Combatting Speciesism

Plants cannot feel pain.

...

Define pain. Is it just nociception? Nociception is mainly found in vertebrates. Is it okay to boil lobsters alive then because they have no nociception? Is pain suffering? Plants show plenty of evidence of reacting to damage.

Pain is defined as a signal of present or impending tissue damage affected by a harmful stimulus, and thus is experienced by almost all multi cellular organisms. Why is it no problem to cause pain to plants but not animals?

Most mammals aren't sentient.

I admit to being triggered. Sorry for that.
You're however completely ignoring that there are parts of the world where meat is the msot important source of nutrition because f the simply fact that a sufficient amount of plant based calories simply cannot be grown there.
This is liberalism at it's worst because it tries to confine the problem to being the consumers choice.

You are wrong.
theguardian.com/environment/2016/sep/12/peter-wohlleben-man-who-believes-trees-talk-to-each-other

Most are. I think "sentinent" is a very bad adjective when it comes to judging a creature's role in the world. I think what would be better is the assessment of "reflecting upon your own existence". So far only humans can do that.

...

Are you unironically a Fruitarianist?

Says the omnivore.

I don't think anybody who ever had a pet can say that mammals are not sentinent

Doesn't exist. Call me when you stop other animals from killing each other, then we'll talk.

Humans kill each other. There wasn't a single year in human history where large-scale killings didn't occur. Where is the difference?

Plants cannot suffer, for they have no CNS. This is why it's fine to eat Scallops but not Pigs.

Pigs have the mental capacity of an infant. Does this make infants fair game?

No just saying that all non humans are fair game.
Doesnt help the fact that animals eat other animals.
Should we start feeding tigers food punch?

It doesn't have the same ideological roots as nazism. Nazism has its ideological roots in capitalism, it's an extremely misguided reaction towards the hardship and propaganda that capitalism produces on a systemic basis. Meat production and consumption under capitalism on the other hand are a result of the commodity form of meat. That said, while I don't really care about cattle, I wouldn't mind massive reforms in regards to meat production since its current form definitely has its downsides such as furthering climate change and health issues. Of course I'd only care for such measurements within a socialist system since I doubt that under capitalism it can be implemented and climate change can be combated with the necessary efficiency.

I don't eat pig, I don't eat cow. That's all the principles I have. Pigs and cows are emotional, social and playful whereas chickens are disgusting, dumb psychos and I have no problem eating them.
youtube.com/watch?v=QhMo4WlBmGM

There you go. Why worry about not killing da animuls when we have so many problems here? This thread is liberal-tier and deserves the gulag.

They can if they're a biologist. Most mammals are not your pet dog.

As said, plants don't have a central nervous system. Plants are clearly not sentinent, while most mammals are. You'd inflicting more suffering on a mayfly if you'd step on it comparing to eating a plant. Thinking that life doesn't have stages is a rejection of universalism.

If you oppose killing pigs, but you don't oppose forcing people to exist with equal force, your a hypocrite and a coward.

I would argue the vast majority of mammals is sentinent as it is defined usually. Rats can feel emotions.

There is still a difference between a human and and another mammal. Not wanting to kill or torture a non-human mammal does not mean to grant it the same amount of rights. Humans can reflect about their own existence, pigs can not. A pig can have a perfectly happy life living with other pigs on a large field surrounded by a fence. It doesn't have Schopenhauer's will to power. A human, on the other hand, would feel enslaved.

Mayflies have no pain receptors. What about sea anemones and jellyfish?

This is just straight up 18th century rubbish. Arthropods have experienced over 541 million years of natural selection just like the rest of us.

Not a vegetarian but this is basically the “Muh human nature” of anti-vegetarian arguments

They have a ventral nerve cord. It's very likely that they experience in some way or the other what is going on with themselves once they are harmed. Plants don't have that. Other than that, you are wrong:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nociceptor
I don't know about the first but jellyfish are quite intelligent.
I merely meant that not all life can experience the same recognition.

Fuck off

>>>/liberty/

>>>/pone/

Lad, you should quit while you're ahead.

The worst of it happens purely because of free market competition.

For a decentralized nervous system, they are. They can form complex images and can navigate presciently through obstacle ridden enviroments.

...

Are you saying animals don't instinctively kill each other? If not, wouldn't it imply that their killing is just as immoral as ours? If it is instinctual and we do not care to stop it, doesn't that imply that we really don't care about animal suffering and are merely being self-righteous pricks that want to feel superior because they eat more veg?

His point was that humans are above the instinctual level.

Here's how I suggest we response to your concerns:

What a retarded name, we don't eat animals because we hate them.

All mammals are sentient.

What a retarded name, we don't care about blacks people we hate them.

Exactly. Your Point?

MUH SPOOKS
U
H

S
P
O
O
K
S

SMHTBH onifampai

A pig will remain a pig. A human infant can turn into a human adult.

That and plant agriculture. Both are in need of major reforms in order to be made sustainable.

Look it up in a textbook, "sentient" refers to self-awareness, as typically demonstrated by the "mirror test", which most species of mammals fail. The term you're probably thinking of is "sapiant", which nothing other than humans are.

Plants can feel pain, become stressed from it, have this effect dulled with painkillers, and communicate distress to each other:
newyorker.com/magazine/2013/12/23/the-intelligent-plant
livescience.com/5102-plants-painkillers.html

Good point, on that note, why do you breath air? You should wear a mask so you don't recklessly slaughter innocent flies and microbes!

This is an argument against abortion. If you apply this consistently it also forbids abortion.

You do know every time you blink you send an airpulse that genocides millions of micro celuar live forms every seconds?
#STOPBLINKING

Somehow, I think trying get votes for dog whelks might be a complete waste of effort and time.

...

...

Propaganda illustrations dont mean shit leaf muncher.

