Raw milk
#31
ernestus Wrote:There really is no demand for 'cruelty-free', 'free-range', animal products because most people cant afford it.

The fact that most cannot afford it does not mean there are not many who would gladly take it, if it were more affordable.
 
There can be great demand for something that is too difficult to supply.  The difficulty in supplying it at a reasonable cost proves nothing about the presence or lack of demand.
Reply
#32
ernestus Wrote:I'm just wondering if anyone here has ever killed an animal before. What was it like?

I'm pretty sure I killed that deer I hit.  Frankly, I wasn't too concerned about the deer.  They are under-hunted here, they frequently suffer from long starvation due to their uncontrolled numbers.  I probably did it a favor and saved it a long painful death through the drought we've had here this winter.

If I were a farmer and was required to kill animals for my livelihood, I would have no problem with it.  I would, however, stick to humane methods.

There is a great demand for pastured, humanely killed livestock in my area and it is plentifully available.  It does cost a little more but not tons more.  I buy most of my meat/chickens from local farmers who adhere to the same humane principals.  Mostly young people who feel the same way about animal cruelty as you do, ernestus.  I have visited one of the farms and found the environment to be rather quaint and sweet.  I also noticed the chopping block with a bunch of chicken feathers strewn about.  But I never thought the farmer I bought from must be a horribly cruel person for killing these chickens himself, quite the contrary.

To say that choosing pastured, humanely killed animals is too expensive I think is false.  If you get plenty of fat in your diet, your need for excessive quantities of food is gone.  On the vegetarian diet, one must consume large amounts of food to feel satiated due to the lack of fat and protein.  I just buy a big hunk of the cheapest cut of meat throw it in the crockpot with some vegetables, and I've given myself a good 5-6 meals for only $20.  The trick is really about storage and timing.  And the money you save on trips to the doctor for a healthy organic diet is well worth any extra expense of the meat.
Reply
#33
gladius_veritatis Wrote:
ernestus Wrote:I'm just wondering if anyone here has ever killed an animal before. What was it like?
Killed some ants once.  Not really much to say about it.  Quick.  Painless.  End of story. 

Deadant! Deadant! Deadant deadant deadant!
Reply
#34
Quote: originally posted by ernestus

I am a vegan Croppyboy, and it's not like I have a subscription to it like a magazine.

If you are unfamiliar with the above use of subscribe, I would recommend you consult a good English dictionary.

(for your reference, from the OED – subscribe - 4. v.i. express or feel agreement with an idea, proposal, etc.; hold as an opinion, assent to)


Quote: originally posted by ernestus

I don't see why there should be antipathy towards those groups who are exposing the horrible abuses which go on in the respective industries

You don’t see why there should be antipathy towards environmental/animal rights groups that resort to violent tactics to further their agenda? (e.g., PETA, ALF [Animal Liberation Front], SHAC [Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty], ELF [Earth Liberation Front], et alii).

These groups equate, nay, elevate the value of life of lower animals above that of humans.

Quote: originally posted by ernestus

Please tell me what exactly have the 'radical environmental/animal-rights' groups done to you which has affected your personal life? I can only guess absolutely nothing.

And your point would be what?

Quote: originally posted by ernestus

Would you yourself ever work in a slaughterhouse, where you would have to get your hands dirty? How about on a dairy 'farm' where the animals never see any sunshine and are pumped up with Growth Bovine Hormones and fed a diet of other dead cancerous animals?

Would I ever work in a slaughter house? Probably not . . . I don’t support the modern agro-industry. I eat organic as much as possible and support organic agriculture.

I am, however, a hunter and a fisher and I have gotten my hands pretty dirty while field dressing animals and cleaning fish.
Reply
#35
ernestus Wrote:I'm just wondering if anyone here has ever killed an animal before. What was it like?
Oh, I also used to get (lots of) carcasses of deer, rats (big ones - some dead, some alive), even a dead skunk and raccoon, in the trash on my route in KY.   Got a lot of other nasty stuff, too, but so I do not gross out the audience at home, I will leave it there.
 
I didn't kill 'em, of course, but I saw much of the same things you would see when killing them.
Reply
#36
Quote: originally posted by ernestus

I'm just wondering if anyone here has ever killed an animal before. What was it like?

I have . . . and it was great!!!

You would not believe the immense feeling of power you get as you watch little helpless Bambi stumble to the ground!!!

