Carracci - The Butchers Shop - 1583
Then what was with the 'rape-track' comment - or was that just an attempt at pleading to emotion?
The rape rack comment was me pointing out that the dairy industry compares its treatment of cows to the rape of women. This is not my comparison. It is the dairy industry's comparison. You implied you understood this when you pointed out that many animal exploiting industries make such comparisons and that the rape rack term was actually coined by someone who conducted experiments on animals. So, according to you, it was a vivisector who made the comparison between the ways animals are treated and the rape of women. Again, it wasn't me. But nonetheless you persisted to call me series of insulting names. If these comparisons offend you, direct your rage at the industries that are making the comparisons.
I work in the industry and that isn't the comparison being made - but you continue to insist there is some sort of comparable suffering and refuse to provide any evidence regarding a quality of life comparison between livestock animals and wild animals. You, and most vegans, talk about suffering that you know nothing about and cast a wide meaningless net based on pleas to emotion.
If you weren't drawing that comparison, and had no intention of making that plea to emotion, then why did you drag that colloquialism in here?
You know nothing about me or my background nor do you know anything about the background of the wide variety of vegans you lump together with your prejudice. I know plenty about suffering. I have worked with farmed animals for years at a sanctuary where we rehabilitate them after they have been rescued or escape from people like you. If the dairy industry isn't making that comparison, then why do they use the term rape rack?
Ok, first off you plead with Stephen to disregard your rape comment, and now you bring it back again. The dairy/meat industry, and vets, use a lot of course colloquial terms - nut cutter, horse cock (for the shaft of a lino pump), rape track, etc, but there is not a systemic disregard for the emotional state of the animals. They are provided with lives almost entirely free of anxiety.
I see, so at one of the places I worked the pigs had this big conspiracy and started digging a tunnel out. They covered the entrance to the tunnel with the pot belly stove in their barracks and worked at night while...just a minute, that's a movie. What do you mean 'escaped', what kind of 'animals', and what did you even know about those animals? If you took in an animal from one of the farms I worked at then you committed theft because they are tagged and registered property.
I'm assuming you 'rescued' some pit bulls from a province where they become outlawed or some such shit, but I'll actually wait for more details before I laugh harder.
This is the rape comment...
The rack came later.
You inferred the moral stance you have on eating animals simply because we are omnivores to be on equal footing with the suffering of a rape victim.
No, I really didn't. I made the point that simply being able to do something does not make it moral. You know this. Just stop already.
When approaching any problem, it is important for a solution to be practical. The problem with vegetarianism in general and the more extreme veganism in particular is that it's not going to happen. We like our hamburgers and baby back ribs and Thanksgiving turkey dinners.
Basically, vegans are like the streetcorner Christian witnessers that even most Christians cross the street to avoid. Like faithful Christians, they are brainwashed and won't even listen to contrary arguments, such as that replacing meat with grain will mean converting a lot more land to grain and vegetables, which can have ecological and atmospheric effects of its own. Or that tilling millions upon millions of acres of land once or twice a year will kill billions of small animals (rabbits, ground squirrels, field mice). Converting forest land to grain production reduces habitat for birds and forest animals.
Anyway, if we really see a problem, we need a solution that most people—not just people who pride themselves on their ability to be different—can agree to.
Vegans should go home and work on that problem if they really feel a need for a major change.
Unseen, did you know that the vast majority of grain in the world is used to fatten farmed animals? In fact, we feed enough grain to farmed animals in the United States to feed more than 800 million starving people - according to researchers at Cornell University. It takes less land and less resources to grow crops to feed to people directly than it does to grow crops to filter through farmed animals to eat the animals.
Your Christian analogy is cute in a pathetic and childish kind of way. But really, considering most meat eaters are raised in meat eating homes and taught to eat meat when they are young and unable to think critically it seems like meat eaters fit your Christian analogy a little better and vegans match atheists who grew up, became educated about the facts, and realized we don't have to do this shit anymore.
37% (the number I found) isn't any kind of "vast majority." In fact, it's a kind of minority, isn't it? If we're going to feed 800 million starving people (are they real or hypothetical?), we'll need to plant a lot more land because veganism will ALWAYS be a fringe group.
Like I said, we need an approach to a problem that will actually happen, not one that will never ever in a billion years attract a majority of Americans. We don't eat meat as the result of a logical deduction that can be attacked with logic. It's a matter of preference and taste. If someone likes peas or pork (it doesn't matter), you can't make it taste worse with an argument. No with most people anyway.
He also didnt mention that the grain fed to animals is not the kind of grain a human consumes. As a matter of fact most of it is not fit for human consumption at all.
That's not true. Even if it were, the land used to grow feed crops could be used to feed people. And it would take less land.