...

...

It's not just about eating meat, but also animal experiments, where they are specifically given cancer and left to suffer and die.

i like dogs and cats but don`t care about stuff i eat. judging from those pictures author never been near a village

vegan gulags

(small brain) we should stop eating animals to rectify this inequality
(huge brain) we should start eating people to rectify this inequality

Are you the socdem poster who recommended the Idi Amin documentary to me when I was sick? If so, thanks. That was really great.

lmao who gives a flying fuck

animals arent human and they're not worth shit

all animals should be eaten

Abortion is indeed a sort of murder, but a justifiable one because it's demarcated clearly enough not to become a slippery slope. The alternative is unwanted children growing up in misery, and young parents' lives ruined incompetently attempting to raise them. This is as opposed to postpartum infanticide, which in spite of existing in many culture, I feel is sufficiently arbitrary as to pose a threat of open-ended child killing.

By the same token, all retards must be treated as people not for any inherent quality they possess, but because there is no hard line separating them from healthy individuals.

Worse yet, what about gut biota? Is keeping them in slavery, feasting off their corpses okay, just because we provide them with a symbiotic environment?

Everybody milks Stirner for all he's worth.

Eh, not that much different than sashimi. Honestly, we westerners may need to overcome more of our spooks so that we can eat creepy-crawlies like bugs and worms, which are very environmentally friendly.

yeah, he's fascinating. glad you enjoyed it.

The real spook here is deciding to continue eating animal products after knowing it's detrimental effects on public health and our ecosystems.

Yeah; I suppose if we only dictate that people of a certain weight can be murdered then that's demarcated enough to ensure there isn't a slippery slope.

jesus christ this is a bad thread with misinformation in it
for reference sentience means you are alive and can think and stuff, pretty sure almost all animals qualify
SAPIENCE is a quality that some people attribute to humans alone but others are not sure, look it up

here comes the opinion part, I think certain animals should have rights out of respect for their intelligence (some corvids, dolphins, certain primates) and I think certain animals should have protections out of respect for their history of companionship with humans (dogs, horses ect)

loved the part where he is trying to order fucking crocodiles around

...

NOPE:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test

Is it rape if i have sex with a horse that i own?

“Fella had a team of horses, had to use'em to plow an' cultivate an' mow, wouldn't think a turnin' 'em out to starve when they wasn't workin'.
Them's horses - we're men.”

― John Steinbeck, The Grapes of Wrath

I agree if your BMI stays over say, 30 for more than six months you should be culled.

I am aware of the mirror test, the mirror test is not widely accepted yet which is why I hedged my statement with the qualifier
I am glad that you did investigate for yourself, but I am skeptical that you even read my whole post, you seem to have rushed to disprove something I said and in your haste never even read what I said and accidentally supported it

That's the definition of "sentience" in biology, period.

I like reading SF, too, but its terminology isn't always on the mark.

I just did a double check to make sure I am not retarded and the article dosnt mention sentience at all
from the same organization as your article on the mirror test
no mention of a "sense of self" only of the ability to experience

Anyone else here actually cleaned a fish or gut a deer? Tbh if I run over a deer I feel its more ethical to gut it and eat it than to let it rot or bury it

That's nice and all, but you're obscuring one unproven assumption, namely that a certain measurable nerve impulse is what imbues an entity with dignity, or something. It's entirely arbitrary. This is Sam Harris tier sub-rational utilitarianism.
This is not just being edgy, science is bringing us to the cusps of manufacturing our food at the boundaries of this arbitrary line. Is pseudo meat grown using and consuming genetically modified micro-organism more moral? What if you genetically modify a mammal to have no brain? What if you conventionally breed one to be docile and pain resistant? If you're meaning to change our way of life at a fairly fundamental level, you're going to have to be more rigorous about it.

social-ecology.org/wp/2005/01/ambiguities-of-animal-rights/
Stop extending bouj lib ethics

There is more difference between animals than between some animals and humans.
I will continue to slap mosquitos.

Yeah. Would be a shame to waste it.

I'm kind of disturbed of the fact that many self-proclaimed leftists don't even as much as flinch at the agriculture industry today.

Tbh there needs to be more discussion on what 21st century socialist agriculture, stores, "resturaunts", and diet will be. Cows take up way too much land, we need to downsize beef production and reforest the amazon

Perhaps we will be able to do with less of it some day

Of course I flinch, it's disgusting, cruel to workers and animals alike. And they I go on with my life. Just like when you typed your post on a device incorporating minerals mind by Congolese child slaves. Stop eating meat, stop using computers, stop contributing taxes to a government that has a standing army, stop buying child slavery chocolate, and so on. You can all these things and be a holy man. Preach it! But until you are without sin, don't you fucking dare call me evil.

Wise words

Basically this.

Actually yes, that's the whole point of being a racist. But we don't eat animals because we hate them, we eat them because food. I think you might wanna get yourself checked for extra chromosomes, user.

Vertical farms are basically a totally impractical waste of resources that sounds really cool to someone who's never maintained a building or grown indoors before

under capitalism

I think 51% of climate change is driven by animal agriculture? And the way these animals are slaughtered is pretty psychotic. The fecal matter that is dispersed by the agro industry also harms local communities and ruins their health. The vegans are right in that we should eliminate and at least drastically reduce our meat consumption.

I do not believe it is inethical to simply eat meat and I have slaughtered animals before and felt no remorse. Theres a huge difference between killing your fellow human versus slaughtering a goat or deer for consumption purposes. We need to move towards a more sustainable form of animal consumption, and if that is not possible then we should outlaw meat consumption to save our resources and environment.

no its not

...

You still have to secure those resources, and they're more likely to go to something practical. Unless your city planners are pedestrians who fall for Ideas Guy tier concepts like "Woah dude. A building, but instead of offices, they grow food there."

