Current Events > 18,000 Cows Reportedly Killed in 'Deadliest' Barn Explosion at Dairy Farm

(+) Yeah! (+)

WBC_Injury posted...

1 man.
18,000 cows.
1,000,000+ strands of grass and plants

All of which felt pain. Sad.

since you're so concerned with the welfare of plants, you should consider how many pounds of plants it takes to produce one pound of meat. the best way to reduce the amount of suffering we cause plants is to stop feeding them to animals

Giant_Aspirin posted...

the best way to reduce the amount of suffering we cause plants is to stop feeding them to animals

Wouldn't that just mean animals starve more often?

Gobstoppers12 posted...

Wouldn't that just mean animals starve more often?

the idea is that we eventually stop farming them.

Giant_Aspirin posted...

since you're so concerned with the welfare of plants, you should consider how many pounds of plants it takes to produce one pound of meat. the best way to reduce the amount of suffering we cause plants is to stop feeding them to animals

I've always thought about this. If we count plants (which is relevant), then we can't win the ethic/guilt scenario. We have to eat something from something. Fruits and nuts I guess.

Cocytus posted...

I've always thought about this. If we count plants (which is relevant), then we can't win the ethic/guilt scenario. We have to eat something from something. Fruits and nuts I guess.

that's why I aim to reduce, not eliminate, the amount of suffering my existence causes the rest of the universe.

i really set myself up there, didn't i?

Giant_Aspirin posted...

i really set myself up there, didn't i?

lol. We just can't win if we count plants.

Cocytus posted...

I've always thought about this. If we count plants (which is relevant), then we can't win the ethic/guilt scenario. We have to eat something from something. Fruits and nuts I guess.

I don't think any vegan or vegetarian will say that they cause no harm. The goal is to reduce the harm, and reducing meat reduces harm

Giant_Aspirin posted...

that's why I aim to reduce, not eliminate, the amount of suffering my existence causes the rest of the universe

I aim to do the same. It's just all a big mix of things, the way things are and the way people see things.

emblem-man posted...

The goal is to reduce the harm, and reducing meat reduces harm

To animals. Not to plants.

Humans really need to stop animal suffering and return to simple gathering for food. There is no reason not to.

Flauros posted...

Humans really need to stop animal suffering and return to simple gathering for food. There is no reason not to.

... You're kidding, right?

Flauros posted...

Humans really need to stop animal suffering and return to simple gathering for food. There is no reason not to.

How do propose over 7 billion people that may or may not actually have access to natural sources of food do that?

Gobstoppers12 posted...

To animals. Not to plants.

No, it reduces it for plants also. Many plants are harmed due to the need to feed the animals. Even if everyone starts eating a plant based or vegetarian diet, that's still less usage of plants since now you don't need to feed it to animals first.

Flauros posted...

Humans really need to stop animal suffering and return to simple gathering for food. There is no reason not to.

Na, use all the GMOs and efficient methods of growing food. No need to be inefficient by trying to have everyone grow their own little garden or whatever.
Unless I'm mistaken in what your post was trying to imply.

Flauros posted...

Humans really need to stop animal suffering and return to simple gathering for food. There is no reason not to.

Great idea if we could actually pull it off.

Animals are meant to be eaten. It is part of the animal-life cycle.

Pikachuchupika posted...

Animals are meant to be eaten. It is part of the animal-life cycle.

its sorta messed up the only way Mother Nature meant for us to subsist was through eating other life forms, its one of things that makes it harder for me to believe in an all benevolent deity

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


more or less yea, I actually do believe if there are indeed celestial beings who hold domain over the human world that they are indeed sadists

Yeah, I don't get this whole idea that we shouldn't be doing what we evolved to do. Evolution is how we got as far as we have so far. We evolved to eat meat and plants both.

Some scientists believe that eating meat helped fuel the evolution of our brains. I forget the details but I remember reading about eating meat making our brains bigger

Cuticrusader09 posted...

What shortage? The US makes way more milk than we use.

Don't you remember a few years ago we had a reduction in dairy cows and suddenly milk was more expensive than gas and beer per gallon?

I couldn't eat cereal for like 2 years until it finally went back down.

Edit: I guess it's been 10+ years by now since that happened, not a few years ago.

Gobstoppers12 posted...

Yeah, I don't get this whole idea that we shouldn't be doing what we evolved to do. Evolution is how we got as far as we have so far. We evolved to eat meat and plants both.

Ehh, I don't understand this naturalistic argument. There are many things we did in the past that we realized we should stop doing. Most people are probably able to eat a diet with no meat. Being a vegetarian isn't some unnatural thing.
I'm not even a vegetarian, but I think they are morally right about the animal welfare aspect of it. If you (and me) and others want to eat meat, then we should just say that we like eating meat and don't care enough about the animal welfare aspect involved in eating this diet. Instead, people try to talk around that fact. Just say you like how burgers and wings taste more than you care about animals dying to provide food.

I'm not trying to be flippant, I just think the argument is inherently emotional and people don't realize it, and discussions about it never really end up being honest

Lab grown meat needs to hurry up and taste like meat instead of salty play doh.

emblem-man posted...

Most people are probably able to eat a diet with no meat

Able? Sure, I guess, with supplements and specific diet plans. It's not really reasonable to expect it, though. We naturally crave meat, in general.

Gobstoppers12 posted...

Able? Sure, I guess, with supplements and specific diet plans. It's not really reasonable to expect it, though. We naturally crave meat, in general.

In first world countries, yes able and doable. I think many people complicate a vegetarian diet. Vegan I will agree is actually difficult. But vegetarian really isn't.

But yes, it's a change in diet from something they've been doing their whole life. It will take work and time.

