|
|
Post by Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov on Sept 15, 2021 12:59:38 GMT
1. Humans have been hunter gatherers for a much longer time than they've been farmers. I am aware of the impacts of farming to the nature and human. 2. Cows are mass produced because of demand for milk and beef. Their population wouldn't scyrocket naturally. 1. Uhmmm... i probably should write about the adaptation not about human early life. So basically our ancestor has been a Carnivore since they first appear. If our ancestor is a farmer since they first appear huge chance we will be a herbivore and our teeth is only capable of eating vegetable and fruits and other non meat stuff (Total nightmare). For example a dog and a cow. Cows only eat grass for million of years and that's why their teeth were uncle to chew meat While dog teeth can chew meat because that what they eat for million years. Our teeth can chew both because we've been eating both for thousand years. Note: Human i used is Homo sapiens so not from the first human species which is forgot the name so thats why i wrote thousand years (They appear 200.000 yeas ago)not million compared to animal which has appear for million of years 2. Well they can reproduce without human's help so their population can still go skyrocket. 1. Oh yeah yeah, I didn't quite understand what you were saying, but of course, yea that's true. 2. Yeah, they can but not so fast as humans have helped them to. Cows are constantly forced to reproduce to maximize the production of milk and beef. But milk is another thing. |
|
|
|
Post by Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov on Sept 15, 2021 13:00:57 GMT
It's okay not to be vegan, but you don't have to hate them just because they care about animals and the climate. |
|
|
|
Post by zink on Sept 15, 2021 13:07:40 GMT
It's okay not to be vegan, but you don't have to hate them just because they care about animals and the climate. I commend vegans, that takes discipline |
|
|
|
Post by MaximusOptimus on Sept 15, 2021 14:03:43 GMT
I abide by one code and that is "Cows and other animals were put here for us to eat "
I dont want no Vegan Teachers here That woman is annoying
|
|
|
|
Post by Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov on Sept 15, 2021 14:04:58 GMT
I abide by one code and that is "Cows and other animals were put here for us to eat " I dont want no Vegan Teachers here That woman is annoying What do you mean? |
|
|
|
Post by MaximusOptimus on Sept 15, 2021 14:22:14 GMT
I abide by one code and that is "Cows and other animals were put here for us to eat " I dont want no Vegan Teachers here That woman is annoying What do you mean? 1.In my religious beliefs God put down animals for us humans to eat and I've stuck with that belief ever since 2.The vegan teacher is an annoying woman that keeps going on yt and tiktok trying to convert people to her vegan cult religion thingy, She has went for many famous people like Tommyinnit and Pewdiepie, Mrbeast and even Gordon Ramsay Tho it is ok to eat meat lets still make sure that we don't eat too much |
|
|
|
Post by Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov on Sept 15, 2021 14:44:11 GMT
1.In my religious beliefs God put down animals for us humans to eat and I've stuck with that belief ever since 2.The vegan teacher is an annoying woman that keeps going on yt and tiktok trying to convert people to her vegan cult religion thingy, She has went for many famous people like Tommyinnit and Pewdiepie, Mrbeast and even Gordon Ramsay Tho it is ok to eat meat lets still make sure that we don't eat too much I don't want to go to religion or politics, but: 1. I'm an atheist, so I don't believe in that, but it's not wise to argue about it. 2. Haven't heard of her. Even though it would be good to stop eating meat, maybe she still shouldn't force it on people. |
|
|
|
Post by Gerd von Rundstedt on Sept 15, 2021 15:01:09 GMT
To be honest, I agree with Oppenheimer on point one. But I do not think it is okay to try to get people not to eat meat.
It contains a ton of needed vitamins, but even that aside, it is some of the cheapest food that has significant nutritional value, easy to export, can be salted for preservation, easy to get from the environment and raise as compared to plants, and generally a budget meal for many people around the world, certainly that with grain is filling.
That is one reason I think that the Catholic Church should change the rules regarding Lent to bring it back to its original intent (i.e. fish was a poor man's food, meat was a luxury) as the economic situation has changed drastically now.
But I digress. It is certainly okay to eat meat, animals such as turkeys, pigs, cows, and other poultry don't "mind" being raised for food, as I have observed with chickens and turkeys, as well as checking out other men's farms.
What I do think is wrong is shaming people into putting aside a very economically viable way of eating because the animals are being treated too poorly. There are many people who would rather eat meat than eat nothing. Meat is easily cannable, so why not send some to somebody who actually needs it if you find it morally unjustifiable for you to have it yourself.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gerd von Rundstedt on Sept 15, 2021 15:02:07 GMT
I do apologize if my tone seemed to harsh. Believe me, I didn't mean to be disrespectful.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gerd von Rundstedt on Sept 15, 2021 15:03:04 GMT
It's okay not to be vegan, but you don't have to hate them just because they care about animals and the climate. I commend vegans, that takes discipline As do I, but I think that their premise is wholly unfounded. |
|
|
|
Post by Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov on Sept 15, 2021 16:14:35 GMT
To be honest, I agree with Oppenheimer on point one. But I do not think it is okay to try to get people not to eat meat. It contains a ton of needed vitamins, but even that aside, it is some of the cheapest food that has significant nutritional value, easy to export, can be salted for preservation, easy to get from the environment and raise as compared to plants, and generally a budget meal for many people around the world, certainly that with grain is filling. That is one reason I think that the Catholic Church should change the rules regarding Lent to bring it back to its original intent (i.e. fish was a poor man's food, meat was a luxury) as the economic situation has changed drastically now. But I digress. It is certainly okay to eat meat, animals such as turkeys, pigs, cows, and other poultry don't "mind" being raised for food, as I have observed with chickens and turkeys, as well as checking out other men's farms. What I do think is wrong is shaming people into putting aside a very economically viable way of eating because the animals are being treated too poorly. There are many people who would rather eat meat than eat nothing. Meat is easily cannable, so why not send some to somebody who actually needs it if you find it morally unjustifiable for you to have it yourself. I don't mean to be disrespectful either, but I just had to reply. 1. Although everyone can believe or not believe in anything, I don't think it is a viable argument. Firstly it's based on God and God is problematic to use in an argument, since no one knows it exists. I don't know does Oppenheimer believe in evolution theory, but if not, the argument is strongly opposed by science. 2. "Forcing" others to be vegan is ok to some extent imo. However you can suggest someone being a vegan, but can only force them through democracy. Also maybe I am uncivilized but I am not aware of meat being the only source of food. I believe it is rather not available for many people. 3. Meat has great nutritional values, but it also has significant health risks (cancer, blood pressure etc.), especially in developed countries. Also there are many alternatives to gain the vitamins and nutrients you would get from meat. Also transforming to a meatless apetite isn't meant to happen immediately, but rather gradually imo. 4. You argue that animals don't "mind" being raised for food. How can you know they don't mind? If they don't mind that is only because they are unaware of their situation, which in my opinion doesn't justify the cause. Also the main problem is not with chicken and turkey, but with the methane farting, climate warming, unethically produced cows. |
|
|
|
Post by Gerd von Rundstedt on Sept 15, 2021 16:35:03 GMT
To be honest, I agree with Oppenheimer on point one. But I do not think it is okay to try to get people not to eat meat. It contains a ton of needed vitamins, but even that aside, it is some of the cheapest food that has significant nutritional value, easy to export, can be salted for preservation, easy to get from the environment and raise as compared to plants, and generally a budget meal for many people around the world, certainly that with grain is filling. That is one reason I think that the Catholic Church should change the rules regarding Lent to bring it back to its original intent (i.e. fish was a poor man's food, meat was a luxury) as the economic situation has changed drastically now. But I digress. It is certainly okay to eat meat, animals such as turkeys, pigs, cows, and other poultry don't "mind" being raised for food, as I have observed with chickens and turkeys, as well as checking out other men's farms. What I do think is wrong is shaming people into putting aside a very economically viable way of eating because the animals are being treated too poorly. There are many people who would rather eat meat than eat nothing. Meat is easily cannable, so why not send some to somebody who actually needs it if you find it morally unjustifiable for you to have it yourself. I don't mean to be disrespectful either, but I just had to reply. 1. Although everyone can believe or not believe in anything, I don't think it is a viable argument. Firstly it's based on God and God is problematic to use in an argument, since no one knows it exists. I don't know does Oppenheimer believe in evolution theory, but if not, the argument is strongly opposed by science. 2. "Forcing" others to be vegan is ok to some extent imo. However you can suggest someone being a vegan, but can only force them through democracy. Also maybe I am uncivilized but I am not aware of meat being the only source of food. I believe it is rather not available for many people. 3. Meat has great nutritional values, but it also has significant health risks (cancer, blood pressure etc.), especially in developed countries. Also there are many alternatives to gain the vitamins and nutrients you would get from meat. Also transforming to a meatless appetite isn't meant to happen immediately, but rather gradually imo. 4. You argue that animals don't "mind" being raised for food. How can you know they don't mind? If they don't mind that is only because they are unaware of their situation, which in my opinion doesn't justify the cause. Also the main problem is not with chicken and turkey, but with the methane farting, climate warming, unethically produced cows. Pardon for the quick answers, I am in a hurry. 1. Okay, I'll give you that. On the side, I personally don't believe in the theory of evolution, I think that it can be proven just as easily as pegasi can. 2. I do not think it is the right of even the people to tell a number of people what they can or cannot eat. I believe that is what Alexis de Tocqueville would call tyranny of the majority. As for your second point in that statement, if one is already struggling to eat, is shaming them into restricting their diet a good thing? 