And my point is that it doesn't matter because their lives don't mean shit anyway precisely because they are not above the instinctual level.

The documentary Cowspiracy had that stat. Went back to find the study and here it is.

worldwatch.org/files/pdf/Livestock and Climate Change.pdf

Animals aren't anyone. They're animals.

Why should I respect your rights as a carnist since I can just pick and choose who is deserving?

cowspiracy is an hours long heart tug and I've never seen their stats backed

water and heat within a building are impractical?

rights dont exist

But user, if we eat all the plants, what will the animals eat?

That's not a thing. Stop making up terms to make yourself feel on equal ground with normal human diets.

And you should respect my rights because you have a reasonable belief that I will respect yours, unlike with animals, who will never respect your rights and don't even have a concept of such a thing. Maybe that should be the test. If a species comes up with the concept of rights among themselves, then we should extend rights to them and ask they do the same for us. If not, then they have no rights.

again, you don't respect animal's rights and by your standards that allows me to personally view you as sub-sapient and not worthy of life, so that's fine.

of course there's a huge industrial death machine backing up your view and not mine but hey. it's not like we're leftists or anything.

I'm just gonna copy paste this dude's reply to cowspiracy propaganda. Eating meat sustaniably is what we should we moving towards. Going vegan could actually damage the environment.

It is superficially accurate until a lot more research and background uncovers the truth of just how full of bull-schitzen the film Cowspiracy really is. Then it's undoubtedly one of the most inaccurate films I've ever had to watch.

The whole premise about the film was very single-minded and quite shallow with only one simple message heavily implied at the end: Go vegan. It only appealed to the abolitionist veganism goal to convert every single human being on the planet to go completely meat- and animal-product free, and in turn get rid of all the domesticated animals. There were no compromises offered, no alternate solutions, nothing. Just, go vegan or face the consequences of being responsible for killing the Earth. I have been challenged on many fronts on how it's "not a propaganda piece" but if a film only has one ultimate "solution" to the world-wide problem of feeding the world and climate change being a "plant-based diet" or veganism, then yes, it is a propaganda piece and not an open-ended documentary that allows further discussion once the film is done. Those are true documentaries. Cowspiracy is a mocking of those kind of documentaries.

The remarkable superficiality of this mock-drama-doc is because of the quantity of facts, memes and graphics thrown out at the audience, not because of the quality. As long as there were a whole lot of facts against all aspects of livestock raising was thrown out there, regardless how out of date or erroneous they were, the producers knew that the inundation of such facts was going to overwhelm the audience so much to spring them into some kind of action. For me though, that action was to dig as deep as I could and pause the movie as often as possible to write notes. The more notes I wrote, and the more I paused, the more I could see just how much of a biased joke it was.

The narrator/protagonist Kip Anderson's sudden "realization" that he couldn't affect climate change after doing all the things he was supposed to–like turning off the lights when not in the room, watching water consumption, walking or riding a bike instead of driving, etc.–because animal agriculture was causing all the problem was amusing. He was just one person out of 7 billion people trying to make a difference, he himself couldn't affect climate change just by doing all those "greener living" things, though he would be a small part of the solution. Even more head-shaking was his "eureka" moment with just one email from a friend about meat-eating, although legit, but the way that he and his producers went about to find out about it all was just simply wrong.

Since the film was a cunningly deliberate means to pit the omnivorous "meat-eaters" against the hard-core vegans, it only created the facade that ONLY those who NEVER eat meat are "true environmentalists" and maligned anyone else who ate meat, no matter if it came from the ethical, far more sustainably-raised operations, as the environmental destroyers and greedy gluttons of the Earth. That, in itself, was a huge problem I had (and still have) a big beef with. Literally.

It was really hard to ignore the talking heads were, not so coincidentally, vegan. Although diet really shouldn't have anything to do with what this film is trying to show, I ask the question, How is it not possible to notice that ALL of the expert were actually vegan themselves? Not one person of Kip's "expert panel" were NOT vegan, and yet Keegan Kuhn responded, in his response to the critic's response to the film, "The simple fact that their dietary choices would be used against their credibility is laughable. I would not consider them credible if they didn't respond to their research and experiences and make the necessary changes for living more sustainably." (more here: Response to Criticism of Cowspiracy Facts) Not that I have a problem with the diet itself, but it's really hard to shrug off how their diet choices suddenly made them better and more "credible" experts than some of the far more credible individuals out there that actually have a background in agriculture AND the environment.

You see, the primary "expert" and "statistical advisor" (referred to as an "environmental researcher" in the film) that Anderson always was turning to is a vegan dentist by the name of Richard Oppenlander. (This whole "documentary" is actually based on his book "Comfortably Unaware", as are most of the "facts" and statistics used.) Other well-known vegan "environmental experts" included "Dr." William Tuttle, "Mad Cowboy" Howard Lyman, David Simon, and several others. Background checks on all revealed that literally none had any legitimate background nor experiences in agriculture and the environment. The only exception was Lyman, but I remain really skeptical of his stances because he literally went from one extreme from another: He went from industrial confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) to abolitionist vegan, and didn't even bother considering dabbling in nor looking at what was in between. Their "research" didn't even cut it when they were mostly uttering the same rhetoric that I've heard uttered from other abolitionist activists in my lively discussions with them.

What bothered me was how the non-vegans, including those from the environmental groups, were made out to be fearful of saying anything because the agricultural industry had some strong-hold on them, or keeping back "secrets" that really didn't even exist. Not only that but most were made to look more clueless than their "expert" counterparts.

