This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
Why do people HATE Vegans?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Emeliaaaaa
I'm a Vegan, and I understand why some people get annoyed when some vegans "preach" but it's only to benefit you? Veganism is a much healthier way of living and that's what people like freelee the bananagirl tries to point across, although some of what she says can be harsh, so I'm not defending that. But WHY hate us? We're causing no physical harm to anyone or anything? And this may come across as preaching but I'm not, I'm just wondering 
thank you
thank youSeriously just listen to yourself. You sound like somebody's mother.
Original post by DiddyDec
Claims to be not preaching, by preaching.If you are happy with your lifestyle then good for you. I don't want to hear about it just as much as you don't want to hear about how much fun I have shooting animals.
I don`t hate vegans but those who preach are annoying.Do you think it is fun or rational to compare meat eaters to Jack the Ripper because I eat meat ?
Original post by Kadak
I don`t hate vegans but those who preach are annoying.Do you think it is fun or rational to compare meat eaters to Jack the Ripper because I eat meat ?
No, that is definitely not fun and rational. I hope no one has said that.
But look at it from the other side, is it fun or rational to kill animals unnecessarily?
I guess that's where the preaching mentality comes from. It's hard to watch your friends being slaughtered every day and stay quiet.
Because they're stupid. But you should accept that your lifestyle choices are your own - people can live just as long and healthy a life as a meat-eater/vegetarian, as any vegan.
The irony.
Original post by JavaScriptMaster
you wanna be Vegan? keep it to yourself and your vegan mates
you wanna be Vegan? keep it to yourself and your vegan mates
The irony.
(edited 7 years ago)
Because people like Freelee and durianrider are mean
Original post by greatguy 698
Yeah except from the fact that vegans are more likely to live longer.
Stating facts is not preaching.
Stating facts is not preaching.
You can easily argue that that is because they are likely to be more health conscious people in general, not necessarily because their diet is vegan. Among the vegan community there will be a higher percentage of health conscious people than in the rest of the population, who will include a far greater proportion of those that don't worry about their diet/exercise.
Posted from TSR Mobile
I don't think people hate vegans, they just don't like being told what to do with their bodies and what to include and exclude in their diets.
If you like being vegan, good for you. People like eating meat and as long as you're not being forced to eat meat I don't see the problem with other people eating meat. A person can be healthy just as vegan w/o adopting animal product diet. Being vegan does not make you invincible. You can get cancer, or the flu despite being vegan.
If you like being vegan, good for you. People like eating meat and as long as you're not being forced to eat meat I don't see the problem with other people eating meat. A person can be healthy just as vegan w/o adopting animal product diet. Being vegan does not make you invincible. You can get cancer, or the flu despite being vegan.
Original post by SmileyVibe
People like eating meat and as long as you're not being forced to eat meat I don't see the problem with other people eating meat.
But it's not a personal choice if animals are forced to die. Eating meat literally forces death and suffering on animals. Wouldn't you say that's a problem with eating meat?
People try and promote veganism because they want to stop the death of trillions of animals every year and don't want to see our planet get destroyed. I think if people truly saw the horrors of death and animal slavery that they wouldn't be able to stay silent.
Original post by Emeliaaaaa
I'm a Vegan, and I understand why some people get annoyed when some vegans "preach" but it's only to benefit you? Veganism is a much healthier way of living and that's what people like freelee the bananagirl tries to point across, although some of what she says can be harsh, so I'm not defending that. But WHY hate us? We're causing no physical harm to anyone or anything? And this may come across as preaching but I'm not, I'm just wondering thank you
thank youSome vegans are alright.
But nothing pisses me off than when vegans claim Veganism will cure depression or eating disorders etc etc
It's like saying, "Stop taking anti-depressants and go get some fresh air, that will cure your depression"
They really don't help the stigma that already surrounds mental illness.
(I actually just saw an example of this on youtube, like a minute ago, that is why I'm angry).