3. Maybe in excess, but in terms of helping people's health, would not simple awareness of healthy diets cause one to be much healthier than (and I hate to repeat this phrase, but I cannot think of an alternative) simply shaming people into not eating meat? 4. Ah, this is the fundamental issue we disagree on. I think we are both going to be somewhat biased, you being an atheist and myself a very devout livestock farmer who also hunts. The question that has puzzled philosophers for centuries, nay, millenia. Is it morally acceptable to kill an animal. I think that causing an animal unnecessary pain is 100% wrong. We can agree on that. But I would also prefer getting cheap, filling food than to cause an animal no pain. As for climate change and methane farting, um, methane is like, a lot heavier than air. It is not able to rise into the outer atmosphere, even by your theory of climate change, which I happen to doubt. Even taking your hypothesis of climate change, methane cannot contribute significantly to greenhouse gases. I don't understand what you mean by unethically produced cows, but I assume you are talking about cramped stalls and such. For one, there are cities of people like that, but if we discount the need to take care of that beforehand, then again, cattle do not have the cognitive ability to be uncomfortable. They are selectively bred to be as dumb as possible. |
|
|
|
Post by Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov on Sept 15, 2021 16:57:03 GMT
I don't mean to be disrespectful either, but I just had to reply. 1. Although everyone can believe or not believe in anything, I don't think it is a viable argument. Firstly it's based on God and God is problematic to use in an argument, since no one knows it exists. I don't know does Oppenheimer believe in evolution theory, but if not, the argument is strongly opposed by science. 2. "Forcing" others to be vegan is ok to some extent imo. However you can suggest someone being a vegan, but can only force them through democracy. Also maybe I am uncivilized but I am not aware of meat being the only source of food. I believe it is rather not available for many people. 3. Meat has great nutritional values, but it also has significant health risks (cancer, blood pressure etc.), especially in developed countries. Also there are many alternatives to gain the vitamins and nutrients you would get from meat. Also transforming to a meatless appetite isn't meant to happen immediately, but rather gradually imo. 4. You argue that animals don't "mind" being raised for food. How can you know they don't mind? If they don't mind that is only because they are unaware of their situation, which in my opinion doesn't justify the cause. Also the main problem is not with chicken and turkey, but with the methane farting, climate warming, unethically produced cows. Pardon for the quick answers, I am in a hurry. 1. Okay, I'll give you that. On the side, I personally don't believe in the theory of evolution, I think that it can be proven just as easily as pegasi can. 2. I do not think it is the right of even the people to tell a number of people what they can or cannot eat. I believe that is what Alexis de Tocqueville would call tyranny of the majority. As for your second point in that statement, if one is already struggling to eat, is shaming them into restricting their diet a good thing? 3. Maybe in excess, but in terms of helping people's health, would not simple awareness of healthy diets cause one to be much healthier than (and I hate to repeat this phrase, but I cannot think of an alternative) simply shaming people into not eating meat? 4. Ah, this is the fundamental issue we disagree on. I think we are both going to be somewhat biased, you being an atheist and myself a very devout livestock farmer who also hunts. The question that has puzzled philosophers for centuries, nay, millenia. Is it morally acceptable to kill an animal. I think that causing an animal unnecessary pain is 100% wrong. We can agree on that. But I would also prefer getting cheap, filling food than to cause an animal no pain. As for climate change and methane farting, um, methane is like, a lot heavier than air. It is not able to rise into the outer atmosphere, even by your theory of climate change, which I happen to doubt. Even taking your hypothesis of climate change, methane cannot contribute significantly to greenhouse gases. I don't understand what you mean by unethically produced cows, but I assume you are talking about cramped stalls and such. For one, there are cities of people like that, but if we discount the need to take care of that beforehand, then again, cattle do not have the cognitive ability to be uncomfortable. They are selectively bred to be as dumb as possible. This argument is getting problematic, but thank you for the answers. 2. I don't think people should be forced to be vegan, but made aware of the impacts of eating meat. Also what I meant by democratic forcing, is taxing meat and introducing alternatives, gradually reducing meat consumption. 3. As I've said, alternatives should be introduced and things like synthetically produced meat could be a great option. 4. The cow industry is in many ways unethical and breeding them to be dumb is imo very unethical indeed (as would be if they weren't bred dumb, so there's problem). Cows' children (I don't remember the English word for that) are taken from their parents (don't remember that word either  ) quickly after birth to live in a small cage untill killed for meat. However thas is done because of milk so it is a bit off topic. Methane is a bit more than half of the density of air on sea level (I'm aware it will drop as we get higher). Methane has the second biggest impact on global warming after CO2, about 20%. You may not believe me and I could search for science defending my point, but I won't. I don't want to be disrespectful but if you don't believe me then you don't and I'm okay with that. Also I'm very thankful for everyones wise arguments that don't include argumentum ad hominems. In my country the climate and meat discussion often goes to calling the sides "green commies" and nazis. |
|
|
|
Post by Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov on Sept 15, 2021 17:02:52 GMT
When John Marston made this thread, I don't think he meant this to go like this lol. |
|
|
|
Post by Rodolfo Graziani on Sept 15, 2021 18:15:48 GMT
It's okay not to be vegan, but you don't have to hate them just because they care about animals and the climate. I commend vegans, that takes discipline IKR. It must be so hard to cut yourself off from so many products. |
|
) quickly after birth to live in a small cage untill killed for meat. However thas is done because of milk so it is a bit off topic.