The FAO and World Watch GHG Numbers

The inaccuracies begin (and certainly don't end) with the erroneous data pulled from Livestock's Long Shadow (FAO, 2006). A graphic showed that animal agriculture was responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, which was more than transportation, which was at 13 percent. Yet there was absolutely no acknowledgement that one of the authors from that book–Pierre Gerber–openly agreed that that their calculations were wrong and off-base after Associate Professor and Director of Agricultural Air Quality Dr. Frank Mitloehner pointed out their mistake (proof here: UN admits flaw in report on meat and climate change). The primary error made was that the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) reported only tail-pipe emissions from the transportation sector directly from the IPCC, not life cycle emissions of that same sector. The FAO created life-cycle analysis of all livestock animals in their report, so such a comparison was literally, as Stephen Zwick pointed out, an apple-to-basketball comparison. Simon Fairlie wrote "Are claims that meat is a climate crime a load of hot air?" on The Guardian which is worth checking out.

Not only that but most people don't realize that, unlike how the media pinned it almost 10 years ago now, the FAO/UN is not anti-beef/cattle nor anti-animal agriculture. Most of the authors were pro-CAFO and against sustainable, pasture-raised production practices, including managed pasturing and holistic management.

The FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) has since corrected their calculations and released them in 2013 to 14.5%, which is actually less than the transportation sector (FAO Key facts and findings). I didn't see any sort of acknowledgement to to that change on the film, mostly because the number just didn't provide enough shock-value as the original percentage did.

The other GHG-related numbers that Cowspiracy used came from one particular non-peer-reviewed "scientific article" by from the World Watch Institute authored by Goodland and Anhang (2009). This particular non-peer-reviewed report has been widely rejected by the real scientific community for the dubious methods and numbers that were calculated and used to bolster their outrageous conclusion that 51% of GHGs were created by livestock. Livestock and greenhouse gas emissions: The importance of getting the numbers right as a rebuttal report compiled by several environmental scientists that showed how G&A arrived at their numbers. For example, only half of the carbon cycle was used (the other half of carbon mitigation was completely ignored), and some scenarios were made up to maximize emission values. Not surprisingly, Cowspiracy didn't even bother mentioning how G&A really came up with their outrageous number. All it showed was that it came from calculating the amount of carbon emitted from respiration, waste production, and clear-cutting of forests for grazing (Amazonian).

Additionally, cattle grazing is not a carbon source like factory or vehicle emissions are. Cattle grazing is actually just a natural part of the carbon cycle where cattle are the main management tool for grasslands and for plants in grasslands to sequester carbon from the atmosphere–including the carbon and methane from their belches and flatulence–and put it back into the soil.

No, my standards were respecting the rights of the same species. Pigs don't give other pigs rights, so they don't get any from us, as it's clearly something they can live without. We give each other rights, and so we necessarily must have reason for them.
I will still respect your rights, even though it seems you're clearly illiterate from the malnutrition of a vegan diet.

You do realize that agriculture kills millions of field mice, more than are ever going to be used in other forms of animal agriculture, and that the reason that people raised animals for food in the first place is because not all areas are fit for growing crops, yes? Animal agriculture is a way to maximize food production. You would know this if you weren't a retarded vegan. A good buddy of mine is a farmer, and he's all about the environment, but not once has he considered forcing people to be vegan as a solution.
Pleas do look up holistic agriculture. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised. That doesn't mean that I think you should go right back to eating meat if you really don't like it.

Also, one question, would you consider eating cricket flour protein?

Methane Emissions

Methane (CH4) is infamous for being the second most potent greenhouse gas after nitrous oxide (NO2) and having a global warming potential that is 25 times greater than carbon dioxide (CO2) over 100 years. It tends to be the most noticed because ruminants, including cattle, produce methane through enteric fermentation. Methane is also produced in significant amounts from confined systems and their manure management, which means manure being kept in lagoons and holding tanks.

Cowspiracy claimed that methane comes primarily from cattle or enteric fermentation. This is not true. This paper (atmosresearch.com/NCG… ) shows that waste and fossil fuels are the primary contributors to total anthropogenic methane emissions at 24 and 26 percent, respectively. Wetlands contribute a huge portion of natural methane emissions at 72 percent, via the same link. (Let's not forget oceans and melting sea ice also contribute quite a bit of methane to the atmosphere [New Study – Risk of Significant Methane Release From East Siberian Arctic Shelf Still Growing].) The Environmental Protenction Agency (EPA) puts Natural Gas and Petroleum Systems at 29 percent (Methane Emissions via EPA). Enteric fermentation, via the EPA, only makes up 26% of all United States methane emissions, and in the first study above, ruminants only make up 23 percent. Bison are also significant methane producers just like cattle, and yet no heck is being raised for raising these critters for meat. (Study done on methane emissions of bison versus cattle here: Methane emissions from bison-An historic herd estimate for the North American Great Plains) (Note that methane, of the overall total greenhouse gas emissions, accounts for only 10% of the total [U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report: 1990-2013]). The World Resource Institute per the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC; Navigating the Numbers - WRI) includes both livestock and manure in their methane numbers. The EPA separated enteric fermentation from manure management, which accounted for only 10 percent of methane emissions.

The EPA clearly showed that dairy (total 1,271 kilotonnes) and swine (total 922 kilotonnes) production are the primary sources of methane from manure (www3.epa.gov/climatechang… pg. 5-9). In these systems manure is primarily stored in lagoons and holding tanks. Manure from beef cattle is lower still than even poultry systems (129 kt versus 120 kt, respectively) because majority of beef cattle are on pasture, and the manure created from such animals in feedlots is in dry form, not wet or liquid. And the manure that hits the ground in pasture soils is quickly attacked by all sorts of organisms from flies to earthworms and bacteria, which carry nutrients down into the soil and are made available to plants as soil organic carbon. Liquid manure is only made available to plants if it's spread onto fields, but not when it's stored in storage tanks. (savory.global/assets/docs…)

Methane generally has a shorter half-life than carbon dioxide (12 years compared with 5 to 200 years, respectively), and is broken down fairly quickly in the trophosphere by hydroxyl radicals (OH) into water vapour and carbon dioxide, hence creating a methane sink in the atmosphere (Methane Sinks - Atmosphere). Methane sinks are also created in the soil via methanotrophs. These bacteria oxidize methane and puts it deep into the soil surface. Methanotrophs are present in both forest and grassland soils, and are part of the reason why manure from livestock on pasture are not such big methane emitters as commonly thought.

Every livestock producer always makes sure that there is a relatively even layer of manure on the land over time, no matter if it's cropland or pasture land, spread by the animals themselves or via machinery. Manure contributes to increased organic matter in addition to the plant matter left behind after grazing, and increases the nutrient load of soil through the nitrogen and phosphorus content often found in manure. (Note that cattle aren't grazed so that everything is removed. Cattle are and should be grazed so that over 40 to 70% of plant matter is left behind when they're moved to the next pasture or paddock.) The only problem that manure will create is when it accumulates in piles or lagoons from confined intensive feeding operations and overflows during a storm, or when it's stored improperly, or accumulation comes so fast there's issues with what to do with it all. But when there's a lot of land available to put the manure on, and other producers may be willing to have the manure from that operation put on their land, these issues become considerably uncommon.

But there really was no acknowledgement on how livestock manure is one of the best natural fertilizers to use for crops and pastures. Yet they tried to shock everyone by stating how the amount of manure produced per day would be enough to bury several large metropolitan cities. It was really sad to see that it wasn't in their interest to show how manure is incorporated into the soil to help plants grow. Instead they blatantly lied to everyone by showing how millions of tons of manure are leached into waterways which eventually flows into the ocean, and thus causing these massive oceanic dead-zones. They couldn't show how nitrogen-based fertilizers are the more significant cause of this, not so much animal manure.

those broken links are murderous!

Oh shit you're right. Rest of the post is in quora. But all the references are pretty legit.

quora.com/How-accurate-is-the-movie-Cowspiracy/answer/Karin-Lindquist?srid=OPdV

How do you deal with the fact that homo sapiens are omnivores?

Denial.

Trees have feelings too

biology textbook also tells me about ecological systems where carnivorous predators that torture their prey are just as essential to the ecosystem as the peaceful herbivore

just like a person needs sun exposure to get vitamin d
just like sedentary life brought by the agricultural revolution led to increases in obesity and reliance on grain "supplements" to be provided by others. the fact of the matter is is that it's a question of dependence, not "health", here. since we're no autotrophs we're dependent on many external processes to achieve good nutrition. it doesn't matter whether its vitamin supplements or steaks.

It's really funny that people that actually study this shit always end up disagreeing with the vegan fundamentalists that seem to crop up whenever they are given the chance. It's almost like they're ideologues or something.

Fruit is the tree spreading its seeds.

Dumbass.

...

okay Old Major

The only moral way to eat is to only eat fruit. Even grains, potatoes, most vegetables are harvested through violent coercion. Fruits on the other hand naturally fall from the tree.

Fruit is delicious, healthy, and comes in a near-limitless variety of flavors.

Spooks are the only reason people don't switch to a fruit-only diet.

Species is a spook. Life is a spectrum and species an artificial construct.

t. race I Q shitposter

Judging by this thread there is seemingly now grey area between fructarian hippies and Alex Jones tier "CHECK OUT THIS STEAK, TRIGGERED YET LIBTARD" on Holla Forums.

Can I not just eat some meat, abstain from consuming pigs and cows, and yet also feel bad about killing animals without being a militant vegan? It doesn't have to be either-or. That being said, the "leftists" who don't have a problem with intensive mass animal farming the way it is done right now are not my comrades.

no grey area*

There is nothing ecological or ethical about being vegan.

Plant Agricalture is not ecological; an ecosystem that consists of 1 or 2 plants and combats any other variety is the opposite of a healthy ecosystem. Furthermore, you need to remember that most of earth's surface is not fit for plantations. The best solution to tackle this would be to create advanced greenhouses, but you should have in mind that most of them (advanced ones) require money and energy. And Greenhouses don't work for plants like corn ect that simply require huge parts of land.

Plant Agricalture is not ethical. Millions of rodents and insects die in the process of growing corps and storing them. But most vegans (and not vegeterians) usually avoid that part. It's hypocritical.

My issue with the modern animal farming is that it's done in bad conditions that harm both animals (very low standards of living, especially in meat production farms) and humans (terrible conditions for workers, production of low quality meat for consumers). This needs improvement, but as always, capitalists will first look out for their pockets rather than the common good.

I dislike vegans (again, not vegeterians) because they are always on a crusade about how better they are than anyone else. They are not, they are as "bad" as everyone else, and on top of that, they are also annoying to everyone. Just eat what you feel like and don't try to act like a saint.

imagine my shock

Then just eat what nature gives - for free. Smash civilization!

who unironical
/ANTHROPOCENTRIST/ GANG
here?

Hot Maddox take, oniichan

I'm a student in agricalture, I know these things first hand. This is why I know that it is hypocritical.

But this is also why I say there is a need for improvement in (most) animal farms. Especially chicken farms for meat, they are by far the most depressing ones. There are some free range chicken farms, but most mass-production farms are not like this.

Gonna get back into hunting tbh.

Used to go all the time as a kid but just kinda stopped.

I miss it tbh. The connection to nature, the closeness between hunters, the getting up at like 4am and the nice drives out to the woods around sunrise, the training with the bow/gun.

Shit was cash. My childhood was awesome and hunting was a big part of it. My dad was HUGE against slaighterhouse/storebought meat. With a few dear a year shit was amazing.

I rarely even got anything tbh. I just enjoyed the hunt.

My dad and I had a routine where we would get breakfast, get to the woods, sit outside and take in it all. It was so peaceful. The smell of wet leaves, morning mist and that weird scent blocker shit. It all felt so natural and normal. When I was out in the woods nothing worried me. It was so peaceful and welcoming compared to concrete and brick buildings I saw everyday.

I learned a lot hunting. I learned patience, self sufficiency, basic bushcraft, discipline, and how to zone out negativity.

Anyone on leftypol hunt?

not really, I am into fishing though. It's been a while since the last time I went.

Too much paperwork & bribing to get a licence only to hunt with shotguns.

Nature is a spook.

Oh, forgot to mention, my father used to divehunt (not sure what's the correct term) with speargun. I kinda wanted to get into that, but I wasn't a very good swimmer and had a small phobia of shooting another person by mistake.

I have a licence but i'm always procastinating about joining an association.
Furthermore, i really need to practice shooting before.

You don't feel bad killing living things for no good reason?

plant are living things.
you're irrational.

Not him, but i think more about what i'll cook with my prey rather than it's feeling when i'm pressing the trigger tbh.

I gotta start practicing again. I'm thinking of getting back into bowhunting. However the appeal of owning a rifle is on my mind too.

I always felt a little upset when me or my dad got an animal. My dad would normally go quiet for a bit and just kinda look at it and then we would bring it back to the truck. It was spooky as hell as a kid. I remember telling my dad I wanted to hunt lions when I grew up and he got pissed. He told me to never kill something that is either A. Endangered or B. Uneatable. He was heavy against trophy hunting. He only had one and it was his first deer.

Of course any act of killing is rough and hard but I felt so (please excuse this cringy word choice) P R I M A L. I haven't eaten venison in a while. I personally don't eat meat unless it's been hunted by a close friend or family member.

That's why I only eat fruit.

my brain hurt.

Watch out for prion diseases though.

lolwut Did they really try to claim that manure is the culprit here? Deadzones are created by all the fucking nitrogenous fertilizer that farmers use, which runs off into streams and eventually makes its way down rives into the ocean. These cause massive brief, unnatural phytoplankton blooms which result in a large amount of organic material to be decomposed by aerobic bacteria (because these blooms are unnatural, normal trophic processes, like fish migrating to a certain spot at a certain time of the year in expectation of a plankton surge, do not occur to eat up all the enhanced productivity), creating anoxic conditions.

...

I mean it's like to say that animals are alive, so I only eat fetuses/eggs.

Hunting is done for preservation as well as for food. I've hunted coyotes and boars and never eaten one. I've also hunted squirrels and do eat them.

Dumb solipsistic twat.

You have a point with destroying invasive species like boars in the New World. But trying to justify coyotes as something protecting or preserving some sustainable ecological order is pure shifted-baseline nonsense.

No, it's more like they start eating house pets and invading urban areas. I don't hunt them out in the country.

Isn't there this entire huge thing among you guys where stuff like sexism, racism and all that jazz comes after solving the issue of class? I like that some of you are "thinking ahead" when it comes to stuff like this, but shouldn't issues like """Species-ism""" and bias in general be handled once True Communism™ has become a reality because it would otherwise be a major distraction that just delays the true objective?

IMO it's because
can be 'fought for' entirely within the liberal paradigm without ever actually solving the underlying problem. 'Quotas for black CEOs' does literally nothing for solving issues around racial discrimination, the people who would ever have the chance to become CEO in the first place are the ones least suffering from the effects of discrimination.
Progressive, egalitarian political project is channeled towards safe, non-revolutionary projects fully palatable to the liberal-bourgeois system. By the logic of 'path of least resistance' that's where the politics will start and end.
Irrelevant rubbish like gay marriage creates the illusion of political and societal progress.

water and heat and artificial sunlight (a huge killer, that you didn't even think of this paints you as one of the "ideas guy" people I mentioned) and antifungals because the entire building is warm and humid

the upkeep cost on all those systems. Machinery becomes astronomically more expensive to produce (remember, things still cost labor hours) when you have to make it operate in smaller spaces.

At this point it's still more efficient to just turn desert into center pivot irrigation farms.

Think of it this way, what you're suggesting is taking something that is perfectly fine happening outdoors, and then building a warehouse, and then artificially recreating the necessary conditions of outdoors for it to work indoors, just so you can say you did it indoors.

Unless we're reaching malthusian meme levels of population, there will be no reason to make a vertical farm.

Pain is defined as "an unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with actual or potential tissue damage, or described in terms of such damage". A signal itself isn't the pain. There can be a response to the stimulus without the feeling of the pain, there can also exist a pain without a stimulus or a signal.

...

Animals don't have souls. Their "suffering" means literally nothing.

What an absolute thrashing

Saved the fukkin link

none of this is as hard to get or maintain as youre making it seem

He obviously made a mistake, what meant was:
What a retarded name, we don't hate blacks people we just don't care about them.

Which is right because racism is about racial tribalism/exclusivity not hatred. Anti-racism on the contrary is about hatred of racism.

We can only hope so. Fuck the environment.

I would like to get into hunting hunters tbh but it's not legal in most countries unfortunately.

Livestock eat more plants than vegans.

You don't have a soul (conscience). Your suffering means joy for me. "Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted. Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth. Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be satisfied. Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy. Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God. Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God. Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven."

Do you have any idea what the power draw on an entire skyscraper full of uv lamps would be?

...

I mean at this point you're advocating for willful waste of resources, opting for a much less efficient solution with no obvious benefit in return

kek

I didn't advocate killing people that might kill an animal. I advocate killing hunters i.e. people that do in fact kill animals. Furthermore I advocate to eat them afterwards.
And I didn't came up with this viewpoint now because I was "triggered", I already held this view before, which comes from my "eye for an eye"/retributive sense of justice.

Hunters protect the environment, especially considering that humans are the only apex predators in many areas. In these areas, the only alternative is the local fauna rapidly overpopulating, consuming all of the local flora and all dying off in a big mass starvation event, right?

The only alternative to this would be to introduce alternative apex predators into the area, which is slow going, has to be carefully monitored and, in the end, serve the exact same role as hunters, killing and eating the local herbivores who would have served as game animals.

Humans suck at pretending to be apex predators that co-evolved with their prey over millions of years. That shit only works in Africa.

Because species have never go extinct on their own in the wild, and do so all the time and non-human apex predators have a deep reverence for the human conceptualization of "the balance of nature" and intentionally stop themselves from hunting their prey to extinction, it's not like they're caught unintentionally in that balance and would be happy to overcome it if they could.

Haha, epic post my fellow kekistani Holla Forumsro! Totally epic keks, epic for the WIIIIIN!!! XDD

Domestication and agriculture were mistakes. The pescetariat are awakening, the dialectics are in motion.

Human != animal

Nice spooks, btw.

Yeah, buddy, I can't wait to get to die at thirty from malnutrition, disease and exposure again.

What is it about pesce- that you do not understand? You will be drowned in the red tide.

Fucking stop. Frankly, OP is a red liberal and can't close his bleeding heart long enough to realize that our goal as communists is to help direct the nature of the revolutionary proletarian movement to victory and ultimately transcendence of capitalism. We are not here to IMPOSE your petty-bourgeois morals and lifestyle choices on workers who neither care nor can support financially and materially.

In other words, READ A FUCKING BOOK.

One more reason to hate them.

Here's a solution to all problems: capture all animals, separate them by gender and let them go extinct.

I value a good human above a bad animal and a good animal above a bad human. I judge living beings individually, although I'm more tolerant to animals since they have much less control over themselves than humans.

Thanks, the same I can't say about your spook on the inherent worthy of humans over animals.

Speak for yourself single-issue amoral moron.

If you consider yourself an apex predator then you ought to be put down like the wild beast you claim to be.

Delicious balut

Enjoy your Kuru and nvCJD.

Allow me to interject for a moment. What you're referring to is actually called Identity/Politics, or as I've taken to call it recently id plus pol.
This is a pretty difficult issue that most Liberals cling to because of the fact that I was just remembering how seemingly difficult it was to get people to change their vocabulary online. This is most people's form of Democracy, I think: mainly to decide about how narratives are framed. That is much more important than say, being represented by someone with your interests in mind in a seat in government.
Allow me to interject for a moment…

I'm fine with eating meat but yeah animals should probably get better conditions.
Better conditions better meat no?

...

Vegans are RAYCIS

hey, buddy, I just read you post out loud & it's even more ridiculous that way. thx for the keks.

BRUV, STOP IT.

Also honestly Orwell has a great essay on why lifestylism should go fuck itself Hint, it's not proletarian .

Agriculture is reactionary and in communism we will naturally progress towards the abolition of all animal husbandry and agriculture. In time we will all be vegan.

You're not using that word correctly.

Those images are not a caricature at all, it accurately depict what meat-eaters actually think and act like, unless you are going to deny that meat-eaters treat pets and livestock different while claiming to love animals and eat meat, milk and eggs while claiming that only eating fruits and vegetables is weird.

See pictures. Veganism-vegetarianism is an ancient practice in various places of the world, especially in India through Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism:

Until I can get a comfy alternative for sausages, animals can go fuck themselves.

Fuck your comfort you hedonist weakling.

And it's a miss !

the meat production is a subproduct of milk production, also funny to see that surplus milk is Burgeristan is turn into cheap cheese and bought for the governement,that why you can find everything with cheese version in America.

Vegetarian and vegan sausages are great and inexpensive, I eat them all the time. It's not really a reason for you to do anything, though.

fuck i'm hungry now.

Done.

ONE DAY
I DON'T KNOW WHY

The marbling on those sausages make it look like they'd be quite tough and rubbery unless you cooked them first. In all honesty, you should try making up a terrine by dicing them, adding to well herbed forcemeat and baking in a loaf tray lined with streaky bacon.
Oh wait, you were trying to trigger me, weren't you?

Did you know the chicken was domesticated in India, quite possibly for cock fights at first?

You should lay off the sausage and other types of processed, wrapped meats like wieners simply because they increase your risk for colon cancer.

I don't have the strength needed to live a life without meat.

Yes actually. Anything else would be specieism.

Only humans have rights. Animals have privileges however, though they do not come at the expense of human desire.

Or rather I should say only sapient beings have rights. Crows, elephants, and other primates are intelligent enough to the point where not consenting them rights would be immoral.

The plant wants you to eat fruit, otherwise it wouldn't drop them to the ground (so they're easy to pick up) and make them sweet and delicious.

Are you actually dumb enough to presume I believe most indians have been vegan or vegetarian throughout history?

...

rights are granted to everything and anything by the state

shut the fuck up

you get the bullet, liberal

why would the power draw be beyond our capabilities

One of the main purposes of artificial farms is, in fact, to use less resources. Less water, less fertilizer, less soil, less pesticides and herbicides, greater sanitation, and easier automation.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4483736/
towergarden.com/blog.read.html/en/2015/4/5_research-backedbe.html
As for energy consumption, remember that most of this is for 24/7/365 artificial lighting and heating at night and off season to further increase yields. And considering that water and fertilizer in conventional agriculture are increasingly made using energy, this isn't necessarily an unfair tradeoff.

BTFO
Now that's the kind of effortposting we need more of in the Facebook/Youtube era. It reminds me of Denise Minger's epic takedown of Forks Over Knives.

On a related note, anybody here garden or keep poultry? My father's family are big on that, even the suburban ones. Sadly, I myself am still renting, and the landlord wouldn't take too kindly to that.

