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

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have said this before in many threads but any criticism I give out is also aimed at the old me who ate animals for many decades , I said exactly the same things it just took a few hours in a meat factory to flip things although I still did dairy, after looking at the industry I ditched that too.

Have I become smug and superior after becoming vegan ? damn yes :p
 
moon man said:
I have said this before in many threads but any criticism I give out is also aimed at the old me who ate animals for many decades , I said exactly the same things it just took a few hours in a meat factory to flip things although I still did dairy, after looking at the industry I ditched that too.

Have I become smug and superior after becoming vegan ? damn yes :p
Click to expand...

We breed and raise our own sheep/lambs, name them all and they're like pets.

Doesn't stop us getting some of them butchered, by the local guy we know, and eating them. That's just a perfectly normal part of the food chain imo.
 
Last edited:
It's possible for old views to be right, and new ones to be wrong. Just because someone changes their viewpoint on something doesn't mean they're correct now...

Overall the animal rights folks, while abhorring my views, actually help me, as they push animal welfare standards in the right direction.
 
Freakbro said:
We breed and raise our own sheep/lambs, name them all and they're like pets.

Doesn't stop us getting some of them butchered, by the local guy we know, and eating them. That's just a perfectly normal part of the food chain imo.
Click to expand...
we all have differing amounts of empathy though , do you find yourself kicking homeless people when you pass them ? :p
 
Diddums said:
. Yet if supermarkets were to stop selling this stuff, the screeches from the vegans would be so high that the country's dogs would go mental.
Click to expand...
isn't the problem they are trying to sell vegetarians a product that look like meat?

who are they really targeting? probably the meat eaters that feel guilty.

also these burgers are some of the heaviest processed food on earth, most pre-packaged vegetarian stuff is in supermarkets too.

I'd rather have a baked potatoes, vegetable stew, vegetable curry or something... all of which will be way better than any stupid vegetarian burger thats designed to look like meat..

Beyond burgers are crap too, its okay if you eat one, but any more than one and they just start to feel and taste like a chore.


The only reason I don't eat meat is because I'm fussy and have issues with the crap quality of everything these days.
chickens barely taste like they did 20-30 years ago etc because they bread all the flavour out of them like with everything else.


Chicken used to be healthy, we bred them to be fat, its not the healthy lean meat it once was.

Greed ruins everything.
 
Last edited:
tonys said:
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?
Click to expand...


Its irrelevant what purpose we give to each species, I could decide that humans are food for me, doesnt make it right though does it. I just think people should live by their own morals, everyone claims to be against animal abuse, yet pay for it on a daily basis, and not just abuse, but torture in a lot of cases.

Yes we grow enough food, but we currently feed it to 80 Billion land animals every year, corn, soy and other grains for example. If everyone went vegan then farmers would stop noncing around with animals, the vast majority dont breed "naturally".

Plants feel pain now? amazing. No credible studies say plants feel pain, why would a plant which cant escape danger feel pain? gotta be trolling at this point surely.

Freefaller said:
Ultimately, we both care about animals and dislike cruelty, but our fundamental ethical premises about the legitimacy of using animals (even under high welfare) and the moral weight we give to different factors lead us to vastly different conclusions.

It's clear you're not interested in dialogue, only ideological enforcement. This conversation is therefore pointless and circular - to me it wasn't about winning, nor convincing you, just setting out my stall and hoping you could at least acknowledge there was more to your one sided dogmatic and repetitive rhetoric.
Click to expand...

Its not about "winning" at all, its about exposing the cognitive dissonance that youre still not acknowledging and dont even seem to know youre suffering, and this mindset is so ingrained that youre willing to jump through hoops to try and justify the unjustifiable.

I've already explained why "high welfare" means absolutely nothing to victims, but il try again....

The RSPCA, thats the Royal society for the prevention of cruelty to animals, put their stamp on the body parts of animals who died screaming in gas chambers, thats why "high welfare" means nothing.

One last question then, do you think its logically/morally consistent to say "I care about animals", while paying someone to breed, exploit and kill animals? I think you know the answer, and if youre an honest person you would at least agree with me on that.
 
Johno please? said:
Its irrelevant what purpose we give to each species, I could decide that humans are food for me, doesnt make it right though does it. I just think people should live by their own morals, everyone claims to be against animal abuse, yet pay for it on a daily basis, and not just abuse, but torture in a lot of cases.

Yes we grow enough food, but we currently feed it to 80 Billion land animals every year, corn, soy and other grains for example. If everyone went vegan then farmers would stop noncing around with animals, the vast majority dont breed "naturally".

Plants feel pain now? amazing. No credible studies say plants feel pain, why would a plant which cant escape danger feel pain? gotta be trolling at this point surely.



Its not about "winning" at all, its about exposing the cognitive dissonance that youre still not acknowledging and dont even seem to know youre suffering, and this mindset is so ingrained that youre willing to jump through hoops to try and justify the unjustifiable.

I've already explained why "high welfare" means absolutely nothing to victims, but il try again....

The RSPCA, thats the Royal society for the prevention of cruelty to animals, put their stamp on the body parts of animals who died screaming in gas chambers, thats why "high welfare" means nothing.

One last question then, do you think its logically/morally consistent to say "I care about animals", while paying someone to breed, exploit and kill animals? I think you know the answer, and if youre an honest person you would at least agree with me on that.
Click to expand...
Just a very quick Google.





For you it's about winning to get your view across and just use emotive words and pictures to reinforce your point. How long do you think it will take for the whole world to go fully vegan?

