Why aren't vegans eating the food they ask for?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Johno please? said:
Obviously not vegan then are they.

Im against the exploitation of animals...... but only when im pregnant or when I feel like it.
Click to expand...

The problem you have is that your overdramatization of everything has resulted in you having absolutely zero credibility, to the point that given the choice, I'll go for the meat option every time. You've completely desensitized me to animal cruelty with your incessant waaaaa, I should probably thank you for teaching me to recognize the difference between animals bred for food and animals that aren't. I eat meat with a much clearer conscience now, thanks to you.

So yeah, thanks. My steak this evening was amazing.


Edit - just to add, you should probably zoom out and look this objectively. Next time you go one one of your crybaby tirades, have a good look at how many people actually engage with you, and how many dismiss you and ridicule you instantly. You might just learn something ;)
 
Last edited:
@Johno please? It could be said that you're doing more harm to your crusade than good with the incessant whining and holier than thou attitude.
If you weren't such a massive drama queen then maybe your point would come across as more palatable (poor pun).
Personally I'd stick you up there with JSO who people have got so bored with and find so utterly tedious that you're either just ignored or laughed at.
 
Johno please? said:
Ita actually an understatement if anything, and il explain why with the life of a pig in the UK.

So the mothers (and fathers) are literally nonced around with by humans, she will give birth to maybe 8-10 babies, the runts or sick/dying ones will be smashed into the floor or hit with a blunt instrument (shot if theyre "lucky")

The ones that survive the hell holes theyre raised in, will have their tails chopped off, (and sometimes castrated, depends on the "farm") and teeth clipped. They will then spend the next 6 months inside only seeing daylight before theyre forced into a carbon dioxide gas chamber where they scream and smashed against the cages.... then theyre stabbed in the neck.

"Oh ok john, but what about free range" They share a similar fate, they can be blungeoned to death up to a certain size, and where do they up? Gas chambers yet again.

"There are many regulations...." it shows a massive lack of knowledge on your part, I actually don't blame you because you've been fed propaganda from the meat industries and the welfare organisations like the RSPCA/Red tractor for decades.

There was an FSA inspector watching these individuals be non stun slaughtered, with her clip board, ticking boxes, these regulations mean NOTHING to the victims.


(this place is still open despite obvious "welfare" laws being broken)

Go and inform yourself from these sources or find your own if you don't believe me.

The Mutilations (Permitted Procedures) (England) Regulations 2007

Section 5 (1) and (2) of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 (c.45) makes it an offence to carry out, or to cause or, in specified circumstances, permit another person to carry out, a prohibited procedure on a protected animal. A prohibited procedure is one which involves interference with the sensitive...
www.legislation.gov.uk www.legislation.gov.uk
www.eatfair.org

Animals in British Farming » Pigs - Eat Fair

An introduction into how animals are treated within the British Pork industry.
www.eatfair.org www.eatfair.org
www.animaljusticeproject.com

The Dark World of Pig Genetics

Boars at Innovis suffer for years.
www.animaljusticeproject.com www.animaljusticeproject.com

WIN88: APK Link Situs Slot Gacor Hari Ini & Slot Online Resmi

WIN88 menghadirkan APK link slot gacor hari ini dan slot online resmi yang bergaransi kekalahan terbaik serta link livechat 24jam.
www.landofhopeandglory.org www.landofhopeandglory.org

...Then theres the short hellish life of broiler chickens and egg laying birds, thats a whole other thread worth really.

And just to clarify, I dont think youre an "unethical" person, I dont believe I was before going vegan but now I know better, I reject the idea of all animal exploitation, its not a diet or a lifestlye its literally just a mindset/principle and certain actions follow from that.
Click to expand...
I acknowledge the disturbing information and sources you've shared regarding practices that occur within parts of the farming industry. It's clear these specific details fuel your passionate stance, and seeing it from that perspective, your position is understandable.

However, I also hope you can appreciate that standards do vary, and transparency often helps drive improvements away from the unacceptable practices highlighted.

As I mentioned, my personal approach involves actively seeking out verified high-welfare options (my local butcher literally owns a farm and the quality is second to none). I've visited the farm and the abattoir, whilst unpleasant reaffirmed that they take pride in their work. It is precisely because practices like those described are unacceptable to me too. My focus remains on making conscientious choices based on the information available and within my own ethical framework.

And this brings us back to the core issue – I maintain that operating within a different ethical framework, one that accepts animal use for food under stringent welfare conditions and often connects with deep-seated cultural or personal identity, is also a valid stance for probably billions of people not just myself.

It truly seems our fundamental disagreement lies in whether any use of animals for food, even under the best possible conditions, can be considered ethical.

We appear to start from different premises on that core question, leading us to different conclusions.

I agree with the sentiment that we should strive to minimise harm where possible. Where we likely differ is in defining 'necessary' harm and navigating the complex interplay between human needs/choices, animal welfare, and deeply ingrained cultural practices.

Given this fundamental divergence in our ethical starting points, perhaps the most productive step now is to acknowledge that we hold different, deeply felt convictions, and respect that we arrive at different conclusions.
 
Last edited:
Freefaller said:
Given this fundamental divergence in our ethical starting points, perhaps the most productive step now is to acknowledge that we hold different, deeply felt convictions, and respect that we arrive at different conclusions.
Click to expand...

This is the crux of it. Respect my lifestyle, and I'll respect yours. Engage in meaningful debate and try get me to see your ways, and I'll oblige. I, like most post-puberty people, are generally keen to learn new things and will happily respect anyone's life choices provided they aren't harming anyone, and are respectful of mine too.

Insult me, my lifestyle, or the lifestyle of anyone else because it doesn't align with yours and you become fair game. I will deliberately go out of my way to mock and ridicule your attempts to shove your nonsense down my throat, or anyone else for that matter. And I won't stop. As long as these people are displaying their intolerance towards others, I will be there to give it right back to them.

Like a fat, balding, internet warrioring Dark Knight. Not the hero we need, or want, not right now or ever, but the one you're stuck with.
 
Freefaller said:
I acknowledge the disturbing information and sources you've shared regarding practices that occur within parts of the farming industry. It's clear these specific details fuel your passionate stance, and seeing it from that perspective, your position is understandable.

However, I also hope you can appreciate that standards do vary, and transparency often helps drive improvements away from the unacceptable practices highlighted.

As I mentioned, my personal approach involves actively seeking out verified high-welfare options (my local butcher literally owns a farm and the quality is second to none). I've visited the farm and the abattoir, whilst unpleasant reaffirmed that they take pride in their work. It is precisely because practices like those described are unacceptable to me too. My focus remains on making conscientious choices based on the information available and within my own ethical framework.

And this brings us back to the core issue – I maintain that operating within a different ethical framework, one that accepts animal use for food under stringent welfare conditions and often connects with deep-seated cultural or personal identity, is also a valid stance for probably billions of people not just myself.

It truly seems our fundamental disagreement lies in whether any use of animals for food, even under the best possible conditions, can be considered ethical.

We appear to start from different premises on that core question, leading us to different conclusions.

I agree with the sentiment that we should strive to minimise harm where possible. Where we likely differ is in defining 'necessary' harm and navigating the complex interplay between human needs/choices, animal welfare, and deeply ingrained cultural practices.

Given this fundamental divergence in our ethical starting points, perhaps the most productive step now is to acknowledge that we hold different, deeply felt convictions, and respect that we arrive at different conclusions.
Click to expand...

Its not "parts" its obvious to any critical thinking person thats reviewed the evidence that its systemic, the legislation itself literally justifies torture and abuse on a mass scale, its not "some bad apples".

Again, from the victims point of view, they all go to the same slaughterhouses, there is no happy magical slaughterhouse where they get tickled to death.

Youre forgetting something though, I used to hold the same views as you (as does 98% of the UK) because my parents taught it to me, as they did you, everyone around you does, its legal, its completely normalized...... until it happens to animals we dont consider as just food or commodities. Maybe take a look at the "cataplut swan thread" you might start seeing cracks in this so called "deeply held conviction" that people have.

Il post the same video I posted in there.


Theres also a simple test here, would you accept that same treatment in that "high welfare" slaughterhouse for humans?

If the answer is no, which I expect it will be, im going to ask you the morally relevant difference between humans and pigs which justifies doing it to them but not humans.
 
Last edited:
fez said:
Its that lack of B12 and Iron getting to their brains :p

That being said, there are a lot of people who shout very very loudly about their views and morals who, when the chips are down, don't make even a token effort to support those causes.

Think womens sport. The number of people who complain about women not getting paid what they should vs men who have never once in their lives actually gone and paid to watch womens sport is astonishing. Well, I say astonishing, its not, its obvious, but the hypocrisy is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

An even better example is Gen Z and later, who claim everything needs to align to their values and strong moral compasses. Yet this is the same generation that will happy shop on Shein with it's questionable supply chain.
 
