There is nothing ethical about anything you use or wear or consume. There are sweat shops that make you computers, clothing, and etc. Meat packaging and other forms of dairy products you get, the cows are abused and such. Then real fur, the process of getting it is extremely cruel. Even vegans who pride them selves are eating vegetables and stuff from migrant workers who get treated like slave labor.
Consumerism as a whole has made for these unethical practices, but that's survival of the fittest. Its natural selection. It's how the world works so honestly to be ignorant to it is dumb. Its even more dumb to get upset about it. Everything you do and own is at the suffering of another.
Yes. That's because the methods of removing skin from animal and getting meat from an animal are completely distinct from each other. Eating meat is part of the chain food(even if humanity made a cruel and horrible twist on it) and is required to mantain a good nutrition(for example, climbing mountains). Skinning animals just to "slay!111" and look "chic!!11" is so godamn stupid.
It's like comparing eating meat and pedophlia, it's makes no sense and even less if you have to make up lies and twist and old article just to make veganism look better.
And that's my exact point. How is that a unaccptable justification for "murder"? And for the last part if anything that's worse and whats lead to the disgusting factory farming.
One is regarded as being a staple in most people's diet, while the other is just worn for no purpose rather than fashion. What I'm getting across is that people are more inclined to disagree with fur because it's not regarded as something that is essentially a need. People can justify killing animals if it's for the purpose of being food because all humans need food, whereas fur is not a need. (Also yes I know there are alternatives to meat when it comes to food).
I mean would I have to go full vegan if I disagree with animal testing or hunting endangered animals for leisure? Both involve harming of animals, but the purpose of each one varies - which consequently leads to why people would have different opinions about it.
Yes. That's because the methods of removing skin from animal and getting meat from an animal are completely distinct from each other. Eating meat is part of the chain food(even if humanity made a cruel and horrible twist on it) and is required to mantain a good nutrition(for example, climbing mountains). Skinning animals just to "slay!111" and look "chic!!11" is so godamn stupid.
It's like comparing eating meat and pedophlia, it's makes no sense and even less if you have to make up lies and twist and old article just to make veganism look better.
Quote:
Originally posted by Halnin
Why would you have to go full vegan if you disagree with some aspects of animal treatment? Eating meat for sustenance is a norm for many, whereas wearing fur is just seen as an unneeded luxury. Animals used for meat are often mass produced anyway, I don't think it's the same case for fur considering not everyone wants to wear fur nor are there people willing to pay the price for it.
These responses point out the incongruences associated with use of animals for fur - I applaud that.
Both seem to purport however that the same (or worse) practices used for animal agriculture are excused due to their necessity - but we're beginning to realise more and more that animal foods are perhaps not only not a necessity, but a calamity too (and that's solely on premise of health, environmental impacts aside). More on that here.
Yes. That's because the methods of removing skin from animal and getting meat from an animal are completely distinct from each other. Eating meat is part of the chain food(even if humanity made a cruel and horrible twist on it) and is required to mantain a good nutrition(for example, climbing mountains). Skinning animals just to "slay!111" and look "chic!!11" is so godamn stupid.
It's like comparing eating meat and pedophlia, it's makes no sense and even less if you have to make up lies and twist and old article just to make veganism look better.
Erm but as i said vegans are perfectly healthy so no? Your eating meat just to say "YAsss! slay tastes so gud!!11!!!"...
One is regarded as being a staple in most people's diet, while the other is just worn for no purpose rather than fashion. What I'm getting across is that people are more inclined to disagree with fur because it's not regarded as something that is essentially a need. People can justify killing animals if it's for the purpose of being food because all humans need food, whereas fur is not a need. (Also yes I know there are alternatives to meat when it comes to food).
I mean would I have to go full vegan if I disagree with animal testing or hunting endangered animals for leisure? Both involve harming of animals, but the purpose of each one varies - which consequently leads to why people would have different opinions about it.