Like, what does naturally crave meat even mean. We naturally crave a whole lot of shit that we decided was morally bad to indulge in. I don't know, I'm just not a fan of this line of argument.

emblem-man posted...

In first world countries, yes able and doable.

Yeah, but not really desirable.

emblem-man posted...

Like, what does naturally crave meat even mean

Humans like the taste of meat in general. We like the smell of it cooking. We like how it looks. It's natural.

Maybe not everybody feels that way about meat, but it's a pretty common sentiment. And unlike junk food and sweets, meats like chicken and fish are pretty healthy.

Giant_Aspirin posted...

since you're so concerned with the welfare of plants, you should consider how many pounds of plants it takes to produce one pound of meat. the best way to reduce the amount of suffering we cause plants is to stop feeding them to animals

So what should we feed animals? Other animals?

I really don't buy the "less suffering" argument. It's mental gymnastics to justify the fact that you're putting plants below animals when it comes to your moral crusade. "Oh but we'll be eating less of plants". Well why can't we just eat less of meat? No, you'd rather zero meat. But zero plants doens't have to be a scenario.

Vegans are anti-plant.

WBC_Injury posted...

I really don't buy the "less suffering" argument. It's mental gymnastics to justify the fact that you're putting plants below animals when it comes to your moral crusade. "Oh but we'll be eating less of plants". Well why can't we just eat less of meat? No, you'd rather zero meat. But zero plants doens't have to be a scenario.

Vegans are anti-plant.

Way too obvious, kanjo. Dial it back and try again.

PlantBased posted...

Way too obvious, kanjo. Dial it back and try again.

Ultimately it's making the decision between zero animals versus zero plants. Vegans arbitrarly decide that zero animals is a better option because effectively plants don't have eyes.

Vegans need to eat all meatavors as a show of the ultimate love for reducing suffering

Gobstoppers12 posted...

Humans like the taste of meat in general. We like the smell of it cooking. We like how it looks. It's natural.

Maybe not everybody feels that way about meat, but it's a pretty common sentiment. And unlike junk food and sweets, meats like chicken and fish are pretty healthy.

Yeah. Meat tastes focusing wonderful.. but surely you agree that not everything we crave is morally good to indulge in. And that's my point..some think the taste isn't worth the moral implications and some do. It has nothing to do with liking meat being natural or whatever.

WBC_Injury posted...

I really don't buy the "less suffering" argument. It's mental gymnastics to justify the fact that you're putting plants below animals when it comes to your moral crusade. "Oh but we'll be eating less of plants". Well why can't we just eat less of meat? No, you'd rather zero meat. But zero plants doens't have to be a scenario.

Vegans are anti-plant.

Eat less meat!!. You won't find a vegetarian tell you that it's 0 meat or nothing. They will tell you that you should reduce meat consumption

emblem-man posted...

Yeah. Meat tastes focusing wonderful.. but surely you agree that not everything we crave is morally good to indulge in. And that's my point..some think the taste isn't worth the moral implications and some do. It has nothing to do with liking meat being natural or whatever.

Humans would not have survived, let alone evolved without the consumption of meat.

emblem-man posted...

Meat tastes focusing wonderful.. but surely you agree that not everything we crave is morally good to indulge in.

There are some arguments to be made about morality, but I'm not going to act like I feel guilty about eating meat that we specifically bred and raised to be meat.

emblem-man posted...

Eat less meat!!. You won't find a vegetarian tell you that it's 0 meat or nothing.

lol

They will tell you that you should reduce meat consumption

If given the choice, they won't say the same thing about plants. Because plants do not have eyes or vocal chords.

WBC_Injury posted...

Humans would not have survived, let alone evolved without the consumption of meat.

But we can NOW!

Am I saying we should go back to the past and tell them to stop eating meat? Like bro, come on.

Gobstoppers12 posted...

There are some arguments to be made about morality, but I'm not going to act like I feel guilty about eating meat that we specifically bred and raised to be meat.

That's fine. You've made your moral calculus and stated that eating meat is not morally bad to you.

My whole rant is that people try to talk around just stating what their morality about eating meat is because they don't want to come to terms with what their actions essentially are.

emblem-man posted...

But we can NOW!

Am I saying we should go back to the past and tell them to stop eating meat? Like bro, come on.

But we can consume plants? What is it about people who shame people for eating meat that don't do the same for other living beings that feel pain?

I have no problem with vegans. But the ones that try to force others to follow their lifestyle are hypocrites who can't admit they put animals above plants on the moral totem pole.

holy cow

WBC_Injury posted...

But we can consume plants? What is it about people who shame people for eating meat that don't do the same for other living beings that feel pain?

Options 1: Plants --> animals --> humans
Option 2: plants --> humans

Which option causes less harm to plants?

emblem-man posted...

Options 1: Plants --> animals --> humans
Option 2: plants --> humans

Which option causes less harm to plants?

Unironically Option 2 causes more harm, because corporations will now mass produce plants to feed humans and at the same time take away from already existing areas that will further impact the planet in a negative fashion. It takes more plants to feed a human than it does an animal.

WBC_Injury posted...

Unironically Option 2 causes more harm, because corporations will now mass produce plants to feed humans and at the same time take away from already existing areas that will further impact the planet in a negative fashion. It takes more plants to feed a human than it does an animal.

Corn needs to go away. The amount of fertilizer it takes to grow is ridiculously high.

WBC_Injury posted...

Unironically Option 2 causes more harm, because corporations will now mass produce plants to feed humans and at the same time take away from already existing areas that will further impact the planet in a negative fashion. It takes more plants to feed a human than it does an animal.

If you're gonna pull something out of your ass, polish it of any turds first.

Octans posted...

If you're gonna pull something out of your ass, polish it of any turds first.

Do you realize how many humans are on earth? The amount of mass production of plants to suddenly feed every human being will literally destroy the planet.