I'm sure there are a variety of interesting psychological factors contributing to the hatred or certainly to the disdain of vegans. You see it elsewhere too: people who do good (volunteer their time, donate lots of their money to charity, and so on) aren't particularly liked. Same goes for people - vegans - who have the audacity to want to reduce the amount of unnecessary suffering inflicted upon sentient beings.
And, to avoid me repeating myself, here's a comprehensive refutation of the nonsense in that second post. http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=4126103&page=4&p=65267471#post65267471
Let me guess: you're going to make a post about how having unrealistic levels of soya in the diet might be bad for you.
So, you already concede that this, on your hypothesis, would only be the case if you have too much of them.
Yet, what you're saying is also untrue in any case. A review of the evidence by the American Heart Association, synthesising the conclusions of nine leading researchers, concluded:
Dr. Walter Willett, the chair of the department of nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health and the second most cited researcher in clinical medicine, puts it nicely:
[My bold]
Colourful metaphors, but plenty of food have phytic acid in them. Spinach and broccoli have phytic acid in them. Should we all stop eating green vegetables because of the big, scary phytic acid? Of course not. Iron levels can easily be maintained on a vegan diet, in spite of the presence of phytic acid in some foods which can bind to iron.
Are you actually a scientist? Because this is a shocking, shocking summary of the evidence. First, let's separate the isoflavone compounds you're talking about from dietary soy itself, because they can have different effects on the body. There's an element of truth to what you're saying, but there's no evidence whatsoever that dietary soy increases your risk of any cancer. As the American Cancer Society concluded:
What about the American Institute for Cancer Research? They contend:
What you've done is cite numerous studies either conducted on animals or discussing the biochemical effects of estrogen-like compounds on their own. Human studies demonstrate that soya products either reduce your risk of hormone-related cancers or have no effect.
Bone loss? Same thing - no evidence for what you're saying. In fact, there have been suggestions that soya may help to prevent bone loss, but there is inconclusive evidence on this. Decreased fertility? No evidence for what you're saying.
Beaton et al. (2010) found no evidence of this being the case, concluding: "Consumption of soy protein of low or high isoflavone content does not adversely affect semen quality in a sample of healthy adult men."
Similarly, a 2010 meta-analysis found no evidence of hormones being screwed up: "The results of this meta-analysis suggest that neither soy foods nor isoflavone supplements alter measures of bioavailable T concentrations in men."
Finally, according to the American Association of Paediatrics: "there is no conclusive evidence from animal, adult human, or infant populations that dietary soy isoflavones may adversely affect human development, reproduction, or endocrine function." [My bold]
Thyroid function? A review of the evidence concludes:
Oh, surprise surprise! You cite that one Japanese study. Cherry-picking much? Scientists are meant to objectively look at the evidence.
Some vegans and vegetarians make hugely exaggerated claims about the health benefits of their diets, but that doesn't justify spreading complete and utter falsehoods in the opposite direction.
Overall, as the American Dietetic Association has stated:
The average vegetarian or vegan is healthier than the average meat-eater. Vegetarians and vegans have a lower risk of cardiovascular disease and Type 2 diabetes in comparison with the average meat-eater. As this study concluded, which looked at a large group of people with similar lifestyles but different diets:
I would agree that health-conscious meat-eaters can be just as healthy, but they would have a relatively low consumption of meat (maybe three or four times a week), because as numerous studies have demonstrated, replacing saturated fats (animal fats) with cis unsaturated fats (both Omega-3s and Omega-6s) lowers one's risk of cardiovascular disease. (See here, here and here, for instance). As a 2015 systematic review of randomized control trials by Cochrane - the gold-standard of evidence in the medical literature - put it:
Health-conscious meat-eaters would also eat little red meat and no processed meat, with red and processed meat (particularly processed meat) having been found to increase one's risk of some cancers.
No, they won't. Once again, we will simply stop breeding the domesticated animals that we rear for meat.
Oh, come off it. Stop being so pathetically infantile. Bacteria aren't sentient.
You're also focusing on the killing part, ignoring the fact that most of the meat sold in the UK, the West and indeed the world comes from factory farms in which the animals are kept in horrific conditions. So-called 'humane' farms have continuously been exposed as being just as bad.
The notion that animals are stunned and killed instantly is also incorrect. Numerous studies have found that between 10-40% of stuns go wrong, equating to millions upon millions of animals dying in intense pain every single year. Random investigations of slaughterhouses have corroborated this, and some of the so-called humane methods, such as gassing, are anything but humane: when pigs are gassed, they're seen gasping for breath and trying to get out of the chamber for up to 20 seconds, putting them in a lot of distress.
And, to avoid me repeating myself, here's a comprehensive refutation of the nonsense in that second post. http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=4126103&page=4&p=65267471#post65267471
Let me guess: you're going to make a post about how having unrealistic levels of soya in the diet might be bad for you.
So, you already concede that this, on your hypothesis, would only be the case if you have too much of them.
Yet, what you're saying is also untrue in any case. A review of the evidence by the American Heart Association, synthesising the conclusions of nine leading researchers, concluded:
Although increasing omega-3 PUFA tissue levels does reduce the risk for CHD, it does not follow that decreasing omega-6 levels will do the same.Indeed, the evidence considered here suggests that it would have the opposite effect... The data also suggest that higher intakes appear to be safe and may be even more beneficial (as part of a low–saturated-fat, low-cholesterol diet). In summary, the AHA supports an omega-6 PUFA intake of at least 5% to 10% of energy in the context of other AHA lifestyle and dietary recommendations. To reduce omega-6 PUFA intakes from their current levels would be more likely to increase than to decrease risk for CHD.
Dr. Walter Willett, the chair of the department of nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health and the second most cited researcher in clinical medicine, puts it nicely:
in humans higher intakes of n-6 fatty acids have not been associated with elevated levels of inflammatory markers. n-6 Fatty acids have long been known to reduce serum total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol... Adequate intakes of both n-6 and n-3 fatty acids are essential for good health and low rates of cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes
Colourful metaphors, but plenty of food have phytic acid in them. Spinach and broccoli have phytic acid in them. Should we all stop eating green vegetables because of the big, scary phytic acid? Of course not. Iron levels can easily be maintained on a vegan diet, in spite of the presence of phytic acid in some foods which can bind to iron.
Are you actually a scientist? Because this is a shocking, shocking summary of the evidence. First, let's separate the isoflavone compounds you're talking about from dietary soy itself, because they can have different effects on the body. There's an element of truth to what you're saying, but there's no evidence whatsoever that dietary soy increases your risk of any cancer. As the American Cancer Society concluded:
In fact, in human studies, the estrogen effects of soy seem to either reduce breast cancer risk, or have no effect at all. This might be because the isoflavones can actually block the more potent natural estrogens in the blood.
What about the American Institute for Cancer Research? They contend:
Because soy contains estrogen-like compounds, there was fear that soy may raise risk of hormone-related cancers. Evidence shows this is not true.
What you've done is cite numerous studies either conducted on animals or discussing the biochemical effects of estrogen-like compounds on their own. Human studies demonstrate that soya products either reduce your risk of hormone-related cancers or have no effect.
Bone loss? Same thing - no evidence for what you're saying. In fact, there have been suggestions that soya may help to prevent bone loss, but there is inconclusive evidence on this. Decreased fertility? No evidence for what you're saying.
Beaton et al. (2010) found no evidence of this being the case, concluding: "Consumption of soy protein of low or high isoflavone content does not adversely affect semen quality in a sample of healthy adult men."
Similarly, a 2010 meta-analysis found no evidence of hormones being screwed up: "The results of this meta-analysis suggest that neither soy foods nor isoflavone supplements alter measures of bioavailable T concentrations in men."
Finally, according to the American Association of Paediatrics: "there is no conclusive evidence from animal, adult human, or infant populations that dietary soy isoflavones may adversely affect human development, reproduction, or endocrine function." [My bold]
Thyroid function? A review of the evidence concludes:
The preponderance of evidence from clinical trials involving healthy adult men and women indicates that neither soy protein nor isoflavones adversely affect thyroid function. As noted the adverse effects reported by one Japanese study are biologically implausible and contrast with the results of 13 other trials.
Oh, surprise surprise! You cite that one Japanese study. Cherry-picking much? Scientists are meant to objectively look at the evidence.
Some vegans and vegetarians make hugely exaggerated claims about the health benefits of their diets, but that doesn't justify spreading complete and utter falsehoods in the opposite direction.
Overall, as the American Dietetic Association has stated:
appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes.
The average vegetarian or vegan is healthier than the average meat-eater. Vegetarians and vegans have a lower risk of cardiovascular disease and Type 2 diabetes in comparison with the average meat-eater. As this study concluded, which looked at a large group of people with similar lifestyles but different diets:
Increased conformity to vegetarian diets protected against risk of type 2 diabetes after lifestyle characteristics and BMI were taken into account. Pesco- and semi-vegetarian diets afforded intermediate protection.
I would agree that health-conscious meat-eaters can be just as healthy, but they would have a relatively low consumption of meat (maybe three or four times a week), because as numerous studies have demonstrated, replacing saturated fats (animal fats) with cis unsaturated fats (both Omega-3s and Omega-6s) lowers one's risk of cardiovascular disease. (See here, here and here, for instance). As a 2015 systematic review of randomized control trials by Cochrane - the gold-standard of evidence in the medical literature - put it:
Lifestyle advice to all those at risk of cardiovascular disease and to lower risk population groups should continue to include permanent reduction of dietary saturated fat and partial replacement by unsaturated fats.
Health-conscious meat-eaters would also eat little red meat and no processed meat, with red and processed meat (particularly processed meat) having been found to increase one's risk of some cancers.
No, they won't. Once again, we will simply stop breeding the domesticated animals that we rear for meat.
Oh, come off it. Stop being so pathetically infantile. Bacteria aren't sentient.
You're also focusing on the killing part, ignoring the fact that most of the meat sold in the UK, the West and indeed the world comes from factory farms in which the animals are kept in horrific conditions. So-called 'humane' farms have continuously been exposed as being just as bad.
The notion that animals are stunned and killed instantly is also incorrect. Numerous studies have found that between 10-40% of stuns go wrong, equating to millions upon millions of animals dying in intense pain every single year. Random investigations of slaughterhouses have corroborated this, and some of the so-called humane methods, such as gassing, are anything but humane: when pigs are gassed, they're seen gasping for breath and trying to get out of the chamber for up to 20 seconds, putting them in a lot of distress.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by tawg
But it's not a personal choice if animals are forced to die. Eating meat literally forces death and suffering on animals. Wouldn't you say that's a problem with eating meat?
People try and promote veganism because they want to stop the death of trillions of animals every year and don't want to see our planet get destroyed. I think if people truly saw the horrors of death and animal slavery that they wouldn't be able to stay silent.
People try and promote veganism because they want to stop the death of trillions of animals every year and don't want to see our planet get destroyed. I think if people truly saw the horrors of death and animal slavery that they wouldn't be able to stay silent.
Its a personal choice because its a personal choice whether eat a meatless diet. Some people are vegans for ethical reasons and some people are vegans for health reasons. Some people aren't vegans because they don't care.
How is eating animals going to destroy the planet? We're more likely to die out by meteor plummeting Earth or eruptions of volcanoes. Even the animals eat animals. I'm surprise they haven't died out either. Even if people did see animals slaughters what makes you take they'll care? Do you care about the ants you step on everyday? You do not care about the pain that plants feel nor care about a rose being plucked away from its root yet you I don't think you would say its a problem. Plants are living things too and you eat them. Living things get their nutrients from other living things or things they were once alive. That's how we all live.
There is no problem eating meat if it doesn't make anyone ill. No one is forcing you to eat meat. If you witness someone eating a juicy streak you're free to avert your eyes and be disgusted. It is your choice what to eat in your diet just as other people have a choice to eat meat. Your values may not be someone else values just like the living conditions of animals that I eat are not my values.
Original post by SmileyVibe
How is eating animals going to destroy the planet?
The meat industry contributes massively to global warming. According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation, the meat industry is responsible for almost 15% of greenhouse gas emissions; for reference, the entire transportation sector emits 14% of greenhouse gas emissions.
As a result, the United Nations Environment Program has called on people to move towards a vegan diet: “Impacts from agriculture are expected to increase substantially due to population growth increasing consumption of animal products. Unlike fossil fuels, it is difficult to look for alternatives: people have to eat. A substantial reduction of impacts would only be possible with a substantial worldwide diet change, away from animal products.”
The Environmental Working Group has found that virtually all plant-based products have lower greenhouse gas emissions associated with them than any animal product.
And, a 2014 study, published in the peer-reviewed journal Climatic Change, found that vegans, followed by vegetarians, had the lowest greenhouse gas emissions associated with their diet.
Unless we all significantly reduce and/or eliminate our consumption of animal products, keeping global warming below a 2C rise relative to pre-Industrial levels is going to be extremely difficult.
Original post by SmileyVibe
You do not care about the pain that plants feel nor care about a rose being plucked away from its root yet you I don't think you would say its a problem. Plants are living things too and you eat them.
Plants cannot feel pain or suffer. There's absolutely no evidence that they can, and it wouldn't make any evolutionary sense: In the absence of any capacity for rapid self-propelled motion, no evolutionary selection pressure can exist to create an energetically expensive nervous system – or the unitary subject of experience supported by the vertebrate central nervous system.
In any case, even if they could suffer, producing meat requires many more times plant protein than simply producing plant-based foods for humans to directly eat: what do the animals that we rear for meat eat? Plants.
So, even if they were sentient, a vegan diet would still cause less suffering, which is what it's all about - it's not about being a saint, it's about reducing the amount of suffering you're responsible for.
Original post by SmileyVibe
There is no problem eating meat if it doesn't make anyone ill. No one is forcing you to eat meat. If you witness someone eating a juicy streak you're free to avert your eyes and be disgusted. It is your choice what to eat in your diet just as other people have a choice to eat meat. Your values may not be someone else values just like the living conditions of animals that I eat are not my values.
And, what if someone were keeping human infants or severely intellectually disabled humans in the conditions in which we keep nonhuman animals reared for meat? These groups of humans are demonstrably less intelligent than the animals we rear for meat, yet by your argument, it would be permissible, because "your values may not be someone else's values".
For that matter, is it wrong to stop people from torturing other people? After all, their values may not be your values.
(edited 7 years ago)
Because all they do is moan moan moan moan moan.
I like a nice lamb kebab. Not having some vegan on Facebook telling me how it's killed.
I like a nice lamb kebab. Not having some vegan on Facebook telling me how it's killed.
Every single one I've met is irritating and sanctimonious.
Original post by funkytwix
they act like it's easy to change your diet and don't realise that people with digestive problems sometimes cannot eat a fully vegan diet, and they pretend that it isn't expensive in comparison to a non vegan diet which is irritating... there is a lot of preaching and trying to convert others which i guess people dislike for the same reasons as people dislike religious people who try to convert them too
Trust me eating vegan is a lot cheaper. Think about it, buying a pizza with meat on it costs from £15-20 in a fast food place where vegan pizzas are £7-10. Fruit, vegetables, pasta, rice, potatoes are a lot cheaper than meats. The only think I agree is that milk alternatives are a bit more expensive than cows milk.
Cos a lot of those ******s are in to that whole green vibe, stuff like the environment, animal rights, social justice, pro gay/anti family/gay dads etc...In short a bunch of wastemen init
Original post by viddy9
The meat industry contributes massively to global warming. According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation, the meat industry is responsible for almost 15% of greenhouse gas emissions; for reference, the entire transportation sector emits 14% of greenhouse gas emissions.
As a result, the United Nations Environment Program has called on people to move towards a vegan diet: “Impacts from agriculture are expected to increase substantially due to population growth increasing consumption of animal products. Unlike fossil fuels, it is difficult to look for alternatives: people have to eat. A substantial reduction of impacts would only be possible with a substantial worldwide diet change, away from animal products.”
"Overpopulation is caused by number of factors. Reduced mortality rate, better medical facilities, depletion of precious resources are few of the causes which results inoverpopulation. It is possible for a sparsely populated area to become densely populated if it is not able to sustain life." I doubt people eating meat will be the death of us all, lol.
http://www.conserve-energy-future.com/causes-effects-solutions-of-overpopulation.php
Plants cannot feel pain or suffer. There's absolutely no evidence that they can, and it wouldn't make any evolutionary sense. In any case, even if they could suffer, producing meat requires many more times plant protein than simply producing plant-based foods for humans to directly eat: what do the animals that we rear for meat eat? Plants.
Yes, it is true plants cannot feel pain but they react to stimulation.
"How plants sense and react is still somewhat unknown. They don't have nerve cells like humans, but they do have a system for sending electrical signals and even produce neurotransmitters, like dopamine, serotonin and other chemicals the human brain uses to send signals.an diet would still cause less suffering, which is what it's all about - it's not about being a saint, it's about reducing the amount of suffering you're responsible for." -
http://www.pri.org/stories/2014-01-09/new-research-plant-intelligence-may-forever-change-how-you-think-about-plants
Again, some people are not vegans because they do not care. They enjoy the taste of eating meat, and meat is not harmful or lethal. Unless raw of course.
It is a personal choice to pledge eating no meat, and cause less suffering to animals. If you're vegan, good for you. The person next you can chose to be vegan but chooses not to. For some people, they care about having side order of bacon and eating it, not caring about "how". Animals are responsible for their own suffering as well. A lion is responsible for the death of a zebra that it ripped open. Eating meat is natural and contain nutrients. I'll repeat it again : living things get their nutrients from other living things.
And, what if someone were keeping human infants or severely intellectually disabled humans in the conditions in which we keep nonhuman animals reared for meat? These groups of humans are demonstrably less intelligent than the animals we rear for meat, yet by your argument, it would be permissible, because "your values may not be someone else's values".
For that matter, is it wrong to stop people from torturing other people? After all, their values may not be your values.
As a result, the United Nations Environment Program has called on people to move towards a vegan diet: “Impacts from agriculture are expected to increase substantially due to population growth increasing consumption of animal products. Unlike fossil fuels, it is difficult to look for alternatives: people have to eat. A substantial reduction of impacts would only be possible with a substantial worldwide diet change, away from animal products.”
"Overpopulation is caused by number of factors. Reduced mortality rate, better medical facilities, depletion of precious resources are few of the causes which results inoverpopulation. It is possible for a sparsely populated area to become densely populated if it is not able to sustain life." I doubt people eating meat will be the death of us all, lol.
http://www.conserve-energy-future.com/causes-effects-solutions-of-overpopulation.php
Plants cannot feel pain or suffer. There's absolutely no evidence that they can, and it wouldn't make any evolutionary sense. In any case, even if they could suffer, producing meat requires many more times plant protein than simply producing plant-based foods for humans to directly eat: what do the animals that we rear for meat eat? Plants.
Yes, it is true plants cannot feel pain but they react to stimulation.
"How plants sense and react is still somewhat unknown. They don't have nerve cells like humans, but they do have a system for sending electrical signals and even produce neurotransmitters, like dopamine, serotonin and other chemicals the human brain uses to send signals.an diet would still cause less suffering, which is what it's all about - it's not about being a saint, it's about reducing the amount of suffering you're responsible for." -
http://www.pri.org/stories/2014-01-09/new-research-plant-intelligence-may-forever-change-how-you-think-about-plants
Again, some people are not vegans because they do not care. They enjoy the taste of eating meat, and meat is not harmful or lethal. Unless raw of course.
It is a personal choice to pledge eating no meat, and cause less suffering to animals. If you're vegan, good for you. The person next you can chose to be vegan but chooses not to. For some people, they care about having side order of bacon and eating it, not caring about "how". Animals are responsible for their own suffering as well. A lion is responsible for the death of a zebra that it ripped open. Eating meat is natural and contain nutrients. I'll repeat it again : living things get their nutrients from other living things.
And, what if someone were keeping human infants or severely intellectually disabled humans in the conditions in which we keep nonhuman animals reared for meat? These groups of humans are demonstrably less intelligent than the animals we rear for meat, yet by your argument, it would be permissible, because "your values may not be someone else's values".
For that matter, is it wrong to stop people from torturing other people? After all, their values may not be your values.
They do plan on committing cannibalism too? Well, I would say they should be locked away. Animals cages are for animals like cow, chicken, pigs. Interesting, you align eating meat to torturing people and locking babies and handicaps people in cages. I however, do not thank that way which is obvious. Your values to cause less suffering to animals do apply to everyone or on everyone's agenda.
(edited 7 years ago)
Firstly, the UN Environment Program wasn't saying that overpopulation is caused by eating meat; it's saying that due to population growth, the impact on the environment from agriculture will increase substantially, and because the meat industry is a major greenhouse gas emitter, they're saying that a reduction of impacts on the environment from agriculture can only occur if we all move towards a diet that doesn't have any animal products in it.
Responding to stimuli is not suffering, though, as you yourself admit, so there's no reason why they should matter any more than a rock matters.
Why should they be locked away? They have different values to you and you're trying to force your values on them. I'm not equating eating meat to anything, I'm saying that your argument for eating meat is complete and utter balderdash, because using the same argument, we can justify not stopping people from committing any crime.
You're a hypocrite: you want to force your values on other people even though they don't share your values. You're such a sanctimonious human rights activist. Lions kill other lions - why shouldn't humans be able to kill other humans? It's the circle of life. You know how to tell whether someone doesn't torture other people? They'll tell you!
The real question is: why do you want to force your values on to people who don't share your values, if that, according to you, is a bad thing?
Responding to stimuli is not suffering, though, as you yourself admit, so there's no reason why they should matter any more than a rock matters.
Original post by SmileyVibe
They do plan on committing cannibalism too? Well, I would say they should be locked away. Animals cages are for animals like cow, chicken, pigs. Interesting, you align eating meat to torturing people and locking babies and handicaps people in cages. I however, do not thank that way which is obvious. Your values to cause less suffering to animals do apply to everyone or on everyone's agenda.
Why should they be locked away? They have different values to you and you're trying to force your values on them. I'm not equating eating meat to anything, I'm saying that your argument for eating meat is complete and utter balderdash, because using the same argument, we can justify not stopping people from committing any crime.
You're a hypocrite: you want to force your values on other people even though they don't share your values. You're such a sanctimonious human rights activist. Lions kill other lions - why shouldn't humans be able to kill other humans? It's the circle of life. You know how to tell whether someone doesn't torture other people? They'll tell you!
The real question is: why do you want to force your values on to people who don't share your values, if that, according to you, is a bad thing?
(edited 7 years ago)
Hank of the Vlogbrothers explores it pretty well:
[video="youtube;uwKrtNr76BM"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwKrtNr76BM[/video]
[video="youtube;uwKrtNr76BM"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwKrtNr76BM[/video]
Latest
Last reply 1 minute ago
Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant ThreadLast reply 7 minutes ago
Official University College London Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 9 minutes ago
Official UCL Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entryLast reply 9 minutes ago
Official Dental Hygiene and Therapy (Oral Health Science) 2024 Entry ThreadDentistry
2909
Last reply 12 minutes ago
Official: Aston University A100 2024 Entry Applicant threadMedical Schools
1149
Last reply 12 minutes ago
Pqip assesment centre role playLast reply 13 minutes ago
ATAS (Academic, Technology, Approval Scheme) Certificate 2023/2024Last reply 15 minutes ago
Official: Brighton and Sussex (BSMS) A100 2024 Entry ApplicantsLast reply 17 minutes ago
Weidenfeld Hoffmann Trust (WHT) Scholarship Notification (2024-2025)Last reply 23 minutes ago
National Probation ServiceLast reply 25 minutes ago
Home Office: Immigration Enforcement Casework Support AO 2024Trending
Last reply 29 minutes ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 9 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 4 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 29 minutes ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 9 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 4 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
