N
newprestonpete
Guest
I haven’t read the other ones. I will check it out
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
C
Crescentinus
Guest
I find it funny that he claims that his arguments go unrefuted and yet his arguments have been refuted.I haven’t read the other ones. I will check it out
Stephen168
New member
And yet the “Predation Argument” does go unrefuted.I find it funny that he claims that his arguments go unrefuted and yet his arguments have been refuted.
B
Bobby_Jim
Guest
Sorry I didn’t read the whole thread. If someone wants to be vegan, that’s fine.
But to portray it as cruelty-free and not harming animals and so forth probably disregards the effect that agriculture has on animals. Even an organic farmer is going to try to keep the bunny rabbits and gophers out of his fields. When it’s time to harvest, if there’s any mechanization, little field mice and baby birds are being run over by the sickle mower. Animals’ natural habitats are displaced. Runoff - whether synthetic or organic fertilizers - lead to eutrophication of rivers, leading to depletion of oxygen and killing fish. Pulling water out of rivers and streams for Irrigation has effects on fish.
And that’s not to mention the effect agriculture has on the insects (which are animals, of course). Even in organic farming - if beneficial insects are used to control pests - those parasitic wasps are pretty gruesome. As a side note, it’s interesting to note that the reason traditional “vegan” cultures, e.g. in India, didn’t suffer from B-vitamin deficiencies is because they were actually consuming a fair amount of tiny insects, eggs, larva, etc along with their produce.
But to portray it as cruelty-free and not harming animals and so forth probably disregards the effect that agriculture has on animals. Even an organic farmer is going to try to keep the bunny rabbits and gophers out of his fields. When it’s time to harvest, if there’s any mechanization, little field mice and baby birds are being run over by the sickle mower. Animals’ natural habitats are displaced. Runoff - whether synthetic or organic fertilizers - lead to eutrophication of rivers, leading to depletion of oxygen and killing fish. Pulling water out of rivers and streams for Irrigation has effects on fish.
And that’s not to mention the effect agriculture has on the insects (which are animals, of course). Even in organic farming - if beneficial insects are used to control pests - those parasitic wasps are pretty gruesome. As a side note, it’s interesting to note that the reason traditional “vegan” cultures, e.g. in India, didn’t suffer from B-vitamin deficiencies is because they were actually consuming a fair amount of tiny insects, eggs, larva, etc along with their produce.
C
CopticChristian
Guest
Bobby,Sorry I didn’t read the whole thread. If someone wants to be vegan, that’s fine.
But to portray it as cruelty-free and not harming animals and so forth probably disregards the effect that agriculture has on animals. Even an organic farmer is going to try to keep the bunny rabbits and gophers out of his fields. When it’s time to harvest, if there’s any mechanization, little field mice and baby birds are being run over by the sickle mower. Animals’ natural habitats are displaced. Runoff - whether synthetic or organic fertilizers - lead to eutrophication of rivers, leading to depletion of oxygen and killing fish. Pulling water out of rivers and streams for Irrigation has effects on fish.
And that’s not to mention the effect agriculture has on the insects (which are animals, of course). Even in organic farming - if beneficial insects are used to control pests - those parasitic wasps are pretty gruesome. As a side note, it’s interesting to note that the reason traditional “vegan” cultures, e.g. in India, didn’t suffer from B-vitamin deficiencies is because they were actually consuming a fair amount of tiny insects, eggs, larva, etc along with their produce.
This is a good point and another point should be what is allowed in the foods consumed seen here from the FDA. Read what is allowed.
huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/26/fda-approved-rat-hairs-an_n_773608.html#s165326&title=Pizza_Sauce_30
fda.gov/food/guidancecomplianceregulatoryinformation/guidancedocuments/sanitation/ucm056174.htm#introTitle 21, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 110.110 allows the FDA to establish maximum levels of natural or unavoidable defects in foods that you can consume in a given year. Here are some of our favorite foods and their “safe” defects.
WHEAT Insect damage
(MPM-V15) Average of 32 or more insect-damaged kernels per 100 grams
Rodent filth
(MPM-V15) Average of 9 mg or more rodent excreta pellets and/or pellet fragments per kilogram
DEFECT SOURCE: Insect damage - preharvest and/or post harvest and/or processing infestation, Excreta - post harvest and/or processing animal contamination.
SIGNIFICANCE: Aesthetic
C
Cristiano
Guest
I am amazed by the lack of intellectual honesty and capability of the OP when it comes to this topic.
I am talking about lack of intellectual honesty because he refuses to assume responsibility for his thoughts in regard to a topic that, if not more important, is on equal footing with the original post. The lack of intellectual honesty is specific to the fact that he passes moral judgements, on people that do not agree with him, using some fundamental assumption that he does not believe to be moral.
I am talking about the lack of intellectual capability because the only argument that he makes is based on a moral assumption that he does not consider valid, thus the only specific argument that he uses is based on a self contradicting principle.
I am open for correction but at this point I think that the the credibility of the OP is shot and any further linking to web site is as effective as a child that keeps repeating that he was not trying to get cookies while the hand is stuck in the cookie jar.
I am talking about lack of intellectual honesty because he refuses to assume responsibility for his thoughts in regard to a topic that, if not more important, is on equal footing with the original post. The lack of intellectual honesty is specific to the fact that he passes moral judgements, on people that do not agree with him, using some fundamental assumption that he does not believe to be moral.
I am talking about the lack of intellectual capability because the only argument that he makes is based on a moral assumption that he does not consider valid, thus the only specific argument that he uses is based on a self contradicting principle.
I am open for correction but at this point I think that the the credibility of the OP is shot and any further linking to web site is as effective as a child that keeps repeating that he was not trying to get cookies while the hand is stuck in the cookie jar.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.