Johno please? said:
Its not "parts" its obvious to any critical thinking person thats reviewed the evidence that its systemic, the legislation itself literally justifies torture and abuse on a mass scale, its not "some bad apples".

Again, from the victims point of view, they all go to the same slaughterhouses, there is no happy magical slaughterhouse where they get tickled to death.

Youre forgetting something though, I used to hold the same views as you (as does 98% of the UK) because my parents taught it to me, as they did you, everyone around you does, its legal, its completely normalized...... until it happens to animals we dont consider as just food or commodities. Maybe take a look at the "cataplut swan thread" you might start seeing cracks in this so called "deeply held conviction" that people have.

Il post the same video I posted in there.


Theres also a simple test here, would you accept that same treatment in that "high welfare" slaughterhouse for humans?

If the answer is no, which I expect it will be, im going to ask you the morally relevant difference between humans and pigs which justifies doing it to them but not humans.
Click to expand...
You really aren't doing yourself or the vegan cause any good. My daughter and her partner spouted the same stuff that you are trying to ramp down people's throats when they first became vegan. It didn't work on us and she stopped trying to convert us. We supported them and have had some very good vegan meals with them. So grow up and come down off your high horse and maybe people may listen to you.
For your little test I could answer yes for certain humans as a form of capital punishment and the question about morality only applies to humans as pigs don't learn about morals from their parents.
 
Last edited:
tonys said:
You really aren't doing yourself or the vegan cause any good. My daughter and her partner spouted the same stuff that you are trying to ramp down people's throats when they first became vegan. It didn't work on us and she stopped trying to convert us. We supported them and have had some very good vegan meals with them. So grow up and come down off your high horse and maybe people may listen to you.
For your little test I could answer yes for certain humans as a form of capital punishment and the question about morality only applies to humans as pigs don't learn about morals from their parents.
Click to expand...

Thats not what I asked, I asked would it be ok to send humans to slaughterhouses and treat them the same as pigs, maybe I should have clarified "for food".

Im not ramming anything down anyones throat, feel free not to respond, im not forcing you to.

So the trait is pigs cant reason is that it? or animals dont have morals?

So youre ok sending dogs and cats into gas chambers as well then obviously?
 
Last edited:
Johno please? said:
Thats not what I asked, I asked would it be ok to send humans to slaughterhouses and treat them the same as pigs, maybe I should have clarified "for food".

Im not ramming anything down anyones throat, feel free not to respond, im not forcing you to.

So the trait is pigs cant reason is that it? or animals dont have morals?

So youre ok sending dogs and cats into gas chambers as well then obviously?
Click to expand...
Pigs have been bred for food, cats and dogs have been bred for companionship in this country. That's not the same in other countries though but at least they are slowly banning the trade. You are trying to ram your views onto us with all these shock videos. What do you want to happen? Do you want us all to suddenly become vegan? If we did what would happen to all the animals bred for food? Do we grow enough plant material to give the world's population enough to eat?
As regards to pigs, they are omnivorous like us and would eat you if your body was in their feeding trough.

Also some scientific research shows plants have a nervous system of sorts and can feel pain, so is it morally right to eat plants?
 
Last edited:
darkgen said:
Smoke-screen nonsense. If you or anyone thinks eating animal meat is blowing up the planet. Guess again.
Click to expand...

Well...

Livestock make up ca. 62% of the world's mammal biomass; humans account for 34%; and wild mammals are just 4%
Click to expand...

I don't think people realise how vastly over farmed we have made livestock to fulfil our meat desires.

Combine that with the amount of methane cows produce, and yes, they are a significant contributor to greenhouse gasses. It's estimated livestock rearing account for between 10-20% of human activity emissions.
 
Last edited:
dowie said:
Have you ever seen a fat vegan @Diddums ?

And that's the problem... the simple truth is that they just don't eat very much - people are trying to sell food to the skinniest, most malnourished group of people in the UK - bad business idea!
Click to expand...

He has now :p

metro.co.uk

I’m not just a vegan. I’m a fat vegan

Veganism is not a diet, as my size 20 trousers can firmly attest to. It’s a lifestyle which aims to boycott all animal agriculture.
metro.co.uk metro.co.uk

Not sure if you're just being sarcastic, but though lower than meat eaters, obesity in vegans still runs at 29%, compared to 40% for omnivores.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom