Militant Vegans - MEAT IS MURDER, YOU BLOODMOUTHS

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
AnOminous said:
I honestly can't disagree that much with vegans who start with a general view of the moral worth of animals, especially mammals and other creatures who have evolved to have similar behaviors to humans, are good parents, and even have some apparent level of moral awareness, and who conclude from that fundamental moral belief that it is actually immoral to kill and eat them. Where in the chain of moral reasoning does that fail?
Click to expand...
I'm all for treating animals with respect and not abusing them for fun or profit. There's no return on harming an animal just because. And I'll be the first to admit we eat way too much meat but none of that is going to stop me from enjoying my steak, burger, pulled pork etc.

I've known vegans that were of the normal variety. Meaning they understood that it was their choice not to eat any animal product it's the modern vegans with their ideas that we can all live happily on grass and twigs that are setting the whole thing back. They think they're fighting the good fight and all they're doing is either pissing people off or becoming a laughing stock.
 
Logical Fallacies said:
morality is merely a human invention to stop humans from killing other humans and has no place in nature or survival
Click to expand...

ShadowTheHedgehogSA2.png
 
AnOminous said:
Lmao no they don't they don't even have a fucking nervous system. That shit is pure retardation.

Unless you are seriously buying into this level of lunatic faggotry, just get off with this bullshit.

View attachment 1830192
Click to expand...
You’re right plants don’t have a brain, but they do react to physical damage and send out chemicals to other nearby plants to start producing natural insecticides.

It makes perfect sense in context. Do you think plants are just so cucked they do nothing when caterpillars chomp on them?
 
HumanHive said:
You’re right plants don’t have a brain, but they do react to physical damage and send out chemicals to other nearby plants to start producing natural insecticides.

It makes perfect sense in context. Do you think plants are just so cucked they do nothing when caterpillars chomp on them?
Click to expand...
Yes, this is all settled science, that plants send out signals to other plants, and also to predatory insects, like ladybugs and parasitoid wasps. Those signals have been measured and in many cases the precise chemicals involved in the signals. And anyone who spends a lot of time in a garden observing has probably seen it. I've seen it lots. You get an aphid infestation, and within a few days you have shitloads of ladybugs and tiny solitary wasps. When I first saw this I didn't know why/how the ladybugs and solitary wasps were showing up. Were they smelling the aphids? Were they smelling the honeydew? That's when I started looking at the science. And there's tons and tons of research on it.
 
MysticMisty said:
I don't know. I think a lot of people have a problem with the ones who starve their own pets, or PETA and all the domestic pets they kill every year because they think they're better off dead than our friends.
Click to expand...
PETA is fairly unique in not being remotely about what they advertise to the public. It is quite literally a death cult disguised as an animal rights organization.
MysticMisty said:
I'd like to add to this and say that I don't believe in trophy hunting at all. Even deer is questionable since it's not necessarily about eating the meat.
Click to expand...
The problem is deer left to their own devices will nearly annually overpopulate and then you have a sick starving deer population that generally suffers horrible deaths worse than what any hunter would do to them. I suppose you could cull them some other way but why? There are people willing to pay for the privilege. A life lived in the wild in relative freedom is certainly less cruel than life in some dingy, filthy factory farm.
 
Last edited:
AnOminous said:
The problem is deer left to their own devices will nearly annually overpopulate and then you have a sick starving deer population that generally suffers horrible deaths worse than what any hunter would do to them. I suppose you could cull them some other way but why? There are people willing to pay for the privilege. A life lived in the wild in relative freedom is certainly less cruel than life in some dingy, filthy factory farm.
Click to expand...
This is why I have mixed feelings about it. I feel sorry for animals a little too easily, I think. Like Burmese pythons in Florida, I 100% they are devastating to the native environment and 100% have to go. But I feel sorry for them all the same because it's not their fault that their former owners (or their parent's former owners) were irresponsible dickbags.
 