Facetiousness aside . . . what kind of absurd question is this? “What was it like?” Do you think that hunters receive some sort of megalomaniacal “thrill” from killing animals? I am sorry to disappoint you . . .

What was it like when you steamed the life out of those vegetables?
Reply
#37
Croppyboy Wrote:I am, however, a hunter and a fisher and I have gotten my hands pretty dirty while field dressing animals and cleaning fish.

I got alota respect for a guy who kills his own food! 

I forgot to mention that I have caught a catfish, and I essentially killed it by putting it on ice. I ate it later that evening.. [Image: gimmefood.gif] yum!  I was not worried about the fish, but I wasn't nearly as excited about catching it as my parents were.  To me it was just work, relaxing work, done in the sunshine, but work nonetheless.  My Dad, however, did the cleaning for me.
Reply
#38
ernestus Wrote:You are the type that only wants the finished product. Why don't you get a knife and kill your food for once. Show those animals that you're the man!

DominusTecum Wrote: 
I'd be happy to. Killing animals is no problem. It's a necessary thing for humans to survive.

I would concede that, depending on the situation at hand. But this is not generally true. Plants, vegetables, and other non-animal materials are in abundance so that everything man could possibly need is provided for without the use of animals.


Quote:don't remember what I said in that thread, but I probably condemned it. I condemn it now.

How can you condemn one and not the other. It seems you want to have it both ways. Animals have no rights, ergo, we do whatever we want with them. Yet, animals should have the right not to be slaughtered in the Halal or Kosher methods? Even condemning it?

Quote:I've heard that it REDUCES the quality of the meat, because the animal dies in pain, with adrenaline active, rather than simply being killed quickly and relatively painlessly.

Interesting. I have 'heard' just the opposite. That the more fear the animal has, the better it will taste.

Quote:then it would be justified

Also very interesting. Obviously Jewish people benefit by it. So do Mohamedans.


Quote:I would also maintain that it is acceptible to kill an animal for sport, so long as, again, one's motive is to derive pleasure from "the chase," rather than from causing the death of an animal.


That sounds patently absurd. No hunter 'derives pleasure from the chase'. The hunter is usually in it for the money he gets from selling tusks or other parts like horns or shells. Killing animals makes men feel superior. But men are wimps without their guns. Why don't men fight fair?


Quote:The snapping of the neck was the part that unnerved me a little bit, but once you've done it once or twice, no big deal.

That sounds no different though, than say a serial murderer.


miss_fluffy Wrote:To say that choosing pastured, humanely killed animals is too expensive I think is false. 

Where I live its twice the price, nearly three times. That is the truth. Most people are not going to spend the extra money shopping at a health food store. They simply can't afford it.


Quote:If you get plenty of fat in your diet, your need for excessive quantities of food is gone.  On the vegetarian diet, one must consume large amounts of food to feel satiated due to the lack of fat and protein.

The way I see it is like this; I go to an indian buffet which has vegan and non-vegan dishes. The big fat guy eats all the chicken, while the slender guy eats the vegetables. The big fat guy is fat because he eats too much meat and dairy. Now he has to eat twice as much to satiate his gluttonous appetite, while the slender guy can eat his normal fill.

I'm sorry but milk and dairy make me feel sick and sluggish if I eat it. The best is to eat raw, organic fruits and vegetables. That is where the nutrients and minerals are at. The fat I consume comes mostly from olive oil, hemp oil, and various raw nuts. There really is no cholesterol in a vegan diet, as anything that comes from an animal has cholesterol in it.

The body itself has a certain Ph level, which should be kept alkaline. Meat and dairy products are acidic. Cancer and disease cannot survive in an alkaline system, but thrive in an acidic one.


Quote:I probably did it a favor and saved it a long painful death

What is the point then of having animal rescue shelters? And this seems like the euthanasia mind set. Thats how it starts. First we do it animals, then we do it men. It's the same pattern with testing chemicals and drugs on animals first, then men. Although nowadays, I think they just skip right to testing chemicals on men.


gladius_veritatis Wrote:The fact that most cannot afford it does not mean there are not many who would gladly take it, if it were more affordable.

If you're hungry enough it won't matter anyway. When people get to the point of starvation, anything goes.


Quote:There can be great demand for something that is too difficult to supply.  The difficulty in supplying it at a reasonable cost proves nothing about the presence or lack of demand.

