[NEWS] Life's value...

YowYan

Active member
Legendary
Joined
Dec 9, 2010
Messages
15,088
Kin
1,103💸
Kumi
0💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Awards
"As the numbers dwindle"...your not providing any real projections. By how much do you expect the population to decrease with the abolishing of farming? What is this decreased projection based on? There's 70 billion but what if it only goes down 20 billion? So you have 20 billion less cows but the ones left produce methane 5 times longer than their farm counter parts.

The average farm cattle produces 70 to 120kg methane per year lets go high end, 120. They live three years before slaughter, that's 360kg methane production per cow per life span(via farming) 360×70,000,000,000 = 2,520,000,000,000kg. If we take the lowest end of a vows avg. Life span which is 15 years that's a methane production of 1,800kg per cow per life span. The population of live stock would have to drop significantly to offset the increase they would produce. Using the previous example if the population dropped to 50 billion - 1,800 × 50,000,000,000 = 90,000,000,000,000kg as we can see to reach a similar 2.5 trillion kgs of methane the wild cow population would have to be reduced to around 1.5 billion cows. Do you see a realistic way of decreasing from billions and billions of cows down to just under 2 billion?

Farm life produces more methane than travel methods, don't know why you keep bringing this up as no one's been refuting it but ok, and yet you're advocating increasing the amount of time those producers are allowed to continue producing methane then say you're trying to help and remove methane. 1+1 don't = 2 in your equation.

It's not more ethical you self righteous **** stick. Is a bear more ethical when he eats a melon or some honey compared to if he ate a fish or human? You sound like an asshole.

Then that disproves his statement about non vegans being unwilling to change which was my initial point about said quote.
aaaaah avoiding the elephant in the room, are we? Where is your apology for pretending not to use the 'plants feel pain' argument and then lying about it? Not addressing that? Talk about intellectual dishonesty.

I like that you tried to do your homework, albeit with the wrong motivation.

So, it is not realistic to think that the whole world will turn vegan next week or next year, or even the next ten years.
It is a slow but steady process that will take atleast two generations (us) to get somewhere. By not breeding anymore livestock into existence, we put a halt to the production of livestock while the farmers transition to a plant-based produce. I can share a link with you of a site where british cattle farmers made the transition to plant produce successfully.

You wonder about the greenhouse gas emissions? With the rapid change in supply and demand, massive areas of farmland can now be recovered into forests and some used for animal sanctuaries to house the previously captive livestock. With recovering forests, the pollution is slowly being tackled, and water usage is more evenly distributed as the industry loses its grip slowly. A raise in demand for plant produce also makes for more air purifying farms and the process costs 8 times less energy than the production of animal protein. The numbers will drastically drop, but don't you worry about how we will get to 20 billion and below. How about you focus on what you can do to help. Even if the process is slow and tricky, does that excuse you from changing your habits that finance cruelty?


aaah another appeal to nature. tsk tsk you don't learn, huh? Again, you're not a lion or a bear. What happens in nature is not an excuse for you to finance animal suffering.

Regarding the famous activist: You didn't read properly. He said it didn't matter what his attitude was towards people, soft or dismissive. He was dismissive all the time and still converted a lot of people by sheer facts and mythbusting. And people on NB commented on my attitude not helping with convincing them about the benefits of veganism. Yet, others might read the facts, statistics, and moral dilemma and will think deeper about the issue, leading to them doing their own research.
 

chopstickchakra

Active member
Legendary
Joined
Jun 4, 2012
Messages
12,705
Kin
3,895💸
Kumi
110💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Status
aaaaah avoiding the elephant in the room, are we? Where is your apology for pretending not to use the 'plants feel pain' argument and then lying about it? Not addressing that? Talk about intellectual dishonesty.

I like that you tried to do your homework, albeit with the wrong motivation.

So, it is not realistic to think that the whole world will turn vegan next week or next year, or even the next ten years.
It is a slow but steady process that will take atleast two generations (us) to get somewhere. By not breeding anymore livestock into existence, we put a halt to the production of livestock while the farmers transition to a plant-based produce. I can share a link with you of a site where british cattle farmers made the transition to plant produce successfully.

You wonder about the greenhouse gas emissions? With the rapid change in supply and demand, massive areas of farmland can now be recovered into forests and some used for animal sanctuaries to house the previously captive livestock. With recovering forests, the pollution is slowly being tackled, and water usage is more evenly distributed as the industry loses its grip slowly. A raise in demand for plant produce also makes for more air purifying farms and the process costs 8 times less energy than the production of animal protein. The numbers will drastically drop, but don't you worry about how we will get to 20 billion and below. How about you focus on what you can do to help. Even if the process is slow and tricky, does that excuse you from changing your habits that finance cruelty?


aaah another appeal to nature. tsk tsk you don't learn, huh? Again, you're not a lion or a bear. What happens in nature is not an excuse for you to finance animal suffering.

