I'm a vegan and I come in peace...

[MasochisticAvenger]

snip

Again, you cannot tell someone they are wrong simply because they share a different set of beliefs than you. This isn't a debate over whether or not meat comes from the death of animals; I think anyone over the age of five knows that. The debate here is whether or not killing animals for meat is considering wrong. Regardless of what you say, that is, and always will be, an opinion.

And no, just because you are confident in your stance does not mean you shouldn't get annoyed when people keep asking you the same question over and over again. That's what really gets to me: vegans/vegetarians all think they are saying something new; they are bringing up some deep philosophical argument that no one else has even considered yet.

Read the original post again... he clearly asks why we have laws restricting murder and rape, but allow the killing of animals to go unpunished. That's about as comparing them as you can get; it's just a tactful way of saying "KILLING ANIMALS IS LIKE MURDERING OR RAPING PEOPLE!".

See, this also annoys me: vegans/vegetarians come up with stupid questions they think are supposed to cause deep emotional thinking in the person being asked. Why is it fine to be protective of a pet, but not of the countless animals getting turned in the food? BECAUSE I HAVE NO ATTACHMENT TO THE ANIMALS GETTING TURNED INTO FOOD. I would have thought that answer would be pretty obvious.

 

[Philol]

I'm all for animal rights, I think that any animal should have access to decent living conditions, easy access to food etc, but I also think that the consumption of animals is fine, if a person wants to eat meat by all means they should be allowed, I personally love meat, doesn't mean I want all cows to be rounded up and slaughtered.

 

[Yokai]

Yay, a vegan that does not want to attack me for my standard Homo sapiens diet! Good on you, buddy!

I'm a skinny guy with a small appetite. To be honest I'd probably be severely underweight if I didn't eat the large amount of meat and dairy products that I do. I need the fat and protein; if I tried to live on grains, fruit and nuts I'd shrivel up. And that's not to say I don't eat a balanced diet--I have (organic and locally grown for those who care) fruit and vegetables every day, but meat and milk make up a very important part of my diet.

On top of that, the American meat industry has gotten so huge we'd have a whole other problem if everyone went vegan--millions of animals that can't really live without human support that would require massive amounts of money and labor to provide for while giving nothing in return. Chickens and pigs would become pests rather than valuable livestock. Something to think about.

And finally, I really don't see what's wrong with eggs and dairy products. The objection to factory farming I completely understand, but if you get your eggs and milk from farms where the animals aren't packed ten to a square meter in a warehouse, what honestly is the harm in making use of infertile eggs and extra milk?

 

[maninahat]

Here is the thing, VEGANS are extremist, they think only in absolutes. They refuse to consume or use any animal products and their continued use of petrochemical industry is wilful ignorance for convenience. They won't eat a cow that died of natural causes - a death that could not be avoided - yet they depend on the death of millions of animals to drive around and manufacture the fertilisers for Soya and wear textiles made from something other than cotton.

Are you suggesting that vegans shouldn't differentiate between having animals killed for food in factory farms, and using the oil produced by decomposing, million year old animal remains? The beef industry does not rely on cows dropping dead from heart attacks. The oil industry does not funnel animals into underwater sediment caverns. Those differences are crucial, as vegans are all about ending cruel acts of animal exploitation - not about following arbitrary rules.

Chickens I looked after weren't exploited, I went out in rain and cold at the crack of dawn let them out and put them away at night to keep them safe, clean, well fed. I didn't force them to lay eggs, they just did. And I pampered them to keep them happy and comfortable to reliably get larger and frankly tastier eggs...What, do these chickens need emancipation? You cannot use the same language as "exploitation" that is used by abolitionists against slavery. These chickens are not going to go to University given the opportunity, you "liberate" them an within 24 hours they will be a fox's dinner!

Firstly, I said battery chickens, not free range. Interestingly, despite the free range logo on the egg box, free range chickens don't necessarily live in nice conditions like the ones you provided for your own. For eggs to qualify as free range, all that is required is for the chickens to get out doors during their routine. How much room they have in or outdoors, and how long they get is totally unregulated, resulting in many free range chickens living in near identical conditions as the cage raised.

Secondly, 'exploitation' is a word that gets used in many instances to describe many situations ("exploiting natural resources", "exploitation cinema" etc.). The word does not convey an automatic parallel to the abolitionist movement.

Thirdly, and most importantly, you seem to be denying that humans are able to abuse or exploit animals at all by suggesting that abuse and exploitation are acts that can only be perpetrated by one human to another. Thus, that allows you to deny the unpleasant nature of the many activities large scale farming resorts to; keeping chickens in claustrophobic, cramped conditions to small for them to lie down. Removing their beaks so they can't attack each other out of desperation. Messing with their circadian rhythms so that they lay more eggs. Starving chickens for prolongued periods of time, so as to "force-moult" them into producing eggs. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery_cage] These techniques are used to produce the majority of the world's poultry and eggs. You don't have to be a vegan to see these methods as cruel.

So if you are going to call MY JOB a cruel and exploitative one then you can say such LIES to my face! Not hiding behind the unaccountable anonymity of the internet!

Calm down there, internet tough guy. I never accused you of being cruel and exploitative, and I didn't lie about you. For what it is worth, your free range set up is much more preferable to the factory farming techniques. Both you and your chickens share mutual benefits and live healthier and happier as a consequence. That is a lot better arrangement than the above.

"So if a vegan guest is hungry in my house I'll make them pancakes and if they refuse such delicious treats on ethical grounds I'll ask them to explain how MY JOB is immoral or unethical!"

That would be selfish of them, not letting you know in advance that they can't eat pancakes and all. Seeing as how the pancakes are already made, it wouldn't make sense for them to let it go to waste.

"Because I've yet to meet a vegan who has actually reared animals."

That is the entire point of veganism - they regard dairy produce as animal exploitation too, leaving them little reason to ever raise livestock.

"I'd love to give every vegan a chicken as a pet, and when it lays an inert egg... what the fuck would they do? Throw it away? Because they'd be undeniably a hypocrite."

Why not go on to trick muslims into eating pork? Handing chickens over to people who really don't want them would be a bit of a dick move.

