VeeshanVault

Spang wrote:You don't even have to do any research, really. Common sense works, too. Common sense tells me that a dairy cow isn't producing that milk for humans, but for the calf it recently shat out. All the women of the world, after they give birth, produce milk. They're not doing it for some other species; they're doing it for their own babies. Every milk-producing animal does this for the exact same reason. That's science. That's fucking fact, you can't refute that.

Aslanna wrote:The fact that you CAN eat them is no different than you being able to drink milk or enjoy some tasty yogurt.

Spang wrote:

Aslanna wrote:The fact that you CAN eat them is no different than you being able to drink milk or enjoy some tasty yogurt.

You're not drinking cows milk, though. You're drinking some pasteurized, processed bullshit. You might be able to drink cows milk straight from the udder, but that would be unnatural. As a human, you're supposed to be sucking your mommy's titties, but only during the early stages of life. After that, you don't need milk of any kind anymore. You can get plenty of calcium through the foods you eat. However, if you absolutely must consume milk, there's hemp, soy, coconut and rice milk for you, that doesn't require the torture and eventual slaughter of an animal to consume.

Spang wrote:

Aslanna wrote:The fact that you CAN eat them is no different than you being able to drink milk or enjoy some tasty yogurt.

You're not drinking cows milk, though. You're drinking some pasteurized, processed bullshit. You might be able to drink cows milk straight from the udder, but that would be unnatural. As a human, you're supposed to be sucking your mommy's titties, but only during the early stages of life. After that, you don't need milk of any kind anymore. You can get plenty of calcium through the foods you eat. However, if you absolutely must consume milk, there's hemp, soy, coconut and rice milk for you, that doesn't require the torture and eventual slaughter of an animal to consume.

masteen wrote:So not only did we evolve from meat-eating monkeys...

Spang wrote:You don't even have to do any research, really. Common sense works, too. Common sense tells me that a dairy cow isn't producing that milk for humans, but for the calf it recently shat out. All the women of the world, after they give birth, produce milk. They're not doing it for some other species; they're doing it for their own babies. Every milk-producing animal does this for the exact same reason. That's science. That's fucking fact, you can't refute that.

Xyun wrote:

Spang wrote:You don't even have to do any research, really. Common sense works, too. Common sense tells me that a dairy cow isn't producing that milk for humans, but for the calf it recently shat out. All the women of the world, after they give birth, produce milk. They're not doing it for some other species; they're doing it for their own babies. Every milk-producing animal does this for the exact same reason. That's science. That's fucking fact, you can't refute that.

That's not science you moron, that's propaganda.

Canelek wrote:Ok. Lay some science on us.

Aslanna wrote:

Canelek wrote:Ok. Lay some science on us.

Where have you been? He's been zapping your brain with science facts since DAY ONE!

Canelek wrote:Ok. Lay some science on us.

Spang wrote:

Canelek wrote:Ok. Lay some science on us.

Milk-producing animals produce milk for their offspring.

Aslanna wrote:

Spang wrote:

Canelek wrote:Ok. Lay some science on us.

Milk-producing animals produce milk for their offspring.

Fruit producing plants produce fruit for the purposes of reproduction.

Lynks wrote:Get off your high horse you preachy hypocrite.

Lynks wrote:Are you saying that milk is sentient?

Canelek wrote:Cows are self-aware?

Canelek wrote:Pray tell how you know?

There is no doubt that animals suffer and cry out for help when they're being prepared for meals - from the way they're raised, transported to the torture chambers of factory farms, handled when awaiting their own slaughter while hearing, seeing, and smelling the slaughter of others, and having a bolt driven into their brain, far too often inefficiently, so that they're not instantaneously rendered unconscious as existing laws require.

There is no credible evidence that plants are sentient and suffer and feel pain or that they have a conscious desire to live. Vegetables don't suffer when they're prepared for meals, wok-fried, steamed, or otherwise cooked. Plants show intriguing and sophisticated tropisms - automatic reflexive responses to various environmental conditions - and do communicate with one another, but they don't have intentions and desires as do many animals.

Claims about animal sentience are not overblown or speculative, whereas claims about sentience in plants are entirely speculative.

So, let's be serious about food choices and ask that our critics also be serious about their tongue-in-cheek criticisms. We can easily reduce suffering and increase our "compassion footprint" by being vegetarians and vegans. Of this there is no doubt. We're all responsible for the decisions we make. We vegans don't have to defend or apologize for our humane and ethical choices. If in the future we learn that some plants are sentient we will have to change our ways but as yet I'm happy to be a vegan and don't feel guilty for eating a non-protesting brussels sprout.

Canelek wrote:Cows are self-aware? Pray tell how you know?

Spang wrote:

Aslanna wrote:

Spang wrote:

Canelek wrote:Ok. Lay some science on us.

Milk-producing animals produce milk for their offspring.

Fruit producing plants produce fruit for the purposes of reproduction.

And to feed herbivores, such as humans.

In excess, soy can lead to feminization and homosexuality in boys.
In addition, soy has been linked to thyroid problems that may cause fat buildup[1] - with the amount of tofu eaten by liberal atheists, maybe that explains the high rate of obesity among atheists?

Herbivores tend to have well-developed flat premolars and molars, often with sharp ridges on the tops. Generally herbivores do not have canine teeth, and their incisors are usually large and used to snip off foliage from branches. Because herbivores are often prey for other animals, they generally have their eyes on the side of their head, which functions to gibe them a wider field of view, so that they can detect their prey earlier, and have a chance to flee.

Omnivores usually have a variety of all kinds of teeth. Humans, bears and raccoons are omnivores, since they eat all kinds of food (both meat and plant material) they need all kinds of teeth. Generally omnivores have eyes on the front of their heads like carnivores, in order to best catch their prey.

miir wrote:Trying to argue that humans are herbivores is as ridiculous as trying to argue that they are carnivores.

...Stefansson and a colleague lived on a meat-only diet for one year under medical supervision at New York's Bellevue Hospital, starting in February 1928. The two ate between 100 and 140 grams of protein a day, the balance of their calories coming from fat, yet they remained scurvy free. Later in life Stefansson became a strong advocate of a high-meat diet even if you didn't live in the arctic; he professed to enjoy improved health, reduced weight, etc, from meals consisting of coffee, the occasional grapefruit, and a nice steak, presumably rare.

Generally omnivores have eyes on the front of their heads like carnivores, in order to best catch their prey.

Spang wrote:Humans would also salivate at the sight of dead, rotting corpses if they were true omnivores.

Spang wrote:

Generally omnivores have eyes on the front of their heads like carnivores, in order to best catch their prey.

Good luck trying to catch prey without any tools or weapons. If humans were true omnivores they'd have the natural ability to catch animals with their bare hands. And they'd be able to eat those animals without doing anything special to them, like butchering and cooking. Humans would also salivate at the sight of dead, rotting corpses if they were true omnivores.

Also, plenty of herbivores have canines--gorillas, for example, which don't have eyes on the sides of their heads, either. Oh, and humans.

Spang wrote:Good luck trying to catch prey without any tools or weapons. If humans were true omnivores they'd have the natural ability to catch animals with their bare hands. And they'd be able to eat those animals without doing anything special to them, like butchering and cooking. Humans would also salivate at the sight of dead, rotting corpses if they were true omnivores.

Also, plenty of herbivores have canines--gorillas, for example, which don't have eyes on the sides of their heads, either. Oh, and humans.

Aabidano wrote:And of course there's our ability to run long distances, an evolutionary adaptation that no herbivore has a use for. Horses had to be bread for a long time to reach their currrent state.

Speed over a short distance gets you away from the predator and ahead of the sick\old animals in the herd.

Aslanna wrote:

Aabidano wrote:And of course there's our ability to run long distances, an evolutionary adaptation that no herbivore has a use for. Horses had to be bread for a long time to reach their currrent state.

Speed over a short distance gets you away from the predator and ahead of the sick\old animals in the herd.

Gazelles are speedy and don't eat meat. Therefore your argument holds no weight in Spang's bazarro world. Obviously the speed is to get away from meat eaters since we're meat!

Boogahz wrote:Have you ever caught a gazelle to confirm this?

miir wrote:

Boogahz wrote:Have you ever caught a gazelle to confirm this?

With my bare hands, yes!

Aslanna wrote: Gazelles are speedy and don't eat meat.