Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Ear to the ground
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
No more a say than she would if wild, she would be in heat every 3 weeks if healthy and the males in the herd would breed with herDakota Dan wrote: »It's just vegan drama, if you let a bull off with the cows they'll all stand for him when in heat, vegans can't get to grips with this so they keep harping on about au and rape nonsense.Lady Haywire wrote: »A cow is served in standing heat, i.e. she's waiting for it. Ever see a bitch in heat? They practically reverse into a dog. A cow will stand there with her ears back like a donkey letting cows/heifers/bulls etc jump on her. Sure, AI is used but it's the same as a bull, just safer in general. It's not rape, it's not unnatural and it's not forced.
Why is AI the same as a bull? It's a human hand being stuck up another animal where it doesn't belong. How the hell is that not unnatural to you?
A human woman wouldn't mind having a person who is not her mate stick their hand up inside her and inseminate her? Lets then take the baby away immediately after birth and then steal her milk meant for her children. Oh and once she can no longer produce enough milk or catches a disease due to her unnatural breast size, it's off to the slaughter.Waffletraktor wrote: »How could you grow a crop that's totally un suited to the climate in anything but a glasshouse which is already only viable with high value veg or fruits.
I don't really see what arguments you are making here that have anything to do with what I'm saying. Kudos to you for ignoring the need to chop down rain forest to provide proteins for the vegan diet or waste vast amounts of water in the areas it's in such short supply to grow your required nuts content and still claim the moral high ground.
It should be VERY well known at this stage that 91% of rainforest destruction is due to animal agriculture. That is, land for grazing and crops such as soybean for feed.
Please read the report below.
http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/758171468768828889/pdf/277150PAPER0wbwp0no1022.pdf
You're blowing my mind here with your stubbornness. What you are saying is hearsay and not fact at all. How can you sit there and ask me to do my research when you've clearly not done any yourself.
If almonds in California are such a big problem to you, we don't have to eat them! Just like we don't have to eat meat. Don't point at a single crop and try to discredit veganism. This is a massive logical fallacy if I've ever seen one.That's a magazine article not a report. The authors give no stats but they theorise that the accepted figures haven't accounted for x y and z one of which was breathing :rolleyes:
I'll just repeat for you what I said before.
The report you provided states that agriculture is responsible for roughly 31% of all of Ireland's Greenhouse Gas output. We can contend how bad the figure is all day, that doesn't change the fact that any amount of pollution is a bad thing for the planet and the human race.
Please have a read of this UN report which urges a global move to a meat and dairy free diet.
http://www.resourcepanel.org/reports/assessing-environmental-impacts-consumption-and-productionyosemitesam1 wrote: »Freedom is sometimes overrated, compare the life of a cow to that of a buffalo/wildebeest etc. It's all very nice until the bears, wolves and lions get hungry. A bolt in the back of the head that they never see coming is a nice way to go compared to getting chased to exhaustion, hamstringing and suffocation.
It's not all butterflies and bunny rabbits leading a comfortable life until they die of old age and is a wild animal ever truly free? They have no choice over much of their life.
There was a report out recently (didn't read it) that if america turned vegan it would only reduce national emissions by 2% and agri emissions by less than 30%.
First, that report sounds like it either doesn't exist, or is total bogus, much like the broccoli report earlier in this thread. I'd very much like to read it if you can find me a link.
Second, I cannot believe you are now telling me that you don't think an animal would value its freedom more than being given a death sentence from the moment its born. The buffalo numbered almost 30 million before European settlers brought their numbers down to about 1000 in the early 20th century. It was the odd animal that became some other animals dinner. Humans are the ones that bring genocide to these creatures. Hypothetically, I don't think you'd appreciate it very much if an alien race enslaved all humans and ensured none lived past childhood. But that would be a nice way to go, sure, you could have been in a car accident or caught in a building fire or any other number of horrible scenarios that are far less likely to occur!Dakota Dan wrote: »You seem to be relying too much on American vegan websites for your information, do you do any research on Irish farming? I see on another thread you are talking about the amount of water it takes to produce beef in case you haven't noticed we have an abundance if water in Ireland. All vegans sing from the same hymn sheet with plenty lies thrown in, maybe do a little research of your own.
I do actually do plenty of research on Irish farming and you would find that if you were looking at my previous posts on that other thread
If the world had an unlimited supply of water, nothing changes regarding the unethical treatment of animals, the unhealthy nature of the consumption of animal products and the damage done to the environment in the air, in the oceans and on land. This again, is just another logical fallacy, trying to justify something which is morally unjustifiable by picking and choosing. I do not pick and choose. I am looking at the broader picture both in Ireland and on the planet as a whole.
I've probably done far far far more research on this area than you would ever care to. The truth really hurts sometimes and many people would rather ignore it and try to attack character than face any facts. I have not lied once to you and where I provided a figure I've prefaced it by saying that reliable figures are often difficult to get right, however the figures never changed the spirit of the argument one bit.Dakota Dan wrote: »Plus the fact that at least one of them is vegan if not both.
Does being vegan mean one's arguments and research are invalid. What about Women's rights activists and African American civil rights activists of the 20th century, were their arguments invalid because of the group they belonged to?0 -
Advertisement
-
-
Why is AI the same as a bull? It's a human hand being stuck up another animal where it doesn't belong. How the hell is that not unnatural to you?
A human woman wouldn't mind having a person who is not her mate stick their hand up inside her and inseminate her? Lets then take the baby away immediately after birth and then steal her milk meant for her children. Oh and once she can no longer produce enough milk or catches a disease due to her unnatural breast size, it's off to the slaughter.
It should be VERY well known at this stage that 91% of rainforest destruction is due to animal agriculture. That is, land for grazing and crops such as soybean for feed.
Please read the report below.
http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/758171468768828889/pdf/277150PAPER0wbwp0no1022.pdf
You're blowing my mind here with your stubbornness. What you are saying is hearsay and not fact at all. How can you sit there and ask me to do my research when you've clearly not done any yourself.
If almonds in California are such a big problem to you, we don't have to eat them! Just like we don't have to eat meat. Don't point at a single crop and try to discredit veganism. This is a massive logical fallacy if I've ever seen one.
I'll just repeat for you what I said before.
The report you provided states that agriculture is responsible for roughly 31% of all of Ireland's Greenhouse Gas output. We can contend how bad the figure is all day, that doesn't change the fact that any amount of pollution is a bad thing for the planet and the human race.
Please have a read of this UN report which urges a global move to a meat and dairy free diet.
http://www.resourcepanel.org/reports/assessing-environmental-impacts-consumption-and-production
First, that report sounds like it either doesn't exist, or is total bogus, much like the broccoli report earlier in this thread. I'd very much like to read it if you can find me a link.
Second, I cannot believe you are now telling me that you don't think an animal would value its freedom more than being given a death sentence from the moment its born. The buffalo numbered almost 30 million before European settlers brought their numbers down to about 1000 in the early 20th century. It was the odd animal that became some other animals dinner. Humans are the ones that bring genocide to these creatures. Hypothetically, I don't think you'd appreciate it very much if an alien race enslaved all humans and ensured none lived past childhood. But that would be a nice way to go, sure, you could have been in a car accident or caught in a building fire or any other number of horrible scenarios that are far less likely to occur!
I do actually do plenty of research on Irish farming and you would find that if you were looking at my previous posts on that other thread
If the world had an unlimited supply of water, nothing changes regarding the unethical treatment of animals, the unhealthy nature of the consumption of animal products and the damage done to the environment in the air, in the oceans and on land. This again, is just another logical fallacy, trying to justify something which is morally unjustifiable by picking and choosing. I do not pick and choose. I am looking at the broader picture both in Ireland and on the planet as a whole.
I've probably done far far far more research on this area than you would ever care to. The truth really hurts sometimes and many people would rather ignore it and try to attack character than face any facts. I have not lied once to you and where I provided a figure I've prefaced it by saying that reliable figures are often difficult to get right, however the figures never changed the spirit of the argument one bit.
Does being vegan mean one's arguments and research are invalid. What about Women's rights activists and African American civil rights activists of the 20th century, were their arguments invalid because of the group they belonged to?
What, as a vegan, are you against? The killing of animals for our own consumption?0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Why is AI the same as a bull? It's a human hand being stuck up another animal where it doesn't belong. How the hell is that not unnatural to you?
A human woman wouldn't mind having a person who is not her mate stick their hand up inside her and inseminate her? Lets then take the baby away immediately after birth and then steal her milk meant for her children. Oh and once she can no longer produce enough milk or catches a disease due to her unnatural breast size, it's off to the slaughter.
It should be VERY well known at this stage that 91% of rainforest destruction is due to animal agriculture. That is, land for grazing and crops such as soybean for feed.
Please read the report below.
http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/758171468768828889/pdf/277150PAPER0wbwp0no1022.pdf
You're blowing my mind here with your stubbornness. What you are saying is hearsay and not fact at all. How can you sit there and ask me to do my research when you've clearly not done any yourself.
If almonds in California are such a big problem to you, we don't have to eat them! Just like we don't have to eat meat. Don't point at a single crop and try to discredit veganism. This is a massive logical fallacy if I've ever seen one.
I'll just repeat for you what I said before.
The report you provided states that agriculture is responsible for roughly 31% of all of Ireland's Greenhouse Gas output. We can contend how bad the figure is all day, that doesn't change the fact that any amount of pollution is a bad thing for the planet and the human race.
Please have a read of this UN report which urges a global move to a meat and dairy free diet.
http://www.resourcepanel.org/reports/assessing-environmental-impacts-consumption-and-production
First, that report sounds like it either doesn't exist, or is total bogus, much like the broccoli report earlier in this thread. I'd very much like to read it if you can find me a link.
Second, I cannot believe you are now telling me that you don't think an animal would value its freedom more than being given a death sentence from the moment its born. The buffalo numbered almost 30 million before European settlers brought their numbers down to about 1000 in the early 20th century. It was the odd animal that became some other animals dinner. Humans are the ones that bring genocide to these creatures. Hypothetically, I don't think you'd appreciate it very much if an alien race enslaved all humans and ensured none lived past childhood. But that would be a nice way to go, sure, you could have been in a car accident or caught in a building fire or any other number of horrible scenarios that are far less likely to occur!
I do actually do plenty of research on Irish farming and you would find that if you were looking at my previous posts on that other thread
If the world had an unlimited supply of water, nothing changes regarding the unethical treatment of animals, the unhealthy nature of the consumption of animal products and the damage done to the environment in the air, in the oceans and on land. This again, is just another logical fallacy, trying to justify something which is morally unjustifiable by picking and choosing. I do not pick and choose. I am looking at the broader picture both in Ireland and on the planet as a whole.
I've probably done far far far more research on this area than you would ever care to. The truth really hurts sometimes and many people would rather ignore it and try to attack character than face any facts. I have not lied once to you and where I provided a figure I've prefaced it by saying that reliable figures are often difficult to get right, however the figures never changed the spirit of the argument one bit.
Does being vegan mean one's arguments and research are invalid. What about Women's rights activists and African American civil rights activists of the 20th century, were their arguments invalid because of the group they belonged to?
http://www.pnas.org/content/114/48/E10301
There you are.
The vast majority of wild animals will never grow old gracefully. They'll either be killed by predators or else starve.
Also by right no vegan should be eating any fruit/veg derived from crops which received managed pollination as beekeeping relies on exploiting bees. It doesn't seem like it is at all possible to follow a healthy diet that does not go against vegan rules...0
Advertisement