Regarding the famous activist: You didn't read properly. He said it didn't matter what his attitude was towards people, soft or dismissive. He was dismissive all the time and still converted a lot of people by sheer facts and mythbusting. And people on NB commented on my attitude not helping with convincing them about the benefits of veganism. Yet, others might read the facts, statistics, and moral dilemma and will think deeper about the issue, leading to them doing their own research.
Because I didn't, show me any post where I brought it up with out it being a reply to you claiming I was saying it. I never mentioned pain until you brought it up, I said from the start plants are life. Show me where I said you shouldn't kill plants because they feel pain. All I mentioned was they're also life and you jumped to that was me saying don't kill plants because they feel pain when really it was me saying acknowledge your own hypocrises, saying its ok to kill one life and not another because the xyz is hypocritical.

Do you know what mental gymnastics are? Its creating scenarios and reasons to rationalize why your points not as bad as it seems at face value, usually by attempting to devalue or demonize the opposing viewpoint. That's what you're doing with the separation of sentient life and life and the morality of ending it.

Another typical avoidance response from you, I guess why change form now am I right? Human beings are still animals despite our mental capacity, so then why is it immoral for human beings, which are omnivores, to kill and eat meat but not other omnivores?

People have their minds made up before you even start to inform them of Veganism. Whether or not you'd approach them in a dismissive or soft way matters not. Even if you corrected all their petty approaches such as "plants feel pain" and "protein though" they'd still remain steadfast in their idiocracy."
this is the quote, he's saying peoples minds are made up and they stick with their preconceived views. If he converted people that proves this statement false.

Speaking of avoiding I've yet to see you admit plants are life. So since you keep dodging the original point I brought up, which isn't 'plants feel pain so you shouldn't kill them' no matter how many times you try to say it, until you're ready to accept and admit the irrefutable truth that vegans destroy plant life for food we're done here
 
  • Like
Reactions: minamoto

YowYan

Active member
Legendary
Joined
Dec 9, 2010
Messages
15,088
Kin
1,103💸
Kumi
0💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Awards
Because I didn't, show me any post where I brought it up with out it being a reply to you claiming I was saying it. I never mentioned pain until you brought it up, I said from the start plants are life. Show me where I said you shouldn't kill plants because they feel pain. All I mentioned was they're also life and you jumped to that was me saying don't kill plants because they feel pain when really it was me saying acknowledge your own hypocrises, saying its ok to kill one life and not another because the xyz is hypocritical.

Do you know what mental gymnastics are? Its creating scenarios and reasons to rationalize why your points not as bad as it seems at face value, usually by attempting to devalue or demonize the opposing viewpoint. That's what you're doing with the separation of sentient life and life and the morality of ending it.

Another typical avoidance response from you, I guess why change form now am I right? Human beings are still animals despite our mental capacity, so then why is it immoral for human beings, which are omnivores, to kill and eat meat but not other omnivores?

People have their minds made up before you even start to inform them of Veganism. Whether or not you'd approach them in a dismissive or soft way matters not. Even if you corrected all their petty approaches such as "plants feel pain" and "protein though" they'd still remain steadfast in their idiocracy."
this is the quote, he's saying peoples minds are made up and they stick with their preconceived views. If he converted people that proves this statement false.

Speaking of avoiding I've yet to see you admit plants are life. So since you keep dodging the original point I brought up, which isn't 'plants feel pain so you shouldn't kill them' no matter how many times you try to say it, until you're ready to accept and admit the irrefutable truth that vegans destroy plant life for food we're done here
Go back to post #53 on this thread.. And on pretty much every other thread I've stated that plants are alive. As the whole world is a life organism. The difference is sentience. Plants are alive but not sentient. Comparing the two in a low-level attempt of dismissing animal cruelty is just intellectual dishonesty. Cut it out.

Moving on. You said this: "Despite your high regard for yourselves you're no better than anyone else for the source of food you choose. "

It seems that your brain fails to comprehend that comparing animals to plants to dismiss animal cruelty is inherently putting the two on the same level of value. "Vegans end life for sustenance" ..I mean, is it that hard to understand your own retardation? Even if you didn't mention 'pain', the fact you deem vegans and non-vegans as morally equal and using the 'plants are alive' argument, you expose yourself from the get-go.
 
Last edited:

minamoto

Active member
Supreme
Joined
Nov 3, 2011
Messages
20,847
Kin
19,526💸
Kumi
2,935💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Status
Go back to post #53 on this thread.. And on pretty much every other thread I've stated that plants are alive. As the whole world is a life organism. The difference is sentience. Plants are alive but not sentient. Comparing the two in a low-level attempt of dismissing animal cruelty is just intellectual dishonesty. Cut it out.