Fair enough i agree people are more inclined, and that it would be their natural opinion, it was mine for many years too afterall. Im just asking, isn't there a contradiction? And I disagree that eating meat is enough of a justification, as it's not a necessity. As for it being a part of our staple diet/culture, so is wearing fur, we've been doing it for thousands of years.
One is for nutrition, the other is a fashion statement. They're not comparable. I'm not a big fan of wearing fur because it's wasteful, to me. Eating meat is not.
I dont understand vegetarianism when its contradictory if they are eating eggs and milk too
How is that contradictory? You don't have to kill a living thing to consume either. A hen will produce eggs regardless of whether it's fertilized or not.
Quote:
Originally posted by Brite Lites ☆
I didn't say they weren't, why are you putting words on my mouth?
You said meat is required to maintain good nutrition when it's objectively not.
How is that contradictory? You don't have to kill a living thing to consume either. A hen will produce eggs regardless of whether it's fertilized or not.
The living conditions for the animals are still horrendous. The chickens are kept in metal cages with iPad-sized floor spaces.
One is for nutrition, the other is a fashion statement. They're not comparable. I'm not a big fan of wearing fur because it's wasteful, to me. Eating meat is not.
Queue the online assaults by vegans in 3, 2, 1...
None of my posts about veganism are ever intended to be 'online assaults' or to make you out to look stupid or inferior to me.
On the subject of meat not being wasteful - I actually think it's perhaps the most wasteful food we can consume. This is because;
Meanwhile, 82% of starving children live in countries where food is fed to animals, and the animals are eaten by western countries (x, x, x ).
15x more protein can be attained from any given area by growing plants, not using animals (x)
An omnivorous diet requires 18x the amount of land to sustain RDI's than a vegan diet does (x)
1.5 acres of land can produce 37,000 pounds of plant based foods - or 375 pounds of meat (x, x )
A person who follows a vegan diet produces the equivalent of 50% less carbon dioxide, uses 1/11th oil, 1/13th water, and 1/18th land compared to a meat-lover for their food. (x)
Animals produce Enough waste to cover SF, NYC, Tokyo, etc,
(x)
Animal Agriculture is responsible for 20%-33% of all fresh water consumption in the world today (x)
2,500 gallons of water are needed to produce 1 pound of beef. (x)
How is that contradictory? You don't have to kill a living thing to consume either. A hen will produce eggs regardless of whether it's fertilized or not.
Go educate yourself on the egg and milk production industry. Obviously chickens lay eggs, but they are never meant to be mass produced for human consumption, have you never heard of battery farms / hens?
It may be a different story if you lived on a farm and had pet chickens, i just think it makes 0 sense if you claim to not eat meat because its cruel yet go and buy a dozen eggs and some milk from your grocery store.
Fair enough i agree people are more inclined, and that it would be their natural opinion, it was mine for many years too afterall. Im just asking, isn't there a contradiction? And I disagree that eating meat is enough of a justification, as it's not a necessity. As for it being a part of our staple diet/culture, so is wearing fur, we've been doing it for thousands of years.
I wouldn't say it's really contradictory, I just don't think you have to be full out vegan if you disagree with some aspects of animal treatments. I mean as I mentioned with my previous point, the usage of animal testing and hunting animals for game is polarizing to many, not everyone agrees on it even if they are meat eaters themselves.
And yes fur dates back to thousands of years, but back then there was no production of synthetic fur or materials that provided enough warmth in colder regions. Now, there are plenty of alternatives when it comes to fur, so wearing fur is not really regarded as being much of a norm anymore.
Go educate yourself on the egg and milk production industry. Obviously chickens lay eggs, but they are never meant to be mass produced for human consumption, have you never heard of battery farms / hens?
It may be a different story if you lived on a farm and had pet chickens, i just think it makes 0 sense if you claim to not eat meat because its cruel yet go and buy a dozen eggs and some milk from your grocery store.
I know how the industry works but not all milk and eggs are harvested that way. It's not inherently contradictory to consume either as a vegetarian.
I know how the industry works, thanks, but not all milk and eggs are harvested that way. It's not inherently contradictory to consume either as a vegetarian.
It is for those who claim to be "ethical" vegetarians.