So, I finally have time to respond to other arguments against my position (even ones by my fellow vegans and vegetarians):
I REALLY like eating meat!
Liking something is not a barometer to gage how ethical something is. Some parents like abusing a child, and that, of course, doesn't make it moral. Also, you really, as far as I know, have no reason to like it.
I mean, we Jews have Commandments for EVERYTHING. What to wear, how to wear it, how to relate to others both Jewish and not, and OF COURSE, what to eat and how to eat it.
Look, I know that I am not really good at debating, but are you really going to use a creature made up thousands of years ago by primitive people to justify your behavior?!
We haven't used sacrifices in 2,000 yrs. Try reading a book.
Well, you have used the 612 laws to justify your behavior, right? Well, most of them are instructions for animal sacrifices.
There has NEVER, at any point in the history of the development of man, been a time when people have been pushed NOT to eat meat, except in VERY small numbers, usually for religious reasons, particularly in the East (some forms of Hinduism and some forms of Buddhism encourage vegetarianism, although outright veganism is a bit unusual even for them).
That's because it was not important back when people ate very little meat. It's important now, when "food-animals" greatly outnumber us, causing more animal suffering than ever before, causing most of our environmental issues, causing a sudden increase in the incidents of cancer, heart disease, autism, osteoporosis and all kinds of diseases in last hundred years…
Also, do you know that milk and eggs go in the vast majority of cakes?
They are just as good without them. Again, first try!
What would one do with all that meat if not eat it?
Hey, do you have a bright idea of how stupid you sound? You are talking to a vegan and call animals meat!
I also don't know where you got your ideas about the workings of a modern day dairy.
Watch Earthlings! That's way more reliable than what your parents told you.
You are probably the only vegan you know, and you are likely feeling lonely in your chosen life-style. Well, sounds like a personal problem.
You are trying to emotionally abuse me, right? Well, that's probably because you realize that you have no rational arguments against veganism.
What is regarded as suitable for domestication as food, as opposed to domestication as a pet, varies by culture.
Well, tell that to someone who has a dog ("Hey, don't be kind to dogs, they eat dogs in China")!
It is NOT ad hominem to remind people that you can't make a cogent argument argument, or that your balls only recently dropped (meaning you only recently went through puberty) & are thus a raging bag of emotional tomfoolery. None of this is abuse, but rather, simply facts of life.
No, it is poisoning the well.
Your argument requires as a premise that the horrors of factory farming are the only way to get meat in to the marketplace. It is not the only way. In general, I find you use these types of polarizing views to try and get your argument across which I find to be utterly unconvincing.
Look, you are arguing for MURDERING animals for food. That's in itself immoral.
Ad Hoc reasoning actually renders your argument incoherent.
So, show me where exactly is absurdity in my arguments.
If it is a conclusion based on facts, what is your objective criteria for stupidity.
Stupid argument is one that is easily refuted. That's that simple.
I teach university & write textbooks. If you think I'm wrong you must prove that.
Why the hell would the burden of proof apply differently to less educated people than to more educated people?!
That was a whole lot of bullshit that I was just forced to read to no purpose.
Because you apparently came very close to fractal wrongness!
If you are so stupid as to believe that, then I would hope that your nation does not allow you out in public.
Well, even if it did happen, that still wouldn't change my mind. What would change it are valid refutations of my arguments.
And getting her pregnant is not rape. Animals like sex as much as we do.
Yes, it is a rape. They artificially inseminate her without her consent!
But she can be kept lactating after that for lengthy periods of time.
How do you know? The documentaries I watched tell me otherwise!
But benefitting from a cow is why G-d put them here. We are certainly not to abuse them. But to use them, yes.
You know, I've never seen a proof that that is possible. Whenever we use animals, we make a compromise between their welfare and our, well, what we use them for.
A vegan wont eat meat but will eat all plants with zero knowledge of what they are. A lot of plants are disgusting filth that should not be eaten but you believe they are all good because that's what you have been conditioned to believe.
Green is good, five a day, meat is bad, lots of fibre, polyphenols, meat is bad, fight cancer with vegies only organic of course, meat is bad, antioxidants in coloured veg, vitamins and minerals for health, meat is bad, eating plants will save the planet, and my favourite, eating meat destroys the planet through cows farting from eating grain, and the cow eats 5kg of grain to produce 1kg of meat. What a cracker, dumb asses don't even know cows eat grass.
You know, you've found way how to refute all evidence. Not by counter evidence, not by reason, but by simply denying it.
That's just just a stupid question. I, unlike you, have had high school and college biology. Please try not to make yourself out to be more of an ass than you already have.
Yes, it is a stupid question I use to determine whom should I trust. So, answer it if you want me to trust you!
To the extent that we deny the hamster its ordinary food, we are torturing said animal.
Yet you've shown no evidence to support your conclusion. And I already have even evidence to refute it. Pet hamsters, who are fed vegan, live years longer than wild hamsters, who are not fed vegan. Also, even if it were the case, it still wouldn't apply to humans. Hamsters don't have enough brain power to consent to the change of their diet, but we do.
It seems to me that you need to get out of your mother's basement and away from her computer, and go deal with the real world for a bit. You will learn much, young Padawan.
So, why are then you still on this forum?
No, I haven't because it is too expensive. If I wanted to be vegan, I couldn't afford it.
A common misconception about veganism is that we eat only the things with a vegan label. That's not the case. We eat mostly what you eat, just without the animal corpses or other products of animal abuse.
Even still, you would not have put milk and tobacco smoking on the same level, because tobacco has no health benefits, and milk does.
And those benefits of milk are… (and citation needed!!!)
vegan cat food is terrible for cat health on the order of grocery store-ash packed-kibble. It is against their natural diet; see here
I suppose you imply that the same applies to humans, when it simply doesn't! And, again, most of the animals can't choose to change their diet without being forced to, but we can!
And it is certainly a fact that the best dog foods for "man's best friend" are mostly meat and bone meal, with very little vegetable, and no grain additive.
Citation needed!
We simply fail to distribute food properly.
You couldn't be more wrong. Ethiopia, for example, is one of the world's largest exporters of food, yet it fails to feed its people. That's only because it feeds the food-animals (most of them in other countries)!
Anyone who speaks about global warming at this point should be arrested for felony stupidity.
You look at the average temperatures, not the extremes. I encourage you to watch this:
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The 3 people I knew/know over 100 all eat/ate meat.
That simply means that, at the time and place they were born, there were no vegans. If there had been, they would have certainly lived way longer!
There is also another problem with veganism. As you say, animals eat about 50% of the plant food we produce. And if we all go vegan, we are not going to feed those animals any more. But, if we eliminate animals, plant food is going to be 2 times more expensive. I mean, the farmers will be able to sell only half of their products. How else could the farmers sustain the costs of production if not by doubling the price?
While Kali has already made a response to this, I think that there is a better one: If we eliminate animals (50% of the current demand), we will need to produce half as much food, and that will take only half as much resources that it takes now. So, the price would have to stay the same.
He is interested primarily in the wellbeing of machines, against the interests of man.
Considering that food-animals outnumber us, that makes sense.
The only supplement you would need to take is vitamin B12.
That's a common misconception, without any base in reality.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00007957If 1000 people eat a balanced diet that includes meat, and 1000 vegans eat meat, there will be no statistical benefit to the vegans.
FDA claims otherwise.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19562864So, I think it's every couple of years that they will pay hunters to come in and kill some of the deer there. If they didn't do that, many of the deer would die of starvation because there would be too many of them. There is only a limited amount of food there, after all.
Another so common misconceptions about ecology that holds no basis in reason. How do you think the eco-systems worked when humans hadn't started to destroy everything? If you need a detail explanation of that, I suggest you this video:
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">You shouldn't set any domestic animals into the wild.
Look, freedom itself doesn't cause death. But the industries do!
If someone is placing feelings over reason, that individual is doing so. Not any group of people. FlatEarthDenial makes many good points, though some are wrong too.
Like this, for example:
Workers in a slaughterhouse are more likely to be mentally ill than anyone else is!
It seems like others have already pointed out the wrong ones though.
Then refute this:
https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=155688 In addition to the fact that veganism requires one to supplement, those with high histadelia must not beome vegan as their bodies will often produce extremely high levels of histamine. Oftentimes, persons with mental illness have this issue.
That's not an excuse for you to eat meat!
That Shechita is humane I don't doubt. Would it be MORE humane NOT to slaughter? Well, no shit, Sherlock. That much is obvious.
I suppose your main argument for slaughtering those animals is that it ends all of suffering in their lives. Well, guess what, it also ends all of the pleasures in their lives.
And if everyone had to kill to eat meat, everyone would be a vegetarian.
Butchers kill animals not because of taste, not even because of money, but because of authorities telling them to.
And it causes them to become mentally ill.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=155688So, confront with authorities! I suppose that to you, as a RE-er, would be hard, but to me, as a FE-er, it wouldn't be!
Poisonous to rats, or humans?
That's exactly why vegans are against animal testing.
Vegans only need to supplement with vitamin B12.
Again, we don't!
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00007957So, let's return back to the topic of veganism!