd animals...that a 2-year-old caveman child didn't says nothing about whether or not it's moral or needs justification.

Forbinator wrote:
The analogy that best fits veganism is ex-Christians who have abandoned their faith and overcome brainwash after being presented with the facts and interpreting them logically.

or Catholics who have become Methodists, bewildered at how the Baptists/Catholics/atheists/etc. can't see that this is so clearly the one true religion. ...they're merely fools being fooled once again, sucked in by what they have an emotional weakness for.

As I've said, you can find some very intellectual vegans, like Peter Singer, but they're pretty ruthless compared to the common high-school girl who feels sad after watching a video and becomes a vegan (again, analogous to someone switching to a religion because of some powerful sentiment and leaps in logic beyond the evidence). It's rare that I meet a vegan who actually studies moral philosophy and has a consistent ethic.

Forbinator wrote:
Referring to me as arrogant necessarily implies that I'm wrong (as it's impossible to be correct and arrogant), so I think you really need to explain where I am wrong.

on the contrary: I'm arrogant, myself (perhaps you ought to google the word before presuming deductive conclusions from it). But I've put in a lot more time studying those who disagree with me than you have, so I'm not terribly worried about it. We all know Richard Dawkins is arrogant -- he should be, he's right, and he wrote one of the most important books of our era. arrogance is only a bad thing when it leads someone to think they already know enough, when in fact it's coupled with ignorance that misleads them and is counterproductive to persuasive argument.

Forbinator wrote:
Also, someone mentioned preaching, which I would define as saying "you should [insert action]". Stating facts, followed by logical inferences based on those facts, is not preaching. By complaining about preaching, rather than addressing the actual argument, you effectively "shoot the messenger".


meh. I think you're "preaching", but what's wrong with preaching? you're not bringing this up in someone else's thread, anyway. The only reason to not "preach" about something important (like moral atrocities) is for lack of argument backing one's opinion there to (which is what keeps so many Christians quiet). And, as far as I'm concerned, failing to voice and defend one's opinions only ensures that whoever is wrong will stay wrong longer. If someone doesn't like to argue some subject...go find another thread. Like CrushedRevelation said, if a vegan is going to think I'm evil, or a Christian is going to think I'm a sinner...so what? why would that bother me? either they have a good argument or they don't; none of their arrogance or preaching or holier-than-thou attitude makes me feel any worse, so there's really no need to ask them to STFU.
_________________
В Ожидании Смерти

Top
 Profile  
Erotetic
Metalhead

Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 8:05 pm
Posts: 814
Location: New Zealand
PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 12:23 am 
 

Aszfargoth wrote:
...while I would have to be considered an omnivore, I rely mostly on a vegetarian diet, mostly due to health-related issues. I do enjoy the taste of good meat; but I will seldomly purchase it because of the often horrid conditions of production, and therefore quality, of meat (and other animal products) sold within my affordable price-range. While I have no strict moral concerns over killing animals for food, I am opposed to the exploitations of the food industry...


since the subject is veganism, let's not forget the complement to the vegetarian* diet -- the morality of "animal companions", of "pest control" poisons and hunting, of fur and leather clothing, of animal products (meat, eggs, etc.) in food for non-humans, of circuses/hollywood/etc., of urban sprawl/destruction of habitats, and anything else that for something other than dietary reasons involves humans adding to the misfortunes of nature that animals endure.

*there's no such thing as a 'vegan' diet, only a vegan's diet (which is the same as the strict vegetarian).

Aszfargoth wrote:
Also, I think it's quite funny how veganism is turned more and more into a self-gratifying life-style by its practitioners. As an ideology, it of course already had all the prerequisites necessary for this development from the beginning, but it's entertaining nonetheless how it increasingly becomes a way of saying "I'm better than you!" (what with vegan organisations citing studies which have allegedly shown that vegans are generally more wealthy and intelligent than consumers of meat and whatnot) Of course, all life-styles are, essentially, ways for an individual to constitute itself as a moral, "good" subject, but veganism is already a full-blown political religion, which is what makes it so attractive for many people.


well, if they were right, they would be better than us. ...if swearing was bad, those cunts who whinge about what people say would be superior.
it's too commonplace to be trendy, but most people think they're better than gang-members, 'thugs' and thieves and pimps and such. How is this any different, in the absence of a well-grounded defense of whatever human rights contentions make up the high-horse on which these people sit? Why should the vegan be any more humble than the common idiot--because they're a minority? the same could be asked about the atheists in the US who fail to act inferior to the mindless Christians who outnumber them. ...and, hell, 'new atheism' is this trendy thing, now, and even being gay is becoming fashionable with generation-y, but is this somehow an argument for people to restrain themselves and fail to compete in the culture war against those who they think are wrong, even morally wrong?
_________________
В Ожидании Смерти

Top
 Profile  
Erotetic
Metalhead

Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 8:05 pm
Posts: 814
Location: New Zealand
PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 12:31 am 
 

metaldiscussor666 wrote:
Quote:
"food animals don't feel pain and suffering any more than plants do"

Tell me, in a world where we drop bombs on people. In a world where all sorts of fucked up shit happens, why the hell should I care about some stupid animal whose death is completely inconsequential to anything- no, whose death is beneficial to my well being?