AnOminous said:
The problem is deer left to their own devices will nearly annually overpopulate and then you have a sick starving deer population that generally suffers horrible deaths worse than what any hunter would do to them. I suppose you could cull them some other way but why? There are people willing to pay for the privilege. A life lived in the wild in relative freedom is certainly less cruel than life in some dingy, filthy factory farm.
Click to expand...
I have a friend who teaches at a school that has a 'legacy forest' left to the school. They use it to study local ecology. It's getting completely hammered by deer, and whenever the school thinks about bringing in some hunters the animal rights people pitch a fit and so they don't kill any. Meanwhile the local shrubs, grasses, amphibians, and ground-dwelling birds are also getting hammered because there are too many deer. Long-term the answer is to reintroduce other predators to eat the deer, but short term the answer is to bring in a few hunters.

TL;DR I agree with you.
 
LateNightMuffin said:
I have a friend who teaches at a school that has a 'legacy forest' left to the school. They use it to study local ecology. It's getting completely hammered by deer, and whenever the school thinks about bringing in some hunters the animal rights people pitch a fit and so they don't kill any. Meanwhile the local shrubs, grasses, amphibians, and ground-dwelling birds are also getting hammered because there are too many deer. Long-term the answer is to reintroduce other predators to eat the deer, but short term the answer is to bring in a few hunters.

TL;DR I agree with you.
Click to expand...
This is an unfortunate thing and what happens when you don't allow animal populations to be culled from time to time.

I agree with Misty, I'm not into trophy hunting but I'm all for reducing the population of a species so that they don't grow out of control. Without some kind of control whether it be natural predators or human hunters to let a species just breed out of control is doing as much harm to the environment as killing them all in the process.
 
Phil Ken Sebben said:
Veganism is a 20th century invention. You've had vegetarians for the longest time but guess what? They got their B12 through eggs and dairy. The only way that vegans can exist are in food rich countries like our own.

Put them down somewhere in some impoverished hell hole where food is scarce and see how long their "moral" views last.
Click to expand...
I honestly can't understand how using cows' excess milk to feed yourself could ever be considered cruel when if they weren't milked they'd die.
 
Marshal Mannerheim said:
I honestly can't understand how using cows' excess milk to feed yourself could ever be considered cruel when if they weren't milked they'd die.
Click to expand...
The issue is they literally only exist for that fact, we actually just kill the calves that made them lactate in the first place, and then they live miserable existences until, ultimately useless without their lactation, they get killed for low grade dog food. That's the sentimental argument, anyway.

The philosophical argument is that it is simply morally wrong to instrumentalize the existence of other beings capable of feeling pain, and actually causing pain, simply to satisfy one's own primal urges. Take this far enough and it relates to every single living being, even bees with regard to honey.

Jainism is a religion that takes it so far as to believe even killing a plant is morally unjustifiable, and they refuse even to eat plant products that kill the plant, subsisting only on fruits and nuts. Jainism is one of the few religions I actually admire.
 
AnOminous said:
The issue is they literally only exist for that fact, we actually just kill the calves that made them lactate in the first place, and then they live miserable existences until, ultimately useless without their lactation, they get killed for low grade dog food. That's the sentimental argument, anyway.
Click to expand...
I could be wrong, but don't most breeds of cows or whatever the scientific term is produce more milk than is necessary for their cows?
 
AnOminous said:
Jainism is one of the few religions I actually admire.
Click to expand...
One of the only religions out there in which the more radicalized they are, the less of a threat they become.

The really serious Jainists are ones that wear a mask over their mouth and nose to prevent them accidentally breathing in a microorganism, they refuse to take antibiotics for fear of killing the bacteria in their body and when they walk they're always looking down so they don't accidentally step on a bug.

Marshal Mannerheim said:
I could be wrong, but don't most breeds of cows or whatever the scientific term is produce more milk than is necessary for their cows?
Click to expand...
That's due in part to the hormones and everything that they inject into the cows to make them overproduce milk here. The government pays them to make as much milk as possible to the point where we have a surplus of milk that we literally can't even give away. This is also what led to things like "government cheese".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom