comment by Baz tard (U19119)
posted 6 hours, 45 minutes ago
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 13 hours, 30 minutes ago
comment by Baz tard (U19119)
posted 2 minutes ago

Britain is not an animal living nation, nowhere is. Not when millions are sent to slaughter every year.

Though, I will say that inhuman methods of slaughter have no place in this world these days, much like religion.
=============

Indeed. Though one question...

Can you describe a humane slaughter??
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As quick and painless as possible, not drawn out because of some bullsheite belief system.

=======

Two problems:

1. If the victim doesn’t want to die, andnindeed wanta to live just as you and I do, the slaughter can’t be considered humane regardless of the method deployed. How do you humanelybtake something’s life against its will?

2. Apple computers boasts a part per million (ppm) manufacturing tolerance of about 99.99%, meaning every time you turn your computer on, it’s works 99.9% of the time.

Suppose slaughter boasted the same ppm efficiency. We slaughter about 150bn animals per year. So 0.01% of them will be killed in ways that even you would seen inhumane. That’s either 150,000 per year or 1.5m per year (I’m too many drinks in to do the math right now!).

But slaughter doesn’t have anything like the ppm efficiency of Silicon Valley. From footage and slaughter house testimony, it works “efficiently” maybe 50% of the time. 60% at best.

That means 40% of animals killed per year are killed in ways that you would consider inhumane. That’s 60 BILLION *per year*.

Humane slaughter is a complete fiction. Both in principle and mathematically.

Just don't think about it and enjoy the sweet juicy taste

comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 50 minutes ago
comment by Baz tard (U19119)
posted 6 hours, 45 minutes ago
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 13 hours, 30 minutes ago
comment by Baz tard (U19119)
posted 2 minutes ago

Britain is not an animal living nation, nowhere is. Not when millions are sent to slaughter every year.

Though, I will say that inhuman methods of slaughter have no place in this world these days, much like religion.
=============

Indeed. Though one question...

Can you describe a humane slaughter??
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As quick and painless as possible, not drawn out because of some bullsheite belief system.

=======

Two problems:

1. If the victim doesn’t want to die, andnindeed wanta to live just as you and I do, the slaughter can’t be considered humane regardless of the method deployed. How do you humanelybtake something’s life against its will?

2. Apple computers boasts a part per million (ppm) manufacturing tolerance of about 99.99%, meaning every time you turn your computer on, it’s works 99.9% of the time.

Suppose slaughter boasted the same ppm efficiency. We slaughter about 150bn animals per year. So 0.01% of them will be killed in ways that even you would seen inhumane. That’s either 150,000 per year or 1.5m per year (I’m too many drinks in to do the math right now!).

But slaughter doesn’t have anything like the ppm efficiency of Silicon Valley. From footage and slaughter house testimony, it works “efficiently” maybe 50% of the time. 60% at best.

That means 40% of animals killed per year are killed in ways that you would consider inhumane. That’s 60 BILLION *per year*.

Humane slaughter is a complete fiction. Both in principle and mathematically.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Do we agree that if a wasp stings you it should be executed though?

comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 45 minutes ago

Just don't think about it and enjoy the sweet juicy taste
=================

Don't insult your own intelligence by resorting to such silly statements.

Post,

No not really. If you can avoid being stung without killing it, do so. Ultimately (I'm not even sure you're being serious), it's an edge case. Ambiguity over what to do in a particular set of circumstances doesn't mean there's ambiguity with regards to billions of animals slaughtered per year for trivial taste preference and profit.

Nothing worse than a vegan arguing over what another person should or should not be morally eating.

Berba,

Interesting points, and I get where your coming from, but it doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t attempt to ease the suffering in the process.

And part of that would be not using sky fairy rules to specify a painful method of slaughter. It’s pointless.

comment by Stretty - mr mourinho (U3123)
posted 24 minutes ago

Nothing worse than a vegan arguing over what another person should or should not be morally eating.
================

JA606's favourite philosopher has spoken! And as ever, it's intelligent, considered and well-reasoned.

We are not worthy.

comment by Baz tard (U19119)
posted 17 minutes ago

Berba,

Interesting points, and I get where your coming from, but it doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t attempt to ease the suffering in the process.

And part of that would be not using sky fairy rules to specify a painful method of slaughter. It’s pointless.
===================

Less awful torture/slaughter is indeed pragmatically better than more awful torture/slaughter, but we have to be careful not to create a false binary.

The choice we face isn't 'high "welfare" vs low welfare". It's slaughter vs no slaughter.