 

[MASTACHIEFPWN]

two reasons we still eat meat- It's convinent, and can be easily diversly prepared.

Meat is culture, meat was life.

That kind of thing sticks to a race.

 

[Treblaine]

Here is the thing, VEGANS are extremist, they think only in absolutes. They refuse to consume or use any animal products and their continued use of petrochemical industry is wilful ignorance for convenience. They won't eat a cow that died of natural causes - a death that could not be avoided - yet they depend on the death of millions of animals to drive around and manufacture the fertilisers for Soya and wear textiles made from something other than cotton.

Are you suggesting that vegans shouldn't differentiate between having animals killed for food in factory farms, and using the oil produced by decomposing, million year old animal remains? The beef industry does not rely on cows dropping dead from heart attacks. The oil industry does not funnel animals into underwater sediment caverns. Those differences are crucial, as vegans are all about ending cruel acts of animal exploitation - not about following arbitrary rules.

Chickens I looked after weren't exploited, I went out in rain and cold at the crack of dawn let them out and put them away at night to keep them safe, clean, well fed. I didn't force them to lay eggs, they just did. And I pampered them to keep them happy and comfortable to reliably get larger and frankly tastier eggs...What, do these chickens need emancipation? You cannot use the same language as "exploitation" that is used by abolitionists against slavery. These chickens are not going to go to University given the opportunity, you "liberate" them an within 24 hours they will be a fox's dinner!

Firstly, I said battery chickens, not free range. Interestingly, despite the free range logo on the egg box, free range chickens don't necessarily live in nice conditions like the ones you provided for your own. For eggs to qualify as free range, all that is required is for the chickens to get out doors during their routine. How much room they have in or outdoors, and how long they get is totally unregulated, resulting in many free range chickens living in near identical conditions as the cage raised.

Secondly, 'exploitation' is a word that gets used in many instances to describe many situations ("exploiting natural resources", "exploitation cinema" etc.). The word does not convey an automatic parallel to the abolitionist movement.

Thirdly, and most importantly, you seem to be denying that humans are able to abuse or exploit animals at all by suggesting that abuse and exploitation are acts that can only be perpetrated by one human to another. Thus, that allows you to deny the unpleasant nature of the many activities large scale farming resorts to; keeping chickens in claustrophobic, cramped conditions to small for them to lie down. Removing their beaks so they can't attack each other out of desperation. Messing with their circadian rhythms so that they lay more eggs. Starving chickens for prolongued periods of time, so as to "force-moult" them into producing eggs. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery_cage] These techniques are used to produce the majority of the world's poultry and eggs. You don't have to be a vegan to see these methods as cruel.

So if you are going to call MY JOB a cruel and exploitative one then you can say such LIES to my face! Not hiding behind the unaccountable anonymity of the internet!

Calm down there, internet tough guy. I never accused you of being cruel and exploitative, and I didn't lie about you. For what it is worth, your free range set up is much more preferable to the factory farming techniques. Both you and your chickens share mutual benefits and live healthier and happier as a consequence. That is a lot better arrangement than the above.

"So if a vegan guest is hungry in my house I'll make them pancakes and if they refuse such delicious treats on ethical grounds I'll ask them to explain how MY JOB is immoral or unethical!"

That would be selfish of them, not letting you know in advance that they can't eat pancakes and all. Seeing as how the pancakes are already made, it wouldn't make sense for them to let it go to waste.

"Because I've yet to meet a vegan who has actually reared animals."

That is the entire point of veganism - they regard dairy produce as animal exploitation too, leaving them little reason to ever raise livestock.

"I'd love to give every vegan a chicken as a pet, and when it lays an inert egg... what the fuck would they do? Throw it away? Because they'd be undeniably a hypocrite."

Why not go on to trick muslims into eating pork? Handing chickens over to people who really don't want them would be a bit of a dick move.

Vegans aren't anti food "industry", it's the ANIMAL part. They categorically refuse to use any animal products. Whether their neighbour owns chickens in their garden with their cat and dog they still refuse to eat eggs or dairy. They DO follow arbitrary rules, except where they can delude themselves on the origin of crude oil.

Again, Vegas are not "Anti-battery-Chickens" they are anti ALL chickens!

I'm sorry but it is utterly intellectually dishonest to say you can't source your eggs from true free range chickens

And let me tell you something, it would be CRUEL to not offer the chickens shelter! Free range is ONLY valuable during daylight, at night where it is cold and their poor night vision makes them all but blind the place a chicken wants to be is in a coop. Now a fool might call this battery farming

Now answer me this, WHY OH BLOODY WHY would farmers designate area for chickens to roam free yet arbitrarily only let them do it for 15 minutes or so?!!? That makes no sense. The intellectual dishonestly on the part of vegans - who even before turning vegan never worked a day in their lives rearing animals - is they assuming chickens being invited to the safety of a chicken coop over night. This is the intellectual dishonesty of declaring even free-range eggs as from battery-chickens!

many free range chickens living in near identical conditions as the cage raised.

Weasel reasoning if there ever was.

I have looked after chickens they all willingly and without prompt file into their coop at night where they will be warm and safe, and DAMN RIGHT I lock the door or the fox will get in! And Vegans who have of course never worked this job but just read about it in a book with their extremist absolute logic call this battery farming! This is why so many are pissed off at vegans, they corrupt everything they see with their paranoid delusions.

And the intellectual dishonesty to declare that because "huur, most eggs are produced cruelly" that is is in ANY WAY RELEVANT to eggs that they KNOW are obtained without cruelty. They are playing the simplistic association game between eggs.

Well, Vegans, if you REALLY do care about animals why don't you support the farmer who ARE decent to their animals and free roam but NOOOoOoOO, the farmers who ARE decent are still dismissed as no different from battery farmers, the vegans denigrate the free range brand with their extremist rhetoric. What the hell does this encourage? Battery farming is only marginally more profitable than regular cruelty free farming but if free-range are devalued by vegans then where does that drive business? With vegans its always everyone else's problem never their own, It's almost as if they get off on that.

As to me giving them a chicken to own, well Vegans are supposed to be animal lovers, surely they'd be overjoyed at the opportunity to care for a chicken rather than the possibility of it going to battery-farm. I just want them to walk a mile in someone else's shoes before they declare ALL FARMERS as pointlessly cruel animal abusers. Except in my experience Vegans are not animal lovers they are merely morally paranoid and intellectually self-indulgent, they don't really care about chickens or cows, they are just paranoid about their guilt over life an death and respond with extremist edicts forbidding use of all animal products. Except where they delude themselves Crude oil is made from plankton.

IN STARK CONTRAST TO MOST VEGETARIANS! They don't complain that they can't find free-range eggs or cruelty-free milk.

Muslims honestly believe that God, the Creator of the universe and the only salvation of their immortal soul ordered them not to eat pork. They have been told so for so long it is an integral part of their family life. That is a nut I wouldn't know how to crack and honestly that is a sleeping dog best left to lie. Vegans have no reason to simply regard ALL dairy/eggs production as wrong, they just made it up in the mid 20th century. Vegans can end their shit right away as there is an utter disconnect between their reasoning and their rules. They have no basis to refuse free-range or cruelty-free eggs and dairy. And I don't think most vegans are THAT big a hypocrites that after working on a cruelty-free farm collecting eggs and milk they'd still morally object to THOSE eggs and milk products. Of course one in a hundred will refuse to distinguish battery farming and normal cruelty-free farming, but that's their wilful self-delusions.

 

[maninahat]

snip

Vegans aren't anti food "industry", it's the ANIMAL part. They categorically refuse to use any animal products. Whether their neighbour owns chickens in their garden with their cat and dog they still refuse to eat eggs or dairy. They DO follow arbitrary rules, except where they can delude themselves on the origin of crude oil.

You don't seem to understand why vegans won't touch animal produce. They feel it is the only way to stop the exploitation of animals. Vegans are of the opinion that if they were to buy leather shoes, or chicken eggs, they would inevitably be supporting a world wide industry that relies on mistreating and misappropriating animals. They may refuse to touch even the well kept, free range animals because they feel that they too shouldn't be in that position. The chickens you use on your own farm are not the kind of chickens found in the wild - they were crossbreeded over hundreds of years for the express purpose of better serving humans. No matter how well you treat your chickens, that is a fact that cannot be escaped. And that is why vegans won't support your business. You may think it is fine for animals to serve such roles. That is something you'll have to agree to disagree on with vegans.

I'm sorry but it is utterly intellectually dishonest to say you can't source your eggs from true free range chickens

And let me tell you something, it would be CRUEL to not offer the chickens shelter! Free range is ONLY valuable during daylight, at night where it is cold and their poor night vision makes them all but blind the place a chicken wants to be is in a coop. Now a fool might call this battery farming

They would be miscategorizing your farm if they did call it battery farming, certainly. Both in the eyes of the law and common sense, your farm is a free range. And a good one, as far as I can tell. Do vegans call your farm a battery farm, or are you just assuming they would?

Now answer me this, WHY OH BLOODY WHY would farmers designate area for chickens to roam free yet arbitrarily only let them do it for 15 minutes or so?!!? That makes no sense. The intellectual dishonestly on the part of vegans - who even before turning vegan never worked a day in their lives rearing animals - is they assuming chickens being invited to the safety of a chicken coop over night. This is the intellectual dishonesty of declaring even free-range eggs as from battery-chickens!

The reason why farmers designate an outdoor area for chickens is so that they can put "free range" on the box. They don't actually care if chickens use this area, and often they do not even make it easy for the chickens to use the outdoor space. This outdoor space can be as small as the farmer likes, and may never get used by most of the chickens, yet it can still qualify for free range. Thus farmers do not have to invest in a large field or even alter their business at all, whilst at the same time, they can get in those members of the public who think that "free range" automatically means "humane". As you apparently seem unaware of these practises, here is a photo of one such "free range" farm.

Spoiler: photo

This isn't just some freak farm either. This is typical in the industry. The vast majority of chicken farms are either caged, battery, or these psuedo-free range systems. Sadly, your business is in a minority.

many free range chickens living in near identical conditions as the cage raised

Weasel reasoning if there ever was.

I have looked after chickens they all willingly and without prompt file into their coop at night where they will be warm and safe, and DAMN RIGHT I lock the door or the fox will get in! And Vegans who have of course never worked this job but just read about it in a book with their extremist absolute logic call this battery farming! This is why so many are pissed off at vegans, they corrupt everything they see with their paranoid delusions.

Apparently, despite your experience in this area, you are utterly ignorant of the industry practises. Because you look after your own chickens well, you seem to think that every farmer, with any sized coop, keeps their stock in identically decent conditions. They don't. Please look it up. Especially before you accuse me of intellectual dishonesty or using weasel reasoning.

And the intellectual dishonesty to declare that because "huur, most eggs are produced cruelly" that is is in ANY WAY RELEVANT to eggs that they KNOW are obtained without cruelty. They are playing the simplistic association game between eggs.

Well, they may be generalising by assuming all chickens are treated badly, but as I said above, the fact that chickens are being kept at all, no matter how well, is ethically unsound to them. They feel that animals should not be put into these domesticated, servile roles.

Well, Vegans, if you REALLY do care about animals why don't you support the farmer who ARE decent to their animals and free roam but NOOOoOoOO, the farmers who ARE decent are still dismissed as no different from battery farmers, the vegans denigrate the free range brand with their extremist rhetoric. What the hell does this encourage?

Eating vegetables instead, presumably.

Battery farming is only marginally more profitable than regular cruelty free farming but if free-range are devalued by vegans then where does that drive business?

Battery farms make significantly more profit than the (genuinely) free ranged farms do. That is entirely why it happens. Farmers can make significantly more money without having to buy larger areas of land, because they can stuff more chickens into a smaller space. Most free range farms (including the nominal ones) have to charge more, and hope that their are customers who prefer their more humanely obtained produce.

As to me giving them a chicken to own, well Vegans are supposed to be animal lovers, surely they'd be overjoyed at the opportunity to care for a chicken rather than the possibility of it going to battery-farm.

That depends on the vegan. Some are fine with keeping pets in general, though others are outright against pet ownership too, seeing this as a demeaning and unnatural role for animals. Just by taking the chicken from you, they are justifying the breeding process that produced that chicken. If vegans got their way, no one would be eating chickens, and so no such chickens would be produced in the first place. That latter view appears to be less common amoung vegans though.

Supposing one were to take on a chicken, it wouldn't surprise me if the vegan were to eat the chicken eggs, feeling that in those circumstances, it would be reasonable. Seeing as how I don't know any vegans who have taken on pet chickens, I couldn't say. And I don't think you could either.

I just want them to walk a mile in someone else's shoes before they declare ALL FARMERS as pointlessly cruel animal abusers. Except in my experience Vegans are not animal lovers they are merely morally paranoid and intellectually self-indulgent, they don't really care about chickens or cows, they are just paranoid about their guilt over life an death and respond with extremist edicts forbidding use of all animal products. Except where they delude themselves Crude oil is made from plankton.

Well either you know some rubbish vegans, or you are just an especially judgemental person. And how many times do I have to explain the moral differences between using oil and using livestock?

Muslims honestly believe that God, the Creator of the universe and the only salvation of their immortal soul ordered them not to eat pork. They have been told so for so long it is an integral part of their family life. That is a nut I wouldn't know how to crack and honestly that is a sleeping dog best left to lie. Vegans have no reason to simply regard ALL dairy/eggs production as wrong, they just made it up in the mid 20th century.

So you'll oblige muslims in their beliefs, but not vegans. Even if you aren't muslim yourself. To you, it is acceptable for a man can believe in a God who tells them not to eat pork, but if a man believe's it is their moral duty to not eat from any animal then that is totally unconscionable. For someone who hates inconsistency or hypocrisy, that sounds like a very flawed perspective. And that is without going into jainism (they've been around quite a bit longer than the 1960s hippy movement) and other religions that support vegan lifestyles.

 

[Gecko clown]

Vegetarianism is fine veganism is also fine (although in my opinion a little extreme.) If the animal is treated well in life i.e is let to roam around field etc then I think its fine to eat it. If, however, the animals are shoved in massive sheds with hundreds of others then that's not fine. I still don't quite understand why you would even need to be vegan most things animals produce they produce naturally. Although if you don't like to eat something that used to be alive and have a face. I certainly wouldn't eat dog and am not to keen on rabbits. You're right of course we do need the things that meat provides us with but you can get it from nuts and beans. Most farm animals, like pigs, wouldn't exist if we hadn't bred them there would be variations on them though. I doubt I could ever be a vegetarian let alone vegan. I just love meat to damn much *licks steak*.

 

[Treblaine]

snip

Vegans aren't anti food "industry", it's the ANIMAL part. They categorically refuse to use any animal products. Whether their neighbour owns chickens in their garden with their cat and dog they still refuse to eat eggs or dairy. They DO follow arbitrary rules, except where they can delude themselves on the origin of crude oil.

You don't seem to understand why vegans won't touch animal produce. They feel it is the only way to stop the exploitation of animals. Vegans are of the opinion that if they were to buy leather shoes, or chicken eggs, they would inevitably be supporting a world wide industry that relies on mistreating and misappropriating animals. They may refuse to touch even the well kept, free range animals because they feel that they too shouldn't be in that position. The chickens you use on your own farm are not the kind of chickens found in the wild - they were crossbreeded over hundreds of years for the express purpose of better serving humans. No matter how well you treat your chickens, that is a fact that cannot be escaped. And that is why vegans won't support your business. You may think it is fine for animals to serve such roles. That is something you'll have to agree to disagree on with vegans.

I'm sorry but it is utterly intellectually dishonest to say you can't source your eggs from true free range chickens

And let me tell you something, it would be CRUEL to not offer the chickens shelter! Free range is ONLY valuable during daylight, at night where it is cold and their poor night vision makes them all but blind the place a chicken wants to be is in a coop. Now a fool might call this battery farming

They would be miscategorizing your farm if they did call it battery farming, certainly. Both in the eyes of the law and common sense, your farm is a free range. And a good one, as far as I can tell. Do vegans call your farm a battery farm, or are you just assuming they would?

Now answer me this, WHY OH BLOODY WHY would farmers designate area for chickens to roam free yet arbitrarily only let them do it for 15 minutes or so?!!? That makes no sense. The intellectual dishonestly on the part of vegans - who even before turning vegan never worked a day in their lives rearing animals - is they assuming chickens being invited to the safety of a chicken coop over night. This is the intellectual dishonesty of declaring even free-range eggs as from battery-chickens!

The reason why farmers designate an outdoor area for chickens is so that they can put "free range" on the box. They don't actually care if chickens use this area, and often they do not even make it easy for the chickens to use the outdoor space. This outdoor space can be as small as the farmer likes, and may never get used by most of the chickens, yet it can still qualify for free range. Thus farmers do not have to invest in a large field or even alter their business at all, whilst at the same time, they can get in those members of the public who think that "free range" automatically means "humane". As you apparently seem unaware of these practises, here is a photo of one such "free range" farm.

Spoiler: photo

This isn't just some freak farm either. This is typical in the industry. The vast majority of chicken farms are either caged, battery, or these psuedo-free range systems. Sadly, your business is in a minority.

many free range chickens living in near identical conditions as the cage raised

Weasel reasoning if there ever was.

I have looked after chickens they all willingly and without prompt file into their coop at night where they will be warm and safe, and DAMN RIGHT I lock the door or the fox will get in! And Vegans who have of course never worked this job but just read about it in a book with their extremist absolute logic call this battery farming! This is why so many are pissed off at vegans, they corrupt everything they see with their paranoid delusions.

Apparently, despite your experience in this area, you are utterly ignorant of the industry practises. Because you look after your own chickens well, you seem to think that every farmer, with any sized coop, keeps their stock in identically decent conditions. They don't. Please look it up. Especially before you accuse me of intellectual dishonesty or using weasel reasoning.

And the intellectual dishonesty to declare that because "huur, most eggs are produced cruelly" that is is in ANY WAY RELEVANT to eggs that they KNOW are obtained without cruelty. They are playing the simplistic association game between eggs.

Well, they may be generalising by assuming all chickens are treated badly, but as I said above, the fact that chickens are being kept at all, no matter how well, is ethically unsound to them. They feel that animals should not be put into these domesticated, servile roles.

Well, Vegans, if you REALLY do care about animals why don't you support the farmer who ARE decent to their animals and free roam but NOOOoOoOO, the farmers who ARE decent are still dismissed as no different from battery farmers, the vegans denigrate the free range brand with their extremist rhetoric. What the hell does this encourage?

Eating vegetables instead, presumably.

Battery farming is only marginally more profitable than regular cruelty free farming but if free-range are devalued by vegans then where does that drive business?

Battery farms make significantly more profit than the (genuinely) free ranged farms do. That is entirely why it happens. Farmers can make significantly more money without having to buy larger areas of land, because they can stuff more chickens into a smaller space. Most free range farms (including the nominal ones) have to charge more, and hope that their are customers who prefer their more humanely obtained produce.

As to me giving them a chicken to own, well Vegans are supposed to be animal lovers, surely they'd be overjoyed at the opportunity to care for a chicken rather than the possibility of it going to battery-farm.

That depends on the vegan. Some are fine with keeping pets in general, though others are outright against pet ownership too, seeing this as a demeaning and unnatural role for animals. Just by taking the chicken from you, they are justifying the breeding process that produced that chicken. If vegans got their way, no one would be eating chickens, and so no such chickens would be produced in the first place. That latter view appears to be less common amoung vegans though.

Supposing one were to take on a chicken, it wouldn't surprise me if the vegan were to eat the chicken eggs, feeling that in those circumstances, it would be reasonable. Seeing as how I don't know any vegans who have taken on pet chickens, I couldn't say. And I don't think you could either.

I just want them to walk a mile in someone else's shoes before they declare ALL FARMERS as pointlessly cruel animal abusers. Except in my experience Vegans are not animal lovers they are merely morally paranoid and intellectually self-indulgent, they don't really care about chickens or cows, they are just paranoid about their guilt over life an death and respond with extremist edicts forbidding use of all animal products. Except where they delude themselves Crude oil is made from plankton.

Well either you know some rubbish vegans, or you are just an especially judgemental person. And how many times do I have to explain the moral differences between using oil and using livestock?

Muslims honestly believe that God, the Creator of the universe and the only salvation of their immortal soul ordered them not to eat pork. They have been told so for so long it is an integral part of their family life. That is a nut I wouldn't know how to crack and honestly that is a sleeping dog best left to lie. Vegans have no reason to simply regard ALL dairy/eggs production as wrong, they just made it up in the mid 20th century.

So you'll oblige muslims in their beliefs, but not vegans. Even if you aren't muslim yourself. To you, it is acceptable for a man can believe in a God who tells them not to eat pork, but if a man believe's it is their moral duty to not eat from any animal then that is totally unconscionable. For someone who hates inconsistency or hypocrisy, that sounds like a very flawed perspective. And that is without going into jainism (they've been around quite a bit longer than the 1960s hippy movement) and other religions that support vegan lifestyles.

So what if chickens were cross bred to be egg producers? Its a symbiotic adaptation, THOUSANDS of species do this! That it was consciously orchestrated by humans is irrelevant. Chickens give us eggs and we give them food, shelter and protection. It is utter Gobshite that is exploitation, when we exploit a mine of coal or diamonds what do with give back to the soil in return? Massive holes!!?!?

I don't know what tin-pot backwards country you live in, but throughout the UK, EU and most American States standards for free-range chickens ARE enforced - rigorously - and it is utterly disingenuous of Vegans to continue to complain it's impossible to differentiate Free-range from battery chickens.

If vegans think all chickens should be sterilised or exterminated, THAT is why they are bloody extremists! Chickens not being allowed to exist - the evidence of symbiosis - jsut betrays a paranoid fear of animals and life itself. They won't even want to care for a chicken that has been sterilised, that is intellectual dishonesty... if the chicken dies slowly out in the cold starving to death somehow their conscience is clean. But you know what, if vegans ever DID start saving chickens en mass then they'd cease to be vegans as they'd have a huge surplus of eggs and happy chickens.

Eating vegetables instead, presumably.

Give up on that idea, the general public are not going to give up on eggs for congealed crap aka tofu. Chicken farmers - if battery farmers - can't switch to vegetable farming but they can go free-range, if people would actually value their eggs for being free-range.

Battery farming is ONLY more profitable if free-range eggs are devalued, and vegans do this CONSTANTLY by saying you can NEVER trust any farmer of even free-range eggs. They say "they're all part of the same industry, just as guilty, it's all lies" and what are the general public going to do who do who ARE going to eat eggs, they'll get the battery eggs.

Vegans do that. They are responsible for devaluing free-range eggs and MAKING battery farming more profitable.

Vegans do NOT have an ethical argument for why feeding, sheltering, healing and protecting animals is wrong. All they have is pedantic innuendo of relationships. This is why vegans are extremists, they think even keeping pets is unethical (most do, vegans who don't are challenged) with an utterly bullshit argument. This isn't about animals, this is about their paranoia of mortality and suffering, hoping they can simply devoid themselves from it!

I don't oblige Muslims because I don't conform to agreeing with them, I tolerate them because there are 1 billion of them where Islam is politically, socially and emotionally integral to most of their lives and an extremely violent extreme minority are happy to die and kill to avenge affronts. It does more harm than good being anti-Islam, though on the issue of theocracy I do have some issues as I don't believe any religion is suitable as basis of a country's laws. That is not relevant here, as we are not talking about a country where veganism is the basis of legislation.

But it would do more good than harm if Vegans gave up on their self-indulgent delusions NOW before it is too late. And start taking a policy that is about animal welfare, not this self-indulgent "not in my name" nonsense. Vegans could be a driving force turning every battery farm into a free-range farm, but they won't do that. The fact that they would eat eggs from a chicken they were forced to raise just shows they are not anti-cruelty, or anti-animal-consumption but merely anti-commerce, they're closet communists who despise private enterprise. Their solution to how farm animals - symbiotic species - that are so dependant on humans is to simply have them exterminated just shows where this is going and that it cannot go there.

I just find it and similar "animal-activism" movements the most anti-intellectual and delusional movement at the moment. They lie, they deceive, and they delude and they insult and denigrate for a mere illusion of a greater purpose. They COULD do some good in this world but they won't, they'd rather have the self-satisfaction of saying "not in my name" with sweeping generalisations that mean MORE people eat battery chicken eggs and more chickens suffer. But that serves them fine, it serves their moral relativism.

 

[AlexLoxate]

If all the conflicts and wars don't prove we're animals, then I don't know what can.

 

[maninahat]

So what if chickens were cross bred to be egg producers? Its a symbiotic adaptation, THOUSANDS of species do this! That it was consciously orchestrated by humans is irrelevant. Chickens give us eggs and we give them food, shelter and protection. It is utter Gobshite that is exploitation, when we exploit a mine of coal or diamonds what do with give back to the soil in return? Massive holes!!?!?

Well for one thing, hatcheries cull thousands of male chicks on mass. It doesn't matter if it is a free range farm or a battery system - neither farm wants or needs very many roosters, so rooster chicks have to be culled by the hatchery. What do the male chicks get out of this "symbiotic relationship"? Can it be really called a symbiotic relationship to force someone or something to work for you? It doesn't matter how well you treat them - they didn't volunteer for the role farmers give them. That is a problem for vegans.

I don't know what tin-pot backwards country you live in, but throughout the UK, EU and most American States standards for free-range chickens ARE enforced - rigorously - and it is utterly disingenuous of Vegans to continue to complain it's impossible to differentiate Free-range from battery chickens.

Well apparently they aren't. Here is an article about exploitation of the basic regulations [http://www.plamondon.com/faq_freerange.html] in the US and Europe. The writer (a free range farmer himself) deplores the way other farmers abuse the term. Though the term "free range" is better regulated in Europe than in America, it is still closer to "yarding" than free range. Meanwhile, uncaged hens have almost identical conditions to caged. When buying free range eggs in a super market, a consumer has absolutely no idea how much space the chickens were given, how much time they spent outside etc.

You keep using words like "disingenuous" or "dishonest", as though vegans secretly believe some or all livestock farming is fine, and that they only pretend to find it a moral quandary. That really isn't the case.

If vegans think all chickens should be sterilised or exterminated, THAT is why they are bloody extremists!

They don't think all chickens should be sterilised or exterminated. It is quite easy to reduce farm populations without having to kill anything. By not buying from hatcheries, a hatchery will reduce the number of chicks it produces in reaction to this drop in demand. This process would take a couple of years for the older chickens to naturally dwindle in their respective farms, whilst no new domestic chickens would be produced by the hatcheries.

Chickens not being allowed to exist - the evidence of symbiosis - jsut betrays a paranoid fear of animals and life itself. They won't even want to care for a chicken that has been sterilised, that is intellectual dishonesty... if the chicken dies slowly out in the cold starving to death somehow their conscience is clean. But you know what, if vegans ever DID start saving chickens en mass then they'd cease to be vegans as they'd have a huge surplus of eggs and happy chickens.

You are making a lot of presumptions here. Vegans aren't supportive of sterilising chickens. They are not demanding that all current livestock be immediately thrown out to face the elements. They are probably not going to see any challenge to their beliefs just by getting them to take on chickens. Perhaps you are getting the common vegan confused with eco terrorists?

the general public are not going to give up on eggs for congealed crap aka tofu.

That is an opinion that vegans want to change. Not all countries are as big on meat and eggs as the West is.

Battery farming is ONLY more profitable if free-range eggs are devalued, and vegans do this CONSTANTLY by saying you can NEVER trust any farmer of even free-range eggs. They say "they're all part of the same industry, just as guilty, it's all lies" and what are the general public going to do who do who ARE going to eat eggs, they'll get the battery eggs.

Well no, you've ignored what I said. It is obviously much cheaper to keep many chickens in a tiny space with tightly controlled conditions, than it is to provide fewer chickens a huge area of land. Because a country needs billions of eggs to get by, there is an incentive for farmers to produce more eggs cheaply, than fewer eggs at greater expense. That is why eggs from caged hens are invariably cheaper (up to half the price).

Vegans do that. They are responsible for devaluing free-range eggs and MAKING battery farming more profitable.

By telling people not to buy eggs at all? That argument doesn't even make sense.

Vegans do NOT have an ethical argument for why feeding, sheltering, healing and protecting animals is wrong. All they have is pedantic innuendo of relationships. This is why vegans are extremists, they think even keeping pets is unethical (most do, vegans who don't are challenged) with an utterly bullshit argument. This isn't about animals, this is about their paranoia of mortality and suffering, hoping they can simply devoid themselves from it!

I don't oblige Muslims because I don't conform to agreeing with them, I tolerate them because there are 1 billion of them where Islam is politically, socially and emotionally integral to most of their lives and an extremely violent extreme minority are happy to die and kill to avenge affronts. It does more harm than good being anti-Islam, though on the issue of theocracy I do have some issues as I don't believe any religion is suitable as basis of a country's laws. That is not relevant here, as we are not talking about a country where veganism is the basis of legislation.

Okay, so you only oblige people's beliefs when you are concerned of a reprisal. Interesting. That'll explain why you won't give vegans the time of day - because there aren't enough of them to pose a significant threat to you. That doesn't come across as a very accommodating attitude.

But it would do more good than harm if Vegans gave up on their self-indulgent delusions NOW before it is too late. And start taking a policy that is about animal welfare, not this self-indulgent "not in my name" nonsense. Vegans could be a driving force turning every battery farm into a free-range farm, but they won't do that.

No, as I said, they'd rather all egg farms would go away. They would see that as the paramount of animal welfare. Animals would just exist in their original, natural habitat in their original form, without being taken out of the wild and bred over hundreds of generations to do what we want them to do.

The fact that they would eat eggs from a chicken they were forced to raise just shows they are not anti-cruelty, or anti-animal-consumption but merely anti-commerce, they're closet communists who despise private enterprise.

Now you are starting to sound a little paranoid. If they ate the eggs fom the chicken they looked after, they would be doing so in the knowledge that the chicken was treated ethically, and with the understanding that they hadn't taken on this chicken for a specific role (they were doing the best they can with what they were given). If they were anti-commerce, they wouldn't keeping buying vegetables.

 

[Dys]

5 Minutes of research (or paying any attention to tech news) will reveal a horrible trend of slavery and sweatshops in the technology industry.

God knows I don't want to defend vegans but doing any more than 5 minutes of research will also uncover that, as deplorable sweatshops are compared to our standard of living, for their culture it is still a vital necessity to their lives. Often the children working there are homeless, and more often than not, don't have options of orphanages to live at. The choices in their young lives are working to make a stable means to live, stealing and possibly suffer their society's disproportionate justice system, or starving to death. They're still third world nations, and if you paid attention in History class, no nation has ever got to be first world nations on the backs of the well-paid. It's a sad fact of our civilizations.

Apologies for the uber late response, you've made a valid point and it's a douche move to not respond in reasonable time, unfortunately I was cut off from the net for a while...especially douche move for such a weak response (which is as follows).

Yes, it is true that first world nations often had upper class/rich factions controlling and exploiting the lower classes. But often that was to built large scale railroads, or build up permanant industry within that country (or massive printing factories, whatever), the long term effect was that more people were better off. Without these current jobs some sweatshop workers would suffer more (until local industry stepped in), however the way it's going they will all suffer indefinately. It's very difficult to say "fuck this sweatshop I'm going into agriculture" or some other business when some foreign corporation owns all the land and more or less controls the entire economy.

If it wasn't western technology companies it would probablybe somebody else, but as best as I can make out, one who argues that "I don't eat meat because of the ethics" is a gigantic hypocrite if they use unnecessary luxury items like smarthphones or tablet computers that are built on the suffering of the less fortunate. They are needlessly supporting this cruelty without even acknowledging it, choosing ignorance because it's inconvenient...It isn't uncommon to see people, almost always the same people who refuse to eat animal product) insisting they wear "ethically" made clothes or drink rainforest alliance coffee (though it's less common than would make sense)....It is unreasonable to not hold the technology industry to the same standards, regardless of how "uncool" boycotting Apple or HTC might make you look.

 

[Orekoya]

5 Minutes of research (or paying any attention to tech news) will reveal a horrible trend of slavery and sweatshops in the technology industry.

God knows I don't want to defend vegans but doing any more than 5 minutes of research will also uncover that, as deplorable sweatshops are compared to our standard of living, for their culture it is still a vital necessity to their lives. Often the children working there are homeless, and more often than not, don't have options of orphanages to live at. The choices in their young lives are working to make a stable means to live, stealing and possibly suffer their society's disproportionate justice system, or starving to death. They're still third world nations, and if you paid attention in History class, no nation has ever got to be first world nations on the backs of the well-paid. It's a sad fact of our civilizations.

Apologies for the uber late response, you've made a valid point and it's a douche move to not respond in reasonable time, unfortunately I was cut off from the net for a while...especially douche move for such a weak response (which is as follows).

Yes, it is true that first world nations often had upper class/rich factions controlling and exploiting the lower classes. But often that was to built large scale railroads, or build up permanant industry within that country (or massive printing factories, whatever), the long term effect was that more people were better off. Without these current jobs some sweatshop workers would suffer more (until local industry stepped in), however the way it's going they will all suffer indefinately. It's very difficult to say "fuck this sweatshop I'm going into agriculture" or some other business when some foreign corporation owns all the land and more or less controls the entire economy.

If it wasn't western technology companies it would probablybe somebody else, but as best as I can make out, one who argues that "I don't eat meat because of the ethics" is a gigantic hypocrite if they use unnecessary luxury items like smarthphones or tablet computers that are built on the suffering of the less fortunate. They are needlessly supporting this cruelty without even acknowledging it, choosing ignorance because it's inconvenient...It isn't uncommon to see people, almost always the same people who refuse to eat animal product) insisting they wear "ethically" made clothes or drink rainforest alliance coffee (though it's less common than would make sense)....It is unreasonable to not hold the technology industry to the same standards, regardless of how "uncool" boycotting Apple or HTC might make you look.

That's very fair and acceptable, which is strange because your post is way too long for something I would agree with. I was just pointing out the fact that sweatshops themselves aren't the inherently bad thing itself but the byproduct of the underdeveloped nations, but this is a good demonstration of their misuse by companies who do nothing to actually develop the nations beyond those practices. And by proxy of their consumers who support it with their wallets.

 

[Nyaliva]

Okay, I would respond to countless arguments before me but I'm just going to present my opinion and you people have at it, don't expect a response though, if I don't think your argument is worth responding I won't respond.

First, I'm an omnivore. I mean personally, not as a member of my species. I eat meat, vegetables, grains and dairy products. I am not a "meat-eater" because it does not wholly encompass my choice of food.

Second, I am an omnivore because it gives me the best range of nutrients from the best sources (and it tastes best, partially because of those nutrients). Red meat is the best source of iron not because it has more than any other, but because my body can absorb it much better than from other sources. Which brings me to...

Third, we as a species have grown eating meat. It is NOT the reason we are as intelligent as we are today because then carnivores would have become so intelligent long ago and I would be typing this under the watch of our Lion King.

Fourth, as we have grown eating meat our bodies have come to rely on certain proteins which can only be found in meat. Wonder why birds generally don't eat meat? It's not because they don't want to, it's because they don't require the nutrients and proteins it provides.

Fifth, you may say "well if someone can be vegan then meat is clearly unnecessary" but you don't take into account their health, their fertility or the ability for future generations to continue sustaining themselves in such a manner. I'm not saying it's impossible to be vegan, but not everyone can be vegan at the drop of a hat.

Sixth, killing animals for food, AT THIS STAGE, is in fact necessary. Until we as a species have adapted to eating no meat, it will be necessary and to say otherwise smacks of elitism. However...

Seventh, animal abuse IS unnecessary. Animals aren't as intelligent as we are and they may not have emotions (NOT DEBATING THIS) but they do feel pain and most methods for killing animals shouldn't be torturous. In actuality, when an animal is put under stress before it is killed, there is a certain protein which is spent in keeping the animal alive, and which is very useful to us as consumers. Meaning, torturing an animal before death actually robs it of some of it's benefit as a food source.

Eighth, I can't do this anymore...basically, I eat meat, I like meat, I will likely always eat meat but the killing of animals must be swift and as painless as possible. I tip my hat to any person who can sustain a vegan lifestyle, but I will slap with a glove any who will shove it in my face. As we are the more intelligent species we have a duty to make that choice and try to make it work, however it is not our top priority at the moment.

It has been said that there is much land which would go to waste if not used for livestock so perhaps meat can always play a part in people's lives, but what must be done now is the reduction in meat produced and the destruction of horrid farming practices.

Those who can afford it, buy produce which is humanely farmed and those who can't, try to find a nearby farmer. You can haggle a price for continued buying which is on par or lower than the industrially farmed produce at the supermarket. If you can't either way, I'm not sure, but what I suggest you DON'T do: donate to vegan groups. They won't spend your money improving the quality of farming, they'll spend it pushing their beliefs on the avergae omnivore. Animal rights are important (as stupid as it sounds to most) but as hard as it is to believe, until we find a good standing for the average consumer in terms of living and wealth, animal rights come second to those of our fellow man.

TL;DR I'm not giving you one, or you'll argue it instead of my actual points. However I would like to make a note about Khada's arguments, specifically The Hunger argument and so forth: you're misinterpreting the value of a pound of grain versus a pound of beef nutritionally. Grains provide carbohydrates and some protein. Beef has carbohydrates, protein, fat (which is actually good for you), various vitamins and minerals etc. If you can find a source which surpasses beef nutritionally and is easier to farm, people will produce it and buy it.

Wow, this is much longer than I thought it was going to be...

 

[thylasos]

Okay, I would respond to countless arguments before me but I'm just going to present my opinion and you people have at it, don't expect a response though, if I don't think your argument is worth responding I won't respond.

First, I'm an omnivore. I mean personally, not as a member of my species. I eat meat, vegetables, grains and dairy products. I am not a "meat-eater" because it does not wholly encompass my choice of food.

Second, I am an omnivore because it gives me the best range of nutrients from the best sources (and it tastes best, partially because of those nutrients). Red meat is the best source of iron not because it has more than any other, but because my body can absorb it much better than from other sources. Which brings me to...

Third, we as a species have grown eating meat. It is NOT the reason we are as intelligent as we are today because then carnivores would have become so intelligent long ago and I would be typing this under the watch of our Lion King.

Fourth, as we have grown eating meat our bodies have come to rely on certain proteins which can only be found in meat. Wonder why birds generally don't eat meat? It's not because they don't want to, it's because they don't require the nutrients and proteins it provides.

Fifth, you may say "well if someone can be vegan then meat is clearly unnecessary" but you don't take into account their health, their fertility or the ability for future generations to continue sustaining themselves in such a manner. I'm not saying it's impossible to be vegan, but not everyone can be vegan at the drop of a hat.

Sixth, killing animals for food, AT THIS STAGE, is in fact necessary. Until we as a species have adapted to eating no meat, it will be necessary and to say otherwise smacks of elitism. However...

Seventh, animal abuse IS unnecessary. Animals aren't as intelligent as we are and they may not have emotions (NOT DEBATING THIS) but they do feel pain and most methods for killing animals shouldn't be torturous. In actuality, when an animal is put under stress before it is killed, there is a certain protein which is spent in keeping the animal alive, and which is very useful to us as consumers. Meaning, torturing an animal before death actually robs it of some of it's benefit as a food source.

Eighth, I can't do this anymore...basically, I eat meat, I like meat, I will likely always eat meat but the killing of animals must be swift and as painless as possible. I tip my hat to any person who can sustain a vegan lifestyle, but I will slap with a glove any who will shove it in my face. As we are the more intelligent species we have a duty to make that choice and try to make it work, however it is not our top priority at the moment.

It has been said that there is much land which would go to waste if not used for livestock so perhaps meat can always play a part in people's lives, but what must be done now is the reduction in meat produced and the destruction of horrid farming practices.

Those who can afford it, buy produce which is humanely farmed and those who can't, try to find a nearby farmer. You can haggle a price for continued buying which is on par or lower than the industrially farmed produce at the supermarket. If you can't either way, I'm not sure, but what I suggest you DON'T do: donate to vegan groups. They won't spend your money improving the quality of farming, they'll spend it pushing their beliefs on the avergae omnivore. Animal rights are important (as stupid as it sounds to most) but as hard as it is to believe, until we find a good standing for the average consumer in terms of living and wealth, animal rights come second to those of our fellow man.

TL;DR I'm not giving you one, or you'll argue it instead of my actual points. However I would like to make a note about Khada's arguments, specifically The Hunger argument and so forth: you're misinterpreting the value of a pound of grain versus a pound of beef nutritionally. Grains provide carbohydrates and some protein. Beef has carbohydrates, protein, fat (which is actually good for you), various vitamins and minerals etc. If you can find a source which surpasses beef nutritionally and is easier to farm, people will produce it and buy it.

Wow, this is much longer than I thought it was going to be...

And the award for greatest effort made to necro a thread goes to...

 

[Dragonclaw]

I can't be a vegan...I am a full on carnivore

 

[Nyaliva]

-self-snip-

And the award for greatest effort made to necro a thread goes to...

Lol sorry, I didn't even notice, it was just suggested on the side of the homepage as one of the "most viewed" or something. Oh well, seems people are coming back anyway.

 

[Bertylicious]

Animals aren't people but even so it is very sad that we have mass breed them so they can be savagely rendered into bloody strips so that we can get at their tasty, tasty, giblets. Also, have you ever met anyone who worked at an abatoir? They're basically ruined and incapable of feeling.

What we really need is synthetic meat; a giant meat-cube in a warehouse which we can saw regenerating chunks off of. Then we can concrete over the world and put all the animals in cages. Fucking nature.