This is a good point that I would like to expand upon. The environmentalist-tree-hugging-animal-rights-activists do have some good statistics which put meat eaters in a quandary. This is the fact that for every acre of land used to raise cattle, you yield only a few pounds (under ten) of beef for use as hamburgers and such. While if you take the same acre, and use it for vegetable farming, you yield thousands and thousands of pounds of carrots, potatoes, squash, etc...

The acreage used in America for beef cattle is enormous compared to that used for plant farming. It's been said that if we stopped eating meat, and used the land for growing vegetables instead of meat, it would solve the starvation problems in the third-world-countries. That to me is a very strong argument in favor of being vegan.

Reply
#39
ernestus Wrote:The acreage used in America for beef cattle is enormous compared to that used for plant farming. It's been said that if we stopped eating meat, and used the land for growing vegetables instead of meat, it would solve the starvation problems in the third-world-countries. That to me is a very strong argument in favor of being vegan.

Balderdash.
 
Our government PAYS farmers NOT to grow crops every year. We have a surplus of grain. It is distribution alone that has third world countries starving.
 
 
 
Reply
#40
ernestus Wrote:I would concede that, depending on the situation at hand. But this is not generally true. Plants, vegetables, and other non-animal materials are in abundance so that everything man could possibly need is provided for without the use of animals.
 
Yeah, but we like the taste. Last I checked, in the bible they ate meat, and there weren't any injunctions in Ecclesiastical law telling us that it was morally proper to be vegan only. 

Quote:How can you condemn one and not the other. It seems you want to have it both ways. Animals have no rights, ergo, we do whatever we want with them. Yet, animals should have the right not to be slaughtered in the Halal or Kosher methods? Even condemning it?
 
I condemn it if there is a more humane method which produces the same results. If the results are better, then the kosher methods are ok. If they are worse, then they are especially not ok.


Quote:Interesting. I have 'heard' just the opposite. That the more fear the animal has, the better it will taste.

Then it would be justified.

Quote:That sounds patently absurd. No hunter 'derives pleasure from the chase'. The hunter is usually in it for the money he gets from selling tusks or other parts like horns or shells. Killing animals makes men feel superior. But men are wimps without their guns. Why don't men fight fair?
 
Nonsense. Most hunters I know derive pleasure from the "thrill of the hunt." They don't do it because "they enjoy depriving an animal of life," or "they want to make it suffer." That would be wrong. It is not wrong to take pleasure from the pursuit and taking of an animal, though, particularly if it is a sporting animal, like a deer or fox.


Quote:That sounds no different though, than say a serial murderer.
 
Logical fallacy. Example, I like curry, therefore I must have Thai blood. Wrong, I am as white as they come.

Quote:What is the point then of having animal rescue shelters? And this seems like the euthanasia mind set. Thats how it starts. First we do it animals, then we do it men. It's the same pattern with testing chemicals and drugs on animals first, then men. Although nowadays, I think they just skip right to testing chemicals on men.
 
The simple fact of the matter is, animals aren't men. Animals are animals. If we can derive useful products for men, or further science, through "cruelty" to an animal, then so be it, it is justified. You maintain that it is not ok to put a pet out of it's misery when it is old and suffering? Animals are animals, man, they are robots. Their "minds" are controlled by pure instinct. The only soul that they have is a material one generated by their bodies. Men are dominant over them in every respect. They exist to serve us through whatever means necessary.

Quote:This is a good point that I would like to expand upon. The environmentalist-tree-hugging-animal-rights-activists do have some good statistics which put meat eaters in a quandary. This is the fact that for every acre of land used to raise cattle, you yield only a few pounds (under ten) of beef for use as hamburgers and such. While if you take the same acre, and use it for vegetable farming, you yield thousands and thousands of pounds of carrots, potatoes, squash, etc...

The acreage used in America for beef cattle is enormous compared to that used for plant farming. It's been said that if we stopped eating meat, and used the land for growing vegetables instead of meat, it would solve the starvation problems in the third-world-countries. That to me is a very strong argument in favor of being vegan.

Who cares? I like steak. So do all those poor starving homeless people. I absolutely guarantee you that if you give them a truckload of vegan stuff, the vast majority of them will turn up their noses at it. They know that they can get decent tasting stuff free from western handouts, thus preventing their own economies from ever taking off to solve their hunger problems themselves. It has to taste good, and most people don't become vegan because they love the taste of lettuce. If they want to solve their own food shortage problems, let them grow the vegetables. The US, meanwhile, which has no hunger problems to speak of, will continue to produce tasty beef.  
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)