Agree fully about Sky Fairies. I'm a principled atheist, and firmly believe we shouldn't be looking to sky fairies or their doctrines for many reasons beyond their cultural and literary qualities.

comment by The Post Nearly Man. Waste of space. (U1270)
posted 2 hours, 24 minutes ago
comment by Stretty - mr mourinho (U3123)
posted 6 seconds ago
I said people who can't speak English, learn to read ffs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And people who can’t speak English tend to be non English. Learn to think ffs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And he was only referring to those that can't talk English, not all non English.

comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 36 minutes ago
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 45 minutes ago

Just don't think about it and enjoy the sweet juicy taste
=================

Don't insult your own intelligence by resorting to such silly statements.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not a silly statement, pretty much sums up my thoughts on the matter.

comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 2 hours, 20 minutes ago
comment by Tyler Durden (U21874)
posted 7 hours, 35 minutes ago
We accept religious slaughter of animals to accommodate different faiths. What don't you get dude ?
——————-

That’s accommodating different faiths, not foreigners, as you originally said. Unless what you really meant was that Jews & Muslims aren’t Brits? Freudian slip?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Judaism and Islam are releavtivly new to Britain as major faiths. As the number of Jews amd Muslims here have risen, so has the accommodation of different cultural practices such as kosher/halal slaughter.

I’d say veganism is a first world luxury, but then there are millions upon millions of people in the first world who don’t have the privilege of being so choosy with their dietary choices.

I doubt the sustainability of veganism. Too many health issues have been directly associated with it.

Plus I tried it for myself and the meat and dairy substitutes weren’t to my liking at all.

comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 4 minutes ago

comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 36 minutes ago
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 45 minutes ago


=================

Don't insult your own intelligence by resorting to such silly statements.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not a silly statement, pretty much sums up my thoughts on the matter.
==========

It is silly.

Would you accept the *exact same* line of argument applied to a difference scenario?

If Adam Johnson said of his fondness for underage girls; "Just don't think about it and enjoy the sweet juicy taste", would you accept his as a credible defence?

You wouldn't, because his thoughtless action has a victim, and when actions have victims, they cease to be personal choices anymore. It's a choice being foisted upon something/someone else.

The thing that you 'don't think about' also happens to be the leading driver of climate change, our biggest threat. If you have or intend to have children, you'll have to explain to them that you decided it was better to not burden yourself with thinking about the consequences of your actions and that you've burdened your children/grandchildren with them instead.

You don't think that's rather silly? (and reckless)

comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Stretty - mr mourinho (U3123)
posted 24 minutes ago

Nothing worse than a vegan arguing over what another person should or should not be morally eating.
================

JA606's favourite philosopher has spoken! And as ever, it's intelligent, considered and well-reasoned.

We are not worthy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Who is anyone to dictate what someone else should or shouldn't be eating, other than for health reasons of course?

comment by The Lambeau Leap (U21050)
posted 1 minute ago

I’d say veganism is a first world luxury, but then there are millions upon millions of people in the first world who don’t have the privilege of being so choosy with their dietary choices.

I doubt the sustainability of veganism. Too many health issues have been directly associated with it.

Plus I tried it for myself and the meat and dairy substitutes weren’t to my liking at all.
=================

Your taste preference aside, everything you've said here is factually incorrect.

If I pick it apart point by point, will you change your mind?

If Adam Johnson said of his fondness for underage girls; "Just don't think about it and enjoy the sweet juicy taste", would you accept his as a credible defence?

——

Bit of a false equivalence, wouldn’t you say?

comment by Stretty - mr mourinho (U3123)
posted 3 minutes ago

comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Stretty - mr mourinho (U3123)
posted 24 minutes ago

Nothing worse than a vegan arguing over what another person should or should not be morally eating.
================

JA606's favourite philosopher has spoken! And as ever, it's intelligent, considered and well-reasoned.

We are not worthy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Who is anyone to dictate what someone else should or shouldn't be eating, other than for health reasons of course?
=========

Who are you to foist your trivial taste choice onto defenceless animals that feel pain and suffer just like you do? The imposition of dictation, violence and force is from meat eaters to animals, not vegans to meat eaters.

Next...

comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 23 seconds ago
comment by The Lambeau Leap (U21050)
posted 1 minute ago

I’d say veganism is a first world luxury, but then there are millions upon millions of people in the first world who don’t have the privilege of being so choosy with their dietary choices.

I doubt the sustainability of veganism. Too many health issues have been directly associated with it.

Plus I tried it for myself and the meat and dairy substitutes weren’t to my liking at all.
=================

Your taste preference aside, everything you've said here is factually incorrect.

If I pick it apart point by point, will you change your mind?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

No. Don’t bother. I’ve heard every argument in favour of veganism. I’ve tried it myself. I’m done with it.

Fact of the matter is that a vegan diet increases the risk of nutrient deficiencies. Plenty of poor people do not have the luxury of buying enough food or supplements to replace those nutrients. Veganism is a lifestyle choice for people without real worries.

comment by The Lambeau Leap (U21050)
posted 1 minute ago

If Adam Johnson said of his fondness for underage girls; "Just don't think about it and enjoy the sweet juicy taste", would you accept his as a credible defence?

——

Bit of a false equivalence, wouldn’t you say?
==========

Come on Lambeau, you're not Stretty!