Moving on. You said this: "Despite your high regard for yourselves you're no better than anyone else for the source of food you choose. "

It seems that your brain fails to comprehend that comparing animals to plants to dismiss animal cruelty is inherently putting the two on the same level of value. "Vegans end life for sustenance" ..I mean, is it that hard to understand your own retardation? Just listen to yourself.

You're dismissed, the discussion is going nowhere.
actualy shopstikara won teh debate..in one of ur posts u contradicted urself...
 

chopstickchakra

Active member
Legendary
Joined
Jun 4, 2012
Messages
12,705
Kin
3,895💸
Kumi
110💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Status
Go back to post #53 on this thread.. And on pretty much every other thread I've stated that plants are alive. As the whole world is a life organism. The difference is sentience. Plants are alive but not sentient. Comparing the two in a low-level attempt of dismissing animal cruelty is just intellectual dishonesty. Cut it out.

Moving on. You said this: "Despite your high regard for yourselves you're no better than anyone else for the source of food you choose. "

It seems that your brain fails to comprehend that comparing animals to plants to dismiss animal cruelty is inherently putting the two on the same level of value. "Vegans end life for sustenance" ..I mean, is it that hard to understand your own retardation? Even if you didn't mention 'pain', the fact you deem vegans and non-vegans as morally equal and using the 'plants are alive' argument, you expose yourself from the get-go.
Another complete avoidance reply as I said
until you're ready to accept and admit the irrefutable truth that vegans destroy plant life for food we're done here
 

YowYan

Active member
Legendary
Joined
Dec 9, 2010
Messages
15,088
Kin
1,103💸
Kumi
0💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Awards
Another complete avoidance reply as I said
until you're ready to accept and admit the irrefutable truth that vegans destroy plant life for food we're done here
You're a stubborn one. Suit yourself.

Anyway, following your logic plant lives are better off when everyone turns vegan as the majority of crops grown worldwide are used on livestock. Let alone the fact that the leading cause of deforestation is the animal agriculture industry.

If you care about "destroying" plants, going vegan would be the moral choice. But you don't care about plant lives because you know you're just trolling.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Astrovio

chopstickchakra

Active member
Legendary
Joined
Jun 4, 2012
Messages
12,705
Kin
3,895💸
Kumi
110💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Status
You're a stubborn one. Suit yourself.

Anyway, following your logic plant lives are better off when everyone turns vegan as the majority of crops grown worldwide are used on livestock. Let alone the fact that the leading cause of deforestation is the animal agriculture industry.

If you care about "destroying" plants, going vegan would be the moral choice. But you don't care about plant lives because you know you're just trolling.
I never said I cared about plant life I said its hypocritical of people like you to assign morality to the ending of one life and not another especially when the action your advocating is counterintuitive to nature/evolution.

So again, until you're ready to accept and admit the irrefutable truth that vegans destroy plant life for food we're done here.
Post automatically merged:

I don't see how slaughtering animals is better than "destroying" vegetation.
I didn't say one was better than the other, thats the narrative yowyan wants to argue because its easier to argue "yeah but the thing im killing doesn't know it so I don't have to feel bad about it"

Both are morally equal, there's nothing immoral about the food source you use. It's in human nature to eat meat and plants. Just because you can survive eating one or the other doesn't mean you should.
Post automatically merged:

They have to come up with something, right? kek

You must be registered for see images
Still no reasonable reply why humans are the only animal you feel should adhere to a morality clause when it comes to sourcing it's food so post a lazy rehashed meme I see...
 
Last edited:

Demon

Active member
Elite
Joined
Jun 8, 2016
Messages
7,143
Kin
9,345💸
Kumi
895💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Status
Awards
I never said I cared about plant life I said its hypocritical of people like you to assign morality to the ending of one life and not another especially when the action your advocating is counterintuitive to nature/evolution.

So again, until you're ready to accept and admit the irrefutable truth that vegans destroy plant life for food we're done here.
Post automatically merged:



I didn't say one was better than the other, thats the narrative yowyan wants to argue because its easier to argue "yeah but the thing im killing doesn't know it so I don't have to feel bad about it"

Both are morally equal, there's nothing immoral about the food source you use. It's in human nature to eat meat and plants. Just because you can survive eating one or the other doesn't mean you should.
Post automatically merged:



Still no reasonable reply why humans are the only animal you feel should adhere to a morality clause when it comes to sourcing it's food so post a lazy rehashed meme I see...
I don't think plants, mushrooms and bacteria has the same value as cats and dogs tbh, call me a speciest.
 
Top