against farming because its cruel, happily drags an animal by a hook through its face, suffocates it in an atmosphere it cant breath until he maybe decides to smash its still in or cut its head of before ripping the guts out and eating it.
against farming because its cruel, happily drags an animal by a hook through its face, suffocates it in an atmosphere it cant breath until he maybe decides to smash its still in or cut its head of before ripping the guts out and eating it.
SkodaMart
SkodaMart
OP
Everything dies.
You will one day, let's hope it's a pleasant pain free death.
I wish I could choose my end.
A few of my close relatives have died in a lot of discomfort.
We don't all have the luxury of a pleasant end, but at least fish have the luxury of a natural, wild life without boundaries or captivity.
the luxury of being cold, constantly afraid of attack, struggling to find food and at constant risk of desiease?
still not sure how being dragged out the water by its face to suffocate is a happy ending to its missirible life.
SkodaMart
SkodaMart
OP
Had a few dwinks? Hick!
Nope just cba fixing the typos like normal atm.
Even if he had, and with all those typos, he's still making much more sense than you have in total in this thread.
its people like this who read things on the internet or papers or just dont actually know anything about things like this that create this sensationalism .
most farmers or people who care for animals are cared for very well.
all the against facts have been pulled into a argument to try and show only favour to the ops argument
by even typing what hes put i instantly know he has no real life knowledge on the subject and just paper reading for sympathy.
whenever people argue about eating meat just look in mirror at your eye position ! its up front in a predator position for a reason !!!! you are a meat eater . deal with it.
I don't think he's trying to get sympathy, it seems to be an exercise in self-congratulatory ego stroking, so that he can feel great about what a big hero he is to all these animals that he's saving on a daily basis by refusing to eat meat (but still indulge in animal products in other areas).
SkodaMart
SkodaMart
OP
Out of a field of dairy cows how many don't get forced milked until
Their udders are oozing puss and sores?
A field of beef cattle, how many escape the chop?
A shoal of mackerel, how many die to predators?
How many get caught on fishing lines?
Line caught fishing has been proved to be a sustainable source of meat.
Unlike dragnets which literally drag everything off the sea bottom.
If we are to eat meat would you not sooner have it from a sustainable source?
The problem is however, there are too many of us, we are like a plague raping and destroying nature at every turn.
no were not we're following the same pattern as all predator prey relationships just we manage to stretch out the dips by varying food sources and artificially increasing prey numbers.
you should have been taught that in gcse.
predators eat and breed till prey drops, then they die off the next year as there's not enough food, then the prey recover so on and so on.
As a note, it doesn't. It's chewy and kind of bland, but maybe I've just been eating the wrong dogs, or at the wrong restaurants.
Given the sheer destruction caused by a harvester and adding the chemicals used to treat the crops? I'm going to guess many many more field mice, shrews, snakes, birds, rabbits, etc, etc, than any badgers or cows. But the cows and badgers are cuddly, so they're more important.
Hilarious.
I like they way you respond to not a single point then just blindly assert my arguments are a combination of straw-men or not logical.
Simply the facts are the primary economic benefit for the farmer is the sale of the meat, if less people are buying meat it in the very least prevents the expansion of that demand.
It's illogical to assert that refraining from the consumption of animal products has no impact on the amount of animals raised for food, when the number of animals raised on a large scale & over time will be to meet that demand.
The fact that some aspects of the animal are used as products is by in large irrelevant - these are by-product's, used due to the fact they are the cheapest & abundantly available. In most cases without the existing huge demand for meat - alternative synthetic substances would be cheaper or used instead. Neither would it be economically viable to breed, raise & feed farm animals to meet the by-product demand.
Instead of posting saying "I NEVER SAID OTHERWISE, STRAWMAN" twenty five times respond to these points.
The only point I'm making is that eating animals results in the death of animals & not eating animals saves animals - by saves prevents further from being bred to meet the demand (at a high level). To argue otherwise comes across as a very weak & poor attempt to avoid responsibility.
Who is straw-manning now?. I don't use any animal products when the option exists to avoid it (which is pretty much everything) - assuming that was directed at me, it's not easy to tell when no names are used or quotes.
If you read the posts everything within them is related to the assertion that by refraining from the consumption of animal products you are not 'saving/preventing' the further deaths of animals.Of course, but in the past this sort of stuff hasn't meant he can't hold an argument. There's being passionate, and there's going overboard with strawman examples of things no one said. I'm starting to think something's up
I disagree & the points made are not 'one for one' retorts to your posts - but an open statement against this flawed (in my view) assertion.
Last edited:
Watched a documentary about the re-introduction of wolves to Yellowstone. Mostly done because the bison, elk and deer populations were out of control and destroying all the flora. The impact the re-introduction of wolves has had is huge, with lots of flora now able to recover when it would barely have any time during migration periods.
Of course, it's ****ed off the farmers who own cattle and sheep. And there's the whole "der gubbermunt aint tellin' us wut ter do" lot getting in on the argument too.
Can't remember the name of the documentary, but this fella (Doug Smith) was in it.
In fact thinking on this, and to quote myself; I am disgusted that OP is bothered by 43 burnt dogs and 4000 badgers but evidently not bothered by 40000 shews, 1984634 birds, 2948460584 moths, 251456 rabbits and 35678921122 worms. If he did care, then he bloody well would NOT be eating beans FFS!!!