It's not an equivalence. I'm pointing out the similarity in the *line of reasoning*. I'm NOT comparing the acts themselves, although ethically the same principle does apply, because as Jeremy Bentham pointed out, the only ethical consideration is:

"Not can they reason, nor can they talk, but can they suffer?"

Adam Johnson broke a law, eating meat isn't against the law. Although I wouldn't describe her as a victim and morally I don't think he did much wrong.

comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 7 seconds ago
comment by The Lambeau Leap (U21050)
posted 1 minute ago

If Adam Johnson said of his fondness for underage girls; "Just don't think about it and enjoy the sweet juicy taste", would you accept his as a credible defence?

——

Bit of a false equivalence, wouldn’t you say?
==========

Come on Lambeau, you're not Stretty!

It's not an equivalence. I'm pointing out the similarity in the *line of reasoning*. I'm NOT comparing the acts themselves, although ethically the same principle does apply, because as Jeremy Bentham pointed out, the only ethical consideration is:

"Not can they reason, nor can they talk, but can they suffer?"


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Berba I have nothing but respect for your convictions and your lifestyle/dietary choices. It’s not for everyone though. I appreciate that it doesn’t soften the blow, but these animals are bred for slaughter so they probably wouldn’t exist if it wasn’t for the meat industry.

Agree that there needs to be a better system for the slaughter of animals to minimise the suffering caused.

comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 1 minute ago
Adam Johnson broke a law, eating meat isn't against the law. Although I wouldn't describe her as a victim and morally I don't think he did much wrong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Didn’t he put his digits inside a 15 yo girl? Appreciate that plenty of us will have done the same, but I’m fairly certain we’d have been underage ourselves at the time.

A dude in his 20s going for a schoolgirl morally reprehensible in my opinion.

comment by The Lambeau Leap (U21050)
posted 1 minute ago

comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 23 seconds ago
comment by The Lambeau Leap (U21050)
posted 1 minute ago

I’d say veganism is a first world luxury, but then there are millions upon millions of people in the first world who don’t have the privilege of being so choosy with their dietary choices.

I doubt the sustainability of veganism. Too many health issues have been directly associated with it.

Plus I tried it for myself and the meat and dairy substitutes weren’t to my liking at all.
=================

Your taste preference aside, everything you've said here is factually incorrect.

If I pick it apart point by point, will you change your mind?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

No. Don’t bother. I’ve heard every argument in favour of veganism. I’ve tried it myself. I’m done with it.

Fact of the matter is that a vegan diet increases the risk of nutrient deficiencies. Plenty of poor people do not have the luxury of buying enough food or supplements to replace those nutrients. Veganism is a lifestyle choice for people without real worries.

============

For the benefit of others, I will bother, because you're peddling factually incorrect misinformation.

1. "a vegan diet increases the risk of nutrient deficiencies."

Wrong. To quote the position paper of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics:

"vegan...diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits for the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. These diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, adolescence, older adulthood, and for athletes."

The is no *increased* risk. All diets that aren't carried out properly can lead to deficiencies. The deficiencies that can show up in poorly executed vegan diet are almost exactly the same as those that show up in non-vegan diets, and there's less of them! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVJCHVEatqY

2. "Plenty of poor people do not have the luxury of buying enough food or supplements to replace those nutrients."

The cheapest foods are plant foods. 1000 calories of red or black beans is considerably cheaper than 1000 calories of chicken, for example (£1.40 vs £4.79 based on current Sainsbury's prices).

You don't have to buy supplements either. The only possible one is B12, and that's something everybody is recommended to take once we hit 50. B12 is found in soil and untreated water, but as we live in a highly sanitised and hygiene conscious society, we can run low on it. Thats literally the only one. We already supplement animals with it massively, so your own stores of it will be supplementary too. It just went through an animal first.

3. "Veganism is a lifestyle choice for people without real worries."

Animal Ag is the leading cause of climate change. Climate change hits people in the third world hardest; first and worst, yet they contribute to climate change least and last. Our actions impact others negatively. We are indeed fortunate that we can choose the ethical option. We should exercise that privilege seeing as we have it.

Meat & dairy are also the leading causes of heart disease (our biggest 1st world killer), pandemic obesity, certain types of cancer, type 2 diabetes and anti-biotic resistance. These are real world worries that impact millions of people. It costs the UK economy £19bn per year just treat heart disease, yet the risk factors for vegans are reduced by at least 1/3.

Every single point you made is simply not true, whether you care to know it or not.

comment by The Lambeau Leap (U21050)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 1 minute ago
Adam Johnson broke a law, eating meat isn't against the law. Although I wouldn't describe her as a victim and morally I don't think he did much wrong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Didn’t he put his digits inside a 15 yo girl? Appreciate that plenty of us will have done the same, but I’m fairly certain we’d have been underage ourselves at the time.

A dude in his 20s going for a schoolgirl morally reprehensible in my opinion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Didn't go that far afaik but could be wrong. Yes morally questionable but I wouldn't label him a s ex offender, groomer or pedo over it.