that's a favorite argument of mine, too :D

we all agree 'people are equals', people argue about fetuses and pigs and lobsters, but we all agree about adult humans...who we continue to imprison and kill. so even if we thought that a cow could become the next Shakespeare, how is that really going to be the great insight that stops us from killing them?

it seems to underscore that the failing is at the level of ethics, not science. -- we can presume all the science we want, we could even say a rare panda dying is more significant to nature than a thousand humans dying, but still we have to ask what grounds there are for ethical opinions, rather than merely preferences, about what to do regarding them.

all the 'omg, caged chickens have no beaks or feathers' videos in the world aren't advancing the discourse at all ... they're just getting more teenagers to feel like they have a purpose.
_________________
В Ожидании Смерти

Top
 Profile  
megalowho
Metalhead

Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 4:33 am
Posts: 473
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 12:35 am 
 

This might sound odd at first, but I've learned that consistency's overrated in ethics. Let me give a couple examples:

Here's a classic argument from Peter Singer:

Scenario A: You walk by a pond where a child is drowning, and you decide not to rescue it for fear of ruining your nice outfit. Thus you implicitly prioritize your nice outfit over the life of a child. This is immoral; you should sacrifice your nice outfit in order to save the child.

Scenario B: You receive notice that Oxfam is collecting money to combat extreme poverty. A modest donation could save many lives. There is no good reason to doubt this. You consider making such a donation, but instead decide to spend your money on a nice outfit. And you make a habit out of such purchases.

Conclusion: There is no morally relevant difference between scenarios A and B. Therefore, in scenario B, you are immoral; you should sacrifice your personal luxuries in order to save lives.

The proper response to this argument, in my opinion, is to acknowledge that it makes an excellent point, and resolve to sacrifice a "reasonable" portion (whatever that means) of your personal luxuries in order to ameliorate others' suffering and give them a better chance at a decent life. But clearly, unless you're a saint, you're not going to forego all luxuries - although consistency would demand it. Rather, you'll just recognize the need to reshape your lifestyle out of respect to a moral ideal, and you'll do the best you can, but you won't allow your "shortcomings" to torment your conscience. Nobody's really going to fault you for this.

---
Another couple examples:

Kant's Categorical Imperative leads to a powerful argument against lying. (I won't go into the details; just assume it's sound.) But Kant himself, apparently - or anyone who deems lying an absolute wrong - would have you tell the truth to the Nazis when they ask whether you're hiding Jews in your home. Clearly, it would be bad for you to turn the Jews over. What is the significance of this? Does this mean lying is categorically permissible, since Kant's argument leads to an unacceptable conclusion? If a friend deliberately misleads you over some non-trivial matter, haven't you been wronged, and aren't you justified in reacting accordingly? Or should you instead say to yourself: "If I object to lying, then consistency would demand that I turn over the hypothetical Jews to the Nazis. Therefore, I can't object to lying."

Or suppose you decide to be a utilitarian as opposed to a Kantian: Your guiding moral principle is to maximize collective happiness. Something like this would explain your aversion to turning over the Jews. But here you run into difficulties as well. You might encounter a villain who threatens to murder your two children unless you take it upon yourself to kill only one of your children. Assuming no other options, utilitarianism demands you kill one of your children in order to prevent the murder of both. This is very bad. Now again, what's the significance of this? Consistent utilitarianism is no longer an option, so is the happiness of the collective now absolutely irrelevant to our moral decisions?

---
I hope this casts some doubt on the suggestion that, since nobody's going to take it upon themselves to interfere with the eating habits of sharks in the wild, we need not worry about doing anything to ameliorate the needless suffering of animals, so doing our best to adopt an animal-friendly diet must be out of the picture.

Top
 Profile  
King_Hands
Metalhead

Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2009 4:46 am
Posts: 629
Location: Indiana
PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 12:51 am 
 

A pig would eat me in an instant if it got the chance, so I don't have any problem with being the one to eat him.

Top
 Profile  
Erotetic
Metalhead

Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 8:05 pm
Posts: 814
Location: New Zealand
PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 1:01 am 
 

metaldiscussor666 wrote:
There is absolutely no harm in milking a cow. Not to the cow itself, not to anyone else.

Quote:
"you need cow milk for strong bones"

It's certainly helpful. If someone finds milk tasty and enjoys the benefits of drinking it, why should I care?


similarly if someone enjoyed drinking the pussy juice of a toddler, why should I care? (some vegans like to say milking a cow is molestation). I'm sure it makes anyone who doesn't listen to brutal death metal feel squeamish, but shouldn't the law permit this?
_________________
В Ожидании Смерти

Top
 Profile  
Erotetic
Metalhead

Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 8:05 pm
Posts: 814
Location: New Zealand
PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 1:03 am 
 

King_Hands wrote:
A pig would eat me in an instant if it got the chance, so I don't have any problem with being the one to eat him.


is that pertinent to your argument, though?

a sheep wouldn't eat you, but is there a quid pro quo here?
_________________
В Ожидании Смерти

Top
 Profile  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies. Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: BarryLamarBonds and 13 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

Back to the Encyclopaedia Metallum


Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group