You also don't seem to grasp the fact that morality and ethics are just a social construct so people can have wildly differing views, so get over it.
 
Last edited:
Ah I see Johno has entered the chat, and it's all gone the way it always does.
You need to buy more upf vegan crap Johno before it disappears from the shelves.
 
I had a completely vegan salad for dinner tonight, with a side of protein fibre.
But was it moral to eat a plant that was grown just to be cut down in its prime shoved into a jar of acid, suffocated in a plastic bag, left out in all weather's. Oh dear the moral and ethical dilemma.
 
Last edited:
Johno please? said:
Its irrelevant what purpose we give to each species, I could decide that humans are food for me, doesnt make it right though does it. I just think people should live by their own morals, everyone claims to be against animal abuse, yet pay for it on a daily basis, and not just abuse, but torture in a lot of cases.

Yes we grow enough food, but we currently feed it to 80 Billion land animals every year, corn, soy and other grains for example. If everyone went vegan then farmers would stop noncing around with animals, the vast majority dont breed "naturally".

Plants feel pain now? amazing. No credible studies say plants feel pain, why would a plant which cant escape danger feel pain? gotta be trolling at this point surely.



Its not about "winning" at all, its about exposing the cognitive dissonance that youre still not acknowledging and dont even seem to know youre suffering, and this mindset is so ingrained that youre willing to jump through hoops to try and justify the unjustifiable.

I've already explained why "high welfare" means absolutely nothing to victims, but il try again....

The RSPCA, thats the Royal society for the prevention of cruelty to animals, put their stamp on the body parts of animals who died screaming in gas chambers, thats why "high welfare" means nothing.

One last question then, do you think its logically/morally consistent to say "I care about animals", while paying someone to breed, exploit and kill animals? I think you know the answer, and if youre an honest person you would at least agree with me on that.
Click to expand...
Well I'm having fun going round in circles. I was going to ignore you but sod it. Why not....

Labelling anyone who doesn't adopt your specific conclusions as suffering from "cognitive dissonance" is frankly an arrogant and dismissive tactic, typical of ideologues who cannot comprehend legitimate differences in ethical frameworks.

My position isn't "dissonance"; it's a considered ethical stance that balances multiple factors you seemingly disregard (that others in the thread will concur with) – including human autonomy, cultural context, biological reality, and a different but still valid perspective on human-animal relationships.

Furthermore, your repeated insistence that "high welfare means nothing", using extreme examples or failures like gas chambers while ignoring the tangible, regulated improvements groups like RSPCA Assured or Soil Association Organic provide over standard conditions, isn't reasoned argument – it's manipulative rhetoric.

Dismissing all incremental progress because it doesn't meet your absolutist ideal is counter-productive to reducing real-world animal suffering within the systems that currently exist.

And your final question is a classic example of a loaded question built on a false premise. It is entirely logically and morally consistent within my ethical framework to care profoundly about animal welfare – actively opposing cruelty and demanding humane conditions – while accepting the use of animals for food under those stringent standards.

The "inconsistency" you perceive only exists if one accepts your specific, narrow definition of "caring" and the moral status of animals. Implying dishonesty in those who don't bow to your ethical ultimatum is a manipulative silencing tactic, not a genuine inquiry.

My ethical compass is clear and considered, even if it points in a direction different from yours. We fundamentally disagree, not because one of us is "duped" or "dissonant", but because we operate from different core premises about the world and our place within it.

I'll let you have the last word because I know you'll want to. But I'm done.
 
Johno please? said:
Plants feel pain now? amazing. No credible studies say plants feel pain, why would a plant which cant escape danger feel pain? gotta be trolling at this point surely.
Click to expand...

Whether they "feel" pain is debatable as they don't have a brain but plants have a type of nervous system despite not having a neurological system and do respond to pain stimuli for whatever reason and can even signal to other plants when there is a danger.
 
Freefaller said:
Well I'm having fun going round in circles. I was going to ignore you but sod it. Why not....

Labelling anyone who doesn't adopt your specific conclusions as suffering from "cognitive dissonance" is frankly an arrogant and dismissive tactic, typical of ideologues who cannot comprehend legitimate differences in ethical frameworks.

My position isn't "dissonance"; it's a considered ethical stance that balances multiple factors you seemingly disregard (that others in the thread will concur with) – including human autonomy, cultural context, biological reality, and a different but still valid perspective on human-animal relationships.

Furthermore, your repeated insistence that "high welfare means nothing", using extreme examples or failures like gas chambers while ignoring the tangible, regulated improvements groups like RSPCA Assured or Soil Association Organic provide over standard conditions, isn't reasoned argument – it's manipulative rhetoric.

Dismissing all incremental progress because it doesn't meet your absolutist ideal is counter-productive to reducing real-world animal suffering within the systems that currently exist.

And your final question is a classic example of a loaded question built on a false premise. It is entirely logically and morally consistent within my ethical framework to care profoundly about animal welfare – actively opposing cruelty and demanding humane conditions – while accepting the use of animals for food under those stringent standards.

The "inconsistency" you perceive only exists if one accepts your specific, narrow definition of "caring" and the moral status of animals. Implying dishonesty in those who don't bow to your ethical ultimatum is a manipulative silencing tactic, not a genuine inquiry.

My ethical compass is clear and considered, even if it points in a direction different from yours. We fundamentally disagree, not because one of us is "duped" or "dissonant", but because we operate from different core premises about the world and our place within it.

I'll let you have the last word because I know you'll want to. But I'm done.
Click to expand...
Another comprehensive, considered and reasonable reply to a complete ****
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom