Why aren't you vegan?

The taste “argument” can also be used to justify cannibalism...

@devils_advocate: They didn't "argue" that anything that's delicious should be eaten. They said the "reason" they eat animal meat is because of the taste, and the same reasoning doesn't apply to all things.

Not Untrue. I'm talking about a vegan diet in comparison to the obesity prone standard American diet. Better=/=Best.

And how does a vegan diet being healthier than standard American diet prove a vegan diet is healthier than ALL the diets that include meat?

It doesn't? I never implied it did. I'm talking about the American diet because it's overfull of lifespan shorteners and has led to a quarter of the population becoming obese, and like two thirds of it overweight.

Well, the initial "Objectively, a vegan diet is better for one's health" implies that a vegan diet is better than any diet that includes meat. And I don't thinks there's much doubt about the fact that the standard American diet is unhealthy, but that doesn't make a statement about meat in diets in general.

@theinsufferable: That’s true, but only under the assumption that humans’ lives are much, much more valuable than those of animals, which is not exactly the case if you think about it.

I am arguing that humans don't have to assign any value to any life, not even human life but especially not animal life. We have no responsibility to. The universe doesn't care. There will be no repercussions. And to be honest, its in our nature to not care and thats fine. Do you think a cat cares about a mouse when they eat it? There is no malice in the action, they simply do it because they are hungry. Humans like any animals are the same thing applies

And yes, animals are pretty similar to humans when it comes to emotion, they simply cannot communicate it through the same language we do. Take my cat, for example.

This sentiment shows such an absurd amount of ignorance on the structure and function of the brain and the difference between animal and human brains its not even funny. Do not make me go off on a tangent about this

White people assigned little value to black people 2 centuries ago, but human ideals and ethics have progressed and evolved throughout the years, and we currently realize that black people have just as many rights as any of us

This comparison is cringe worthy and completely absurd.

Sure, but the thing is that other humans by their very nature will assign infinitely more value to the lives of a human than to an animal, and this is behavior is ingrained into us at an evolutionary level.

All life is fundamentally worthless, and in the end we are not morally obligated to assign artificial value to animal life. Or human life for that matter, but by our own nature we will

@devils_advocate: I neither condoned nor condemned their position, I just tried to make their position clear. I'm sure you'd understand as the devil's advocate.

@theinsufferable: Fair enough

because i don't have to be... its really that simple.

My doc said I couldn't.

I wouldn't want to be a full vegan. I could agree to be a moderate vegetarian, with some fish and white meat now and then, but as of now, don't have the time or energy for it.

Looking back on this from when I first posted in this thread (when it was made), I can genuinely see there is no real justification for eating meat, especially with the damage it’s doing to our planet.

However I genuinely doubt I have the self control to go vegan.

Seafood doesn’t seem to cause that much damage.

@devils_advocate: Way to use a False Dilemma Fallacy. Jez, appealing to empathy and now the False Dilemma fallacy, you, sir, need to learn how to properly debate. We do not have two options. We have many. Including maintaining the course with devouring animals at the current, or even higher, rate. We can also supplement said meat diet with lab grown meat turning that into an industry, however, as such meat is unlikely to be trusted by the Western world for sometime, and even longer by the Eastern world, that will be some time before that becomes viable.

Also, I'll need some citations on not caring about farm animals and seeing them as food as extremely rare. Post those numbers kiddo!

@wut: I don't think you understood. The two options I provided are obviously not the only ones in existence, they are the only viable strategies (I know) we can implement if we take the vegan approach (the lab grown meat would be another option when they master that science).

You initially came in with the argument that there will be tens of billions of farm animals dying out in the wild if we become vegan, and I explained that that is not the case, because most of these animals are bred. There would then be two main options: either let the animals die after a full life and accept their extinction, or keep using a small portion of them for products. If ecologists want to maintain the species for whatever reason, we go with option b. If it is unnecessary, we go with option a. Both option a and b are the results of a world going vegan, which is the assumption you asked me to make in the first place:

As for the citations, not caring about farm animals occurs quite often (which is very disappointing), but seeing live animals as food is quite uncommon. The best I can do for actual research is this: https://www.facebook.com/officialjustinwillman/videos/546987712412597/?t=40 but I made that statement out of personal experience and talking to a large number of meat-eaters. When the food is already on the plate, they don't focus on the fact that it was recently alive because it looks so different. All of this is irrelevant though, that wasn't an argument of mine, I was just shocked that human beings are capable of having such a point of view.

If we assume morality should factor into our choice then it's because I don't believe the infinitesimal impact I have at the consumer level will amount to any change at all at the production level, much less any meaningful change; I don't believe that eating one less steak a week will save a single cow.

There is also the question of why I should even care about morality when making these decisions that I'm yet to hear a rational argument for.

@devils_advocate: They already have lab grown meat. People have already tried it [was even an article a few weeks back about lab grown chicken tasting like chicken]. Its not some future tech. It is now tech. Just a matter of there being enough demand to encourage attempts at supply.

No, you are incorrect. I was pointing out the hilarity in your misbegotten idea that you are saving animals. You are not saving animals. At all. You are pushing them towards mass extinction with your beliefs. Release them all at once. They die. Cut them down 'slowly' overtime as people convert to the crazy ideology that is Veganism, they die. You are 'saving' them with mass genocide which is hilarious. And the best part about it is you know it. You abandoned your notions of 'saving' them the second I called out the lie in your statement and instead settled on the standard moving goalpost point that every vegan does, "Better dead then enslaved!" Which is dumb because, even in the wild, the lives they would lead would be just as unfulfilling and pointless as they do in captivity. Because they are not human. Humans have the capability of doing wondrous, and terrible, things the likes of which no other animal in known history has ever, and I mean ever, been capable of doing. Pigs? Chicken? Cattle? They cannot. They live. They breed. They Die. They are either eaten or left to rot. That is the entire point of their lives. They can attain no higher purpose then that. To try and arbitrarily assign them one, as a human [which, if anything, points to how special you are as a human, you special snowflake you] is folly.

So you have no citation. You made a broad generalization with no thought or research behind it. Yeah, that is about what I expected from you. Not sure why it is sad. I think the idea that wiping out 99% of the majority of species and utterly wiping out the rest is monstrous. The idea that someone is laughing and going, "Well at least they aren't in captivity anymore!" as justification of such carnage is even more monstrous. Its flat out disgusting. I advocate their continued existence and the consumption of them. They get to exist. They get to breed. They get to eat. As far as they are concerned, that is life. It is the same life they would lead 'in the wilds and free', only with a more humane death [If you think death by sickness and starvation or being torn apart by wolves {btw, animals are alive when the wolves start to eat} is more humane then a powerful metal rod piercing their brain, killing them instantly, or a quick slit of the throat then you are, once again, delusional]. They have no concepts of a 'higher meaning'.

Now, if you want to advocate the 'cruelty free, free ranged' livestock where they get to free range and are killed painlessly, through said rod, okay. You go kiddo. I don't care enough to support you, but hey, at least you are fighting a cause I can, somewhat, understand. Pointless cruelty is pointless. But don't you dare look me in the eyes and say you are saving animals. You are saving nothing. You are killing them, permanently, and you know it. You just want to be able to pat yourself on the back and feel all warm and fuzzy about it and that is why I don't like you, that is why I called out your nonsense. Your hypocrisy.

Now, we have established:

1. You are not saving animals. You have admitted as much.
2. You have no points backed up by any evidence to support your claims and love to use fallacies in your debates.
3. Your entire debate hinges on pulling at heartstrings with 'muh animals' and utterly ignores reality as well as the state of being of 'muh animals'.

Is there anything else you want to add besides that I'm a big bad meanie who doesn't care about Daisy the cow?

@decaf_wizard:

I am arguing that humans don't have to assign any value to any life, not even human life but especially not animal life. We have no responsibility to. The universe doesn't care. There will be no repercussions. And to be honest, its in our nature to not care and thats fine. Do you think a cat cares about a mouse when they eat it? There is no malice in the action, they simply do it because they are hungry. Humans like any animals are the same thing applies

It's in our nature not to care? We have no responsibility to assign value to human life? Then why do firemen risk their lives by running into burning buildings to save children? For less money than waiters at certain restaurants? Or is it because they care, and realize that the lives that could be lost are valuable?

All law in this world has to do with assigning value to life. Killing people is illegal because we realize that those lives are valuable. Stealing from people is illegal because we realize that that will cause a negative impact on the victim's life, which is valuable. Discrimination is illegal because we realize that this will have a negative impact on the victim's life, which is once again, valuable. I really hope I simply did not understand you.

You later brought up that my analogy of slavery was absurd, but the cat analogy isn't? Cats are only as smart as 2 year olds. They are not intelligent enough to assign value and consider morality. We are.

This sentiment shows such an absurd amount of ignorance on the structure and function of the brain and the difference between animal and human brains its not even funny. Do not make me go off on a tangent about this

The basic and some complex emotions are there. It is intelligence that is the main difference between a human and an animal, which, again, is irrelevant when assigning value to life.

This comparison is cringe worthy and completely absurd.

That's probably what the white people said when others compared something like rape to slavery. Took some time to realize that they cannot back it up. It's about time now, addressing a different issue.

You said that the value of someone's life is dependent on the value assigned by others, but if that's the case, then the value of the lives of black people some time ago was pretty close to nothing, as white people did not assign much value to them. But as we realize now, they should have. Same thing here. The value of the lives of animals right now is pretty close to nothing, as people do not assign much value to them. But as we will hopefully realize in the near future, we should.

Now how do we assign value? My criteria is life, emotion, and pain. What is yours?

So... you are saying that humans are biased by nature? Congratulations, you just explained why people eat meat and answered the question in this thread. However, an explanation and a justification for meat-eater behaviour are two different things. I am looking for the latter.

We're not arguing that you can eat anything you want because it's delicious, we're saying we eat animal meat specifically because it does taste good.

@wut:First, please consider relaxing. I understand that questioning a person's food choices can be offending, especially when it is something as delicious as bacon, but I can assure you: nobody is taking your meat away any time soon. I'm here to have a civilized discussion.

They already have lab grown meat. People have already tried it [was even an article a few weeks back about lab grown chicken tasting like chicken]. Its not some future tech. It is now tech. Just a matter of there being enough demand to encourage attempts at supply.

And that's good. If there are no major drawbacks to lab grown meat that I don't know about, I support it.

Release them all at once. They die.

Correct, which is why we shouldn't release them.

Cut them down 'slowly' overtime as people convert to the crazy ideology that is Veganism, they die.

Wait a second, they will die anyway. We have no way to prevent that. The difference is that instead of slitting their throats on week 10, we let them live their full lives of 20 years before they naturally die of old age. Instead of using artificial insemination to keep them constantly impregnated and amputating parts of their body without painkillers, we... ya know... don't.

You are 'saving' them with mass genocide which is hilarious. And the best part about it is you know it. You abandoned your notions of 'saving' them the second I called out the lie in your statement and instead settled on the standard moving goalpost point that every vegan does, "Better dead then enslaved!"

We would be saving them from torture and slaughter. It's like if a serial killer tries to justify his actions by saying that his victims would die of old age anyway. They will indeed, but that does not justify taking their life early.

It is "better not born then enslaved, tortured, and slaughtered." Dying and not existing in the first place are completely different things.

Which is dumb because, even in the wild, the lives they would lead would be just as unfulfilling and pointless as they do in captivity. Because they are not human. Humans have the capability of doing wondrous, and terrible, things the likes of which no other animal in known history has ever, and I mean ever, been capable of doing. Pigs? Chicken? Cattle? They cannot. They live. They breed. They Die. They are either eaten or left to rot. That is the entire point of their lives. They can attain no higher purpose then that.

They can attain no higher purpose? Yes. But for the millionth time, they won't be tortured, their babies won't be taken away from them, and they won't be slaughtered early. I am not talking about the wild by the way. We should not release the ones that cannot survive.

I think the idea that wiping out 99% of the majority of species and utterly wiping out the rest is monstrous. The idea that someone is laughing and going, "Well at least they aren't in captivity anymore!" as justification of such carnage is even more monstrous. Its flat out disgusting.

How is this form of genocide carnage? We are simply aborting the practices of artificial insemination, and letting cattle reproduce at a far slower, healthier, more natural rate, which will maintain their species and save tens of billions of animals from torture and slaughter by not making them exist. With "save" being the key word.

And that's a valid explanation of meat-eaters' motives. Not a valid justification. If all you were providing was an explanation, then that's ok, and there is no debate. I am arguing the justice of meat consumption and animal rights.

@devils_advocate: Alright then.

@devils_advocate:First, please consider relaxing. I understand that questioning a person's food choices can be offending, especially when it is something as delicious as bacon, but I can assure you: nobody is taking your meat away any time soon. I'm here to have a civilized discussion.

I am relaxed. Why is it people always assume someone isn't relaxed just because they are in a disagreement?

I find your hypocrisy amusing. The best part is you don't even own up to it. My entire point in this was to point that out to you. Which I have done. Numerous times. As far as I am concerned, the point of our 'civilized discussion' has concluded. I'm more interested in why you are still continuing with the charade that you have some moral high ground when you don't? [Actually not a big fan of bacon].

Wait a second, they will die anyway. We have no way to prevent that. The difference is that instead of slitting their throats on week 10, we let them live their full lives of 20 years before they naturally die of old age. Instead of using artificial insemination to keep them constantly impregnated and amputating parts of their body without painkillers, we... ya know... don't.

Why?

No, seriously, why? What is that cow going to do in its 'full life' that is so important that it needs to do so before it dies? Graze? Take an extra hour of sleep here and there? What is it going to accomplish?

Nothing. Nothing at all. So what does it matter if it dies at 15 years old or at 2 years old? A cow is not a human that can reach its potential and go on to possibly do great, or terrible, things.

So, why?

There is no why. This is nothing more then posturing. "We shouldn't kill da animals before they've grown nice and old and lived a full life of........... nothingness!"

It is a sad appeal to empathy that is nothing but a fallacy.

We would be saving them from torture and slaughter. It's like if a serial killer tries to justify his actions by saying that his victims would die of old age anyway. They will indeed, but that does not justify taking their life early.

It is "better not born then enslaved, tortured, and slaughtered." Dying and not existing in the first place are completely different things.

"I'm not saying we kill all these people, I'm just saying we ensure they are never born to begin with thus decimating their species to the point they no longer exist thus saving them." <- You don't see the hilarity in that? That is what blows my mind. You sit there, upon a pile of corpses, claiming you saved them from their suffering. It is mind-boggling.

You are someone who would happily commit mass genocide telling a murder he has no vision and is a bad person. That is what you are doing, using your poor example as a gateway here.

Again, cows have no point or purpose. They live to breed, eat and then die. That is their entire existence. There is no greatness there. There is nothing that will come out of it besides being food for the grass or a predator. A cow that lives for 20 years and a cow that lived for 1... they both had the same 'full' life and they never stopped to ponder on what a 'full' life even is.

You are a human placing value a cow would never even comprehend on them to try and make their lives more meaningful. Its sad, but the truth.

They can attain no higher purpose? Yes. But for the millionth time, they won't be tortured, their babies won't be taken away from them, and they won't be slaughtered early. I am not talking about the wild by the way. We should not release the ones that cannot survive.

And? So what?

No, serious. So what?

Tortured how? Cause there are plenty of free-range, cruelty flee places out there doing very, very well.

Their babies won't be taken away? A cow is not a human. I don't know how many times I have to stress that, probably for the 'millionth' time as you so tactfully put. There is no real difference from taking a calf away from its mother then there is taking a puppy away from its mother. Same principle.

Slaughtered early? In the end, rather that calf died from being picked off from wolves as the mother abandoned it to save its own life, or is taken by humans to be hand raised or turned to veal, or it grows to the old age of 20, no 'full life' was gained or lost in either scenario. Stop putting human values on creatures that do not comprehend such a concept and, more over, would never bother attempt to.

So, to recap:

1. Stop putting human values on animals that do not comprehend what those are or would even bother attempting to.
2. Stop acting like a 'long full life' for a farm animal is some kind of goal or something to be treasured. It isn't. It is soooo dumb that you keep trying to do this. This isn't quantifiable.
3. Stop with your logical fallacy nonsense.

Now, do you have anything that isn't a sad appeal to empathy that contributes anything to this topic outside of, 'muh animals living an extra five years to graze and sleep!'?

@wut:

I am relaxed. Why is it people always assume someone isn't relaxed just because they are in a disagreement?

Just the way you presented your arguments.

Why?

No, seriously, why? What is that cow going to do in its 'full life' that is so important that it needs to do so before it dies? Graze? Take an extra hour of sleep here and there? What is it going to accomplish?

Nothing. Nothing at all. So what does it matter if it dies at 15 years old or at 2 years old? A cow is not a human that can reach its potential and go on to possibly do great, or terrible, things.

So, why?

There is no why. This is nothing more then posturing. "We shouldn't kill da animals before they've grown nice and old and lived a full life of........... nothingness!"

It may seem like nothingness to us, but to them that is life. That is happiness. We, as beings with superior intellect, simply see that life as pathetic. They don't. That cow which escaped containment and swam to an island to evade capture clearly did not want to get slaughtered, and preferred grazing grass all life long.

What if super-intelligent aliens came down on Earth? They could see our goals and dreams as pathetic and meaningless, but pursuing our passions and finding the person we want to spend is not meaningless to us. It is everything we could ever ask for.

"I'm not saying we kill all these people, I'm just saying we ensure they are never born to begin with thus decimating their species to the point they no longer exist thus saving them." <- You don't see the hilarity in that? That is what blows my mind. You sit there, upon a pile of corpses, claiming you saved them from their suffering. It is mind-boggling.

People don't need saving from anything right now. But if I was Jewish, and the Nazis won WWII, I wouldn't have wanted to be born in the first place.

What corpses? There are no corpses. Nobody was killed.

You are someone who would happily commit mass genocide telling a murder he has no vision and is a bad person. That is what you are doing, using your poor example as a gateway here.

Genocide is most commonly linked to murder. I am not sure whether or not the strategy I'm referring to is considered to fall under the legal definition of genocide, but if it is, that means that there are examples of good genocide.

China's one child policy, for instance. It prevented almost half a billion births, and that is actually a good thing, because the entirety of China would be negatively impacted because of the addition of those half a billion people, including those half a billion people. This "genocide" is not immoral to those half a billion people, because they were never there to begin with.

cow that lives for 20 years and a cow that lived for 1... they both had the same 'full' life and they never stopped to ponder on what a 'full' life even is.

If 20 years is 100%, 1 year is 5. 5% of a life is not a full life. And you know that.

You are a human placing value a cow would never even comprehend on them to try and make their lives more meaningful. Its sad, but the truth

First, they do comprehend the value of their own life. That's why they don't want to die. They want to live a peaceful life and chew on grass for as long as possible. Just like we want to pursue are passions and be with our loved ones for as long as possible. It's just that our values are more advanced.

Second, comprehension is irrelevant. A newborn does not comprehend the value of his, or anyone else's life. That doesn't mean that his life is not already considered just as meaningful as that of an adult, both by people and by the law. I foresee that you will call this a logical fallacy and say that the baby will provide future benefit, but is that really the reason his/her life is valuable?

And? So what?

No, serious. So what?

Tortured how? Cause there are plenty of free-range, cruelty flee places out there doing very, very well.

Free range refers to a farm where animals are allowed access to the outside. On the inside, it could be quite... crowded.

"Slaughter" and "cruelty-free" cannot be used in the same sentence. Sure, some places are better than others, but for every "cruelty-reduced" farm out there, there are 10 more which only care about cutting costs. At the very least, consumers should ensure that they are purchasing animal products from the better places, or better yet, not purchase animal products at all.

Their babies won't be taken away? A cow is not a human. I don't know how many times I have to stress that, probably for the 'millionth' time as you so tactfully put. There is no real difference from taking a calf away from its mother then there is taking a puppy away from its mother. Same principle.

Mother cows actually mourn their children, cry, and refuse to eat.

Slaughtered early? In the end, rather that calf died from being picked off from wolves as the mother abandoned it to save its own life, or is taken by humans to be hand raised or turned to veal, or it grows to the old age of 20, no 'full life' was gained or lost in either scenario.

When a wolf kills a cow in the wild, the cow's potential full life is cut short. Full life lost. When a cow gets killed at 4 months of age, the cow's the calf's potential full life is cut short. Full life lost. When a cow lives up to 20 years, it experiences the fullest life a cow can have. Full life gained. It's not rocket science.

So, to recap:

1. Animals can comprehend the value of their own lives and the value of the lives of their children just fine, and even if they couldn't, self-comprehension is irrelevant when others can comprehend your value. This is supported by the newborn example
2. A full life occurs when an animal actually lives a full life a cow can potentially experience (duh).
3. The form of genocide that I'm suggesting (if it can even be called that) is not immoral as there is no one to be immoral to, and entire countries have implemented similar policies on actual human beings. This "genocide" will prevent the torture and slaughter of a trillion farm animals.

Now, do you have anything that isn't a sad appeal to empathy that contributes anything to this topic outside of, 'muh animals living an extra five years to graze and sleep!'?

I am not sure where you got the idea that appealing to empathy is sad, but yes, there are other major advantages of veganism, such as environmental benefit and health. And again, you know that.

Because protein

lol

1. I train 2 hours a day, and need fast protein.
2. It tastes great
3. Upsetting vegans brings me great pleasure

Also human lives are more important than animal lives. No grand reasons for it, other than because I myself am team human. Given the choice between an animal and a human life, human wins every time. I'd rather see cows go extinct in a violent holocaust than have a single unnecessary human death.

@devils_advocate: It may seem like nothingness to us, but to them that is life. That is happiness. We, as beings with superior intellect, simply see that life as pathetic. They don't. That cow which escaped containment and swam to an island to evade capture clearly did not want to get slaughtered, and preferred grazing grass all life long.

What if super-intelligent aliens came down on Earth? They could see our goals and dreams as pathetic and meaningless, but pursuing our passions and finding the person we want to spend is not meaningless to us. It is everything we could ever ask for.

I'm going to stop you before you go into full derp zone. Humans have capability to do things animals, like cows, will never, ever, be able to do. You know this. You conceded on this numerous times. Why are you trying to go back to pretending animals can? The difference between a human being and a cattle are immense not just in terms of biology but sheer potential and the ability to ask 'why' and find an answer to it.

Wut? The cow didn't escape 'for da happiness'. Survival is a primary instinct animals have. Of course a cow, if it has the ability and will, is going to act upon its baser instinct to flee to safety and then see humans, the thing it was fleeing from, as predators because we are predators and they are prey.

More over, you are, once again, attempting to appeal to empathy. Seriously. Is it just beyond your capability to make a single post that doesn't include this fallacy?

People don't need saving from anything right now. But if I was Jewish, and the Nazis won WWII, I wouldn't have wanted to be born in the first place.

What corpses? There are no corpses. Nobody was killed.

As the one who is advocating mass genocide, you really don't want to bring in the Nazis and Jews to this discussion. I'd quit while I was ahead, if I were you Mr. Genocide.

Genocide is most commonly linked to murder. I am not sure whether or not the strategy I'm referring to is considered to fall under the legal definition of genocide, but if it is, that means that there are examples of good genocide.

China's one child policy, for instance. It prevented almost half a billion births, and that is actually a good thing, because the entirety of China would be negatively impacted because of the addition of those half a billion people, including those half a billion people. This "genocide" is not immoral to those half a billion people, because they were never there to begin with.

Technically Genocide is for people, however, it is a decent enough term for this. You are actively seeking to wipe out numerous species because you want to 'save' them. I do love that instead of defending your stance you are saying, "But, I mean, come on, is it really even illegal?" that is some funny stuff right there.

China's one child policy has hurt their population demographics due to their culture and CHINA is not a sterling example you'd want when trying to justify your stance. The Chinese are not under threat of being wiped out if someone decided they weren't allowed to breed anymore. Telling people to have one unless they pay a fine is not the same as telling an entire race they may no longer breed because we don't want them anymore and will be wiping out their species. If you cannot see the difference between the two there is something fundamentally wrong with you as a human being and you might want to consult a therapist.

If 20 years is 100%, 1 year is 5. 5% of a life is not a full life. And you know that.

No, you don't seem to know that. A full life, by human standards, is a rewarding life. To have faced your fears, learned, grew as a person, etc. An 18 year old could have lived a far, far more fulfilled life then a 90 year old.

Because the very idea of living a 'full life' is a human concept based upon human values and ideals.

A long life =/= a full life. If you meant long life [which is even worse, btw, because there is no point to it still and changes nothing] then, next time, google your phrases before you use them.

First, they do comprehend the value of their own life. That's why they don't want to die. They want to live a peaceful life and chew on grass for as long as possible. Just like we want to pursue are passions and be with our loved ones for as long as possible. It's just that our values are more advanced.

A cow's instinct tells it to eat. A cows instinct tells it to run from danger. A cows instinct tells it to breed to propagate its race.

Those are instincts. Not values.

Second, comprehension is irrelevant. A newborn does not comprehend the value of his, or anyone else's life. That doesn't mean that his life is not already considered just as meaningful as that of an adult, both by people and by the law. I foresee that you will call this a logical fallacy and say that the baby will provide future benefit, but is that really the reason his/her life is valuable?

But you see here kiddo, if you recall, I kept saying 'maybe' and 'potentially'. A baby that is born may, just may, grow up to be a leader of the free world. They may grow up to discover worm hole technology. They may grow up to advance terraforming practices and start to reverse global warming. They may. May. May. May. May. They may turn out to be a nothing more then a meth head. This duality is why humans are amazing creatures.

A calf? Will be a cow. It will not be a scientist. It will not be an artist. It will not be a musician. It will be just a cow.

So, if you are trying to compare a newborn to a calf and asking what is the difference, the difference is potential. That child may grow up to comprehend its value, to question its life's purpose, to question the universe. The calf? Will grow up to be a cow [or a bull if it is male, I suppose], nothing more. Nothing less.

What? Did you really think your nonsensical pigs = 3 year olds was a legit argument? Because its not.

Free range refers to a farm where animals are allowed access to the outside. On the inside, it could be quite... crowded.

You don't actually know much about cattle ranching do you?

"Slaughter" and "cruelty-free" cannot be used in the same sentence. Sure, some places are better than others, but for every "cruelty-reduced" farm out there, there are 10 more which only care about cutting costs. At the very least, consumers should ensure that they are purchasing animal products from the better places, or better yet, not purchase animal products at all.

You need to google the meaning of cruelty. Cruelty is either indifference or pleasure in causing pain. If you are purposely going out of your way to not give something pain, you are, by default, not cruel. But I'm sure that phrase just sounded cool in your head so you wrote it down without actually thinking about it.

I'll need some citations on the 10 more caring about cutting cost.

Mother cows actually mourn their children, cry, and refuse to eat.

And? When I gave some kittens away, the momma cat walked around for three weeks meowing after them.

So, what was your point in this? Because I said there wasn't a difference from, say, taking it from a dog, and, in fact, many dogs will not act super happy if a puppy is taken from them before the dog decides it is ready, just like, you know, most mammals.

When a wolf kills a cow in the wild, the cow's potential full life is cut short. Full life lost. When a cow gets killed at 4 months of age, the cow's the calf's potential full life is cut short. Full life lost. When a cow lives up to 20 years, it experiences the fullest life a cow can have. Full life gained. It's not rocket science.

Jesus Christ, you really didn't know what that term meant. A long life is not a full life. A full life doesn't mean it was a long life. I'ma give you awhile to google what 'Full Life' means then google 'Long Life' then phrase this properly.

So, to recap:

Animals can comprehend the value of their own lives and the value of the lives of their children just fine, and even if they couldn't, self-comprehension is irrelevant when others can comprehend your value. This is supported by the newborn example

Instincts. I'm sorry to break this to you... but... animals.. are rather hard coded to do their best to ensure the survival of their race by breeding and doing what they can to protect their children [in some cases, in other the parent will happily abandon them to save their own lives].

That isn't supported by the newborn example.

A full life occurs when an animal actually lives a full life a cow can potentially experience (duh).

Google dude. Seriously need to consider using it.

The form of genocide that I'm suggesting (if it can even be called that) is not immoral as there is no one to be immoral to, and entire countries have implemented similar policies on actual human beings. This "genocide" will prevent the torture and slaughter of a trillion farm animals.

Lol did you just Frieza this? You totally went full Frieza. "I can't be racist to a race that doesn't exist. Like [Insert Race]. Dirty [Insert Race]. Tried to [Insert Race] me out of my money."

I can't believe you did that unironically. Going back to the WW2 example you, hilariously, brought up [really shouldn't have], you are saying it would have been A-Okay because the Nazi's woulda won, wiped out all the Jews, and hey, when they are all dead, its totes A-Okay because there is no one to feel bad for killing anyone because they aren't around anymore!

That is so good. So amazing. Dear god, you not only included, 'hey, I may do it, but see these other people that are seen as monsters totally did it, so its okay if I do it' fallacy but you threw in, 'Hey, its okay if I kill them all, because they'll all be dead so its okay!"

I want you to know that I am truly laughing right now. Like, holy god this is amazing.

@decaf_wizard You seeing this? :D Amazing.

I am not sure where you got the idea that appealing to empathy is sad, but yes, there are other major advantages of veganism, such as environmental benefit and health. And again, you know that.

While you are googling just.. all of this, why don't you go ahead and google logical fallacies and why they are bad. Then google 'Appeal to Empathy'. Its sad because it is nothing more then a red herring. There is no facts or logic about it. You are not debating. You are trying to establish an emotional connect in order to establish a claim that you don't have to verify or validate.

There is no health benefit. If you want to get healthy based purely on your diet, eat fish.

The closest thing to an environmental benefit you get is the mass extermination of cattle would lower their gas emissions, however, as 'its gone too far to stop' is a something environmental scientist have already agreed on, its rather irrelevant at this point. We are in the 'how do we reverse it' more then 'how do we stop it' stage. But you probably don't know all that.

I am lactovegetarian and not vegan because I love milk and milk products and it is allowed by the religion and parents.Plus I am Indian and most people are vegetarian and vegetarian food is easily available in large quantities and it is very tasty.

Because meat is meat, we have survived for hundreds of thousands of years consuming it just fine.

Why?Major varieties of beans and pulses,nuts,oats,some vegetables,soy products etc. are rich in proteins.

Well actually, as an environmental biologist myself by trade (its what I am in uni for) and having spoken to many people who know what the hell they are talking about, there are actually ongoing efforts to both breed and genetically modify cattle to produce far less methane gas and by means of bull semen transfer it to other parts of the world that cant actually afford the costly programs to do this. Furthermore in recent years there are increasingly efficient methods of grazing fields being devised by studying the life cycle of grass and when it grows the fastest which can make more cattle grazing land count for more, cutting down on space and resources needed to grow them. This leaves the last issue being water, which in a non overpopulated country isn't an issue in the first place unless you live in someplace you have no business ranching cattle. Canada has no issues with abundance of water, for example.

Beceuse well prepared meat tastes great.

I just don't get those who love to eat just vegs or meats.

Cuz I like eating cows and chickens.

@wut:

Lol did you just Frieza this? You totally went full Frieza. "I can't be racist to a race that doesn't exist. Like [Insert Race]. Dirty [Insert Race]. Tried to [Insert Race] me out of my money."

I can't believe you did that unironically. Going back to the WW2 example you, hilariously, brought up [really shouldn't have], you are saying it would have been A-Okay because the Nazi's woulda won, wiped out all the Jews, and hey, when they are all dead, its totes A-Okay because there is no one to feel bad for killing anyone because they aren't around anymore!

That is so good. So amazing. Dear god, you not only included, 'hey, I may do it, but see these other people that are seen as monsters totally did it, so its okay if I do it' fallacy but you threw in, 'Hey, its okay if I kill them all, because they'll all be dead so its okay!"

I want you to know that I am truly laughing right now. Like, holy god this is amazing.

It's also amazing that you find "preventing the torture and slaughter of hundreds of billions of animals by ceasing the process of shoving metallic tubes down their buttholes" and "brutally murdering millions of innocent people and whatever the hell that purple DBZ villain did" to be one and the same. There is no torture or murder in what I'm suggesting. If you can't see the difference, there is no point in going on.

And I didn't bring up the WWII example in the way that you did. I brought it up to showcase how much better it is not exist at all than to exist in concentration camps and get killed anyway. If you disagree, I can create a poll on the forums asking: "Would you rather be born in captivity, have your fingers cut off without painkillers, and get your throat slit at the age of 4, or not be born at all?" Should I do that for you?

You need to google the meaning of cruelty. Cruelty is either indifference or pleasure in causing pain. If you are purposely going out of your way to not give something pain, you are, by default, not cruel.

Out of their way applying painkillers before cutting off parts of their body? Oh wait, they don't.

If I'm a trained killer, and I go "out of my way" to save my targets from pain by shooting them in the head, then I am not cruel by default? Good to know.

And yes, farmers are indifferent in causing pain, because if they weren't, they wouldn't be causing it. You, as the consumer, are also indifferent in causing pain, because if you weren't, you wouldn't be purchasing animal products. By definition, that is cruelty.

I'm going to stop you before you go into full derp zone. Humans have capability to do things animals, like cows, will never, ever, be able to do. You know this. You conceded on this numerous times. Why are you trying to go back to pretending animals can?

When did I ever say that animals have the capability to do things like humans? Show me.

Jesus Christ, you really didn't know what that term meant. A long life is not a full life. A full life doesn't mean it was a long life. I'ma give you awhile to google what 'Full Life' means then google 'Long Life' then phrase this properly.

Even if we interpret the technical terms in different ways, you now know what I mean: whenever I say full life, I mean long life. What would you rather have: 4 years of happiness or 80 years of happiness?

A cow's instinct tells it to eat. A cows instinct tells it to run from danger. A cows instinct tells it to breed to propagate its race. Those are instincts. Not values.

The difference between a human being and a cattle are immense not just in terms of biology but sheer potential and the ability to ask 'why' and find an answer to it.

Of course, but this ability to ask 'why' and find an answer to it is the result of intellect. You are probably more intelligent than a cow, which is why you perceive the cow's values to be comprised of nothingness, but for the cow, it is everything.

Let's analyze a cow based on its intellectual peer: a 2-year old. Does the two-year old have values? Absolutely. The child values tasty snacks. The child values colourful toys. The child values his mother's warm hug. You take away his toy, and you're taking away something he values, which is why he will cry. As adults take a trip down memory lane, they laugh at the values of their young selves just like you are laughing at the values of animals, but that does not mean that that toy should be confiscated. Bottom line, a cow values the fresh air, a cow values the corn, and a calf values the taste of his mother's milk, and preventing him from experiencing those values for 95% of his life and adding torture and slaughter to the remaining 5% is undoubtedly cruel.

But you see here kiddo, if you recall, I kept saying 'maybe' and 'potentially'. A baby that is born may, just may, grow up to be a leader of the free world. They may grow up to discover worm hole technology. They may grow up to advance terraforming practices and start to reverse global warming. They may. May. May. May. May. They may turn out to be a nothing more then a meth head. This duality is why humans are amazing creatures.

A calf? Will be a cow. It will not be a scientist. It will not be an artist. It will not be a musician. It will be just a cow.

So, if you are trying to compare a newborn to a calf and asking what is the difference, the difference is potential. That child may grow up to comprehend its value, to question its life's purpose, to question the universe. The calf? Will grow up to be a cow [or a bull if it is male, I suppose], nothing more. Nothing less.

What? Did you really think your nonsensical pigs = 3 year olds was a legit argument? Because its not.

As for your argument about potential, once again, do you really think potential is what makes a life valuable? Do you really think potential is the reason why it is illegal and absolutely inhumane to murder a newborn? Really?

If so, then how would you explain the case of a baby with down syndrome, or a general mental disorder preventing it from progressing mentally? This kid will not solve global warming or discover wormhole technology. He will have no duality. He will not be a scientist, or an artist, or a musician. He will just be a kid with a mental disorder. And guess what: despite this complete absence of potential, someone who tries to have him killed for organs is going to rot in prison his whole life with a million people cursing his name. Same thing applies to cannibals trying to devour an elderly citizen suffering from Alzheimers. But why? Well, maybe, just maybe, life is considered valuable not because of potential, but because it just is.

@decaf_wizard: What applies to animals doesn't do for humans, because unlike animals, humans possess free will, the ability to do things differently than just blindly following their impulses, and that's why the Universe doesn't hold humans in the same standard as it does to animals.

And there are consequenses of human actions that reflect back on themselves as an aggregate--as humans continue to enslave and kill animals for their taste pleasures, humans themselves are simultaneously being enslaved by their own economic system of wage slavery and getting killed by the millions in all kinds of war/genocide/conflict. This is how the Universe works, everything reflects back.

I like chicken way too much to go vegan any time soon.

I like animal products.

You are what you eat

Stop beating your meat

Your eyes will stop working

From all of your jerking

You won't enjoy your delicious meat pie

Because as they say, the first bite's with the eye.

These past few months, I have taken a few small steps to towards less animal products. Because both my mom and my brother are lactose intolerant, my family recently switched to almond milk. Did we do it because of the animals? No, but it still counts.

And a couple days a week, instead of eating eggs for breakfast I eat peanut butter toast. I really enjoy a high protein breakfast, so giving up scrambled eggs was initially hard for me, but enough peanut butter usually gives me the protein I need to carry myself through to lunch.

Will I ever go completely vegan, or even completely vegetarian? Probably not, but I might make more small changes.

@mrmonster: Boil some eggs. eat one or two every morning to go along with your pb toast.

Not the most exciting thing to eat but a good way not to find yourself starving waiting for your lunch break.

I don't get the question. Are you asking why us as individuals aren't vegan? Or us as a collective aren't? If you means us as individually, then that is fairly simple:

1. Personal taste. Vegan food has yet to surpass/equal all alternatives.
2. Cost. Vegan alternatives are more expensive on average, sometimes a lot more.
3. Accessibility. Vegan alternatives are not as easily accessible.
4. Reason. One vegan isn't making an impact, in fact it will likely lead to more food spoilage.
5. Leather alternatives aren't as good as actual leather.
6. Hassle. Checking if everything is vegan is annoying and you will probably get on other peoples nerves as well.

These are just a few reasons why people don't go basic vegan. Going full vegan completely changes your life. Do you have any idea how much our technology relies on animal? Seriously, look up all the things that has any kind of animal in it. My money has animal fat in it ffs. Heck, even if we don't go too drastic. You would still have to give up driving. Petrol doesn't grow on trees. Nope. It's animals. Sure, you could get an electric car, but that isn't without it's problems either. I dare say it isn't 100% vegan.

This is just an individual. If the world went vegan everything would stop for a good while. Actually, we would have to dedicate years to make sure we could do it absolutely right before even attempting it. You would actually need world peace just to consider the damn thing.

I'm carnivorous. that's why I'm not vegan.