Sicko

HUMANITY, FUCK YEAH!

Nope, that's a strawman. Most idpol issues were completely resolved to the extent possible under capitalism in the 1960s. "Your revolution" doesn't have to wait until "our revolution", because it already happened decades ago. Socialism is the only revolution that can generate further progress at this point.

this is why i'm ML and not ancom
see

The point isn't that it's impossible. The point is that to anyone who even thinks about it for a few seconds realizes what a tremendous waste it would be. You're building a roof over a farm, and then putting lights under the roof, BECAUSE you built the fucking roof.

I think the neonazis and the KKK would like a word with you about that…

...

because you think like a capitalist and not a communist?

yeah but a whole bunch of these layered on top of each other for the sake of space

also you havent told me where the waste is gonna be

or why we wont have the power available for it

honestly it just seems like youre whining about price but know you can't actually call it financially infeasible without us calling you out on being a cappy

the benefit is better space management, likely the immediate access to food sources in urban centres

oh so theres no fuckin profit in it for ya hey

Jesus christ read marx, making things still cost labor even without capital because we don't have star trek phlebontium machines yet

in fact "things cost labor" is literally the definition of LTV you klods

Ah yes finally, we can save space on farming by moving farms from places where space is abundant to places where space is at a premium.

Electricity you don't need to use if you grow outdoors
specialized, complex, high maintenance machinery and/or direct labor hours due to harvesting, irrigation etc in a confined space you wouldn't need if you grew outdoors
antifungals you wouldn't need if you grew outdoors
Are you legit retarded? You're actually arguing "it's not physically impossible". Great. Giving yourself a lead injection to the temple is also not physically impossible, try it sometime.

You might have missed it, but I responded to that a little ways up, with a couple linked studies. There are flat savings per yield of many resources other than energy simply by eliminating soil and irrigation from the equation. And most of its energy use is for additional yield made possible by artificial light and heat.

Your studies address *ponic farming methods that still utilize, primarily, natural sunlight.

In fact, the first study itself says, even without artificial sunlight, "Hydroponics offered 11 ± 1.7 times higher yields but required 82 ± 11 times more energy compared to conventionally produced lettuce."

Roughly 1/8th as efficient as conventional farming. In Arizona.

sauce?

...

The number of people here who are happy to justify the torturous mass slaughter of millions purely for their own convenience is insane.

If everyone could see what goes on in slaughterhouses, the number of vegetarians would shoot up overnight.

i doubt ive eaten a million animals

Never said you had. Keep up.

does something special happen when i eat a million? ill get there when i get there, calm down.

“What do they know—all these scholars, all these philosophers, all the leaders of the world? They have convinced themselves that man, the worst transgressor of all the species, is the crown of creation. All other creatures were created merely to provide him with food, pelts, to be tormented, exterminated. In relation to them [the animals], all people are Nazis; for the animals, it is an eternal Treblinka.”

Perhaps the lamest argument I've ever heard in favor of veganism is pets. "You keep pets and you love them, if this is true, how can you say you don't care about the lives of animals? Would you butcher your dog?"

As if this is supposed to be some silver bullet. I would never burn my family's old wooden rockingchair because it has personal and familial significance to me. This doesn't mean I will abstain from burning logs on principle.

Wew, literally animals don't have human rights

You're mentally impaired.

Feel free to try you moral relativist, humanist liberal.

That quote is criticizing vain primitives for not being vain and primitive enough.

How's this relevant?

They tell me it's not about hating "other races" but loving "their own race".

Then you view your pets as objects/resources to be used and entertain you and not as living beings worthy of respect that you care about.

Humans literally don't have human rights. There is no such thing as "rights" you liberal moron.

So you've gone from trying to infer that veganism was historic Indian practice to outright claiming that all disagreement is insanity. Never mind that veganism is impossible without modern knowledge and those attempting such a diet prior to obtaining advanced nutritional science would have quickly died. Do you have B12 supplementation in your diet?

Yeah? I have emotional investment in my pets insofar as they are my property and they are alive enough to react to my emotional investment in them. That doesn't mean I have to have some ideological respect for all living beings. Cool beans, I guess, we're in agreement here.
Okay, sure, ontologically there's no self evident rights. But, sociologically speaking, rights can "exist" if it's socially accepted that they need to be reciprocated in order for a society to function.

You will not be able to convince a pig not to steal your property. You will not be able to convince a wolf not to eat your infant child.

I recognise that the act of butchering animals for nothing more than fancy is immoral, saying nothing of the torturous ordeal they must geo through prior to what is all too often a slow death, and if I was a stronger person I would most certainly cease my consumption of meat.

However, pizza, McDonald's, and other "trash" food comforts me when I'm down, and so I can't abandon it.

I've always heard Esperanto was easy, but I'm always surprised when I understand

When the revolution comes, urban animal rights activists get the hakapik

There's nothing wrong with killing animals.
Raising them in bad conditions is wrong.
If you can't tell the difference you're retarded and a drawback for the entire left, and therefore an objective ally of the right-wing.

Always google the text, and failing that, google the pic until someone else on another corner of the internet posted the source.

From Reddit (r/HFY) they linked to TvTropes as the sauce. I took a double dose of cancer to find you that:
tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=sa7rmohv1hmgymf4xdu8cait&page=27

Some retard unironically used *claps*

Up north in Canada seal hunting is one of the few traditional industries that both inuit and whites can work in. And the industry is moribund because most foreign countries have import bans on all seal products. Not just furs but meat and omega-3 oils. All because seal pups look cute but cod fish don't.

Not to mention the retarded witchhunt against the faroese. The distribution of the whale-meat is even similar to 'from each according to their need'. Also whale is tasty.

Jesus I fucked that up didn't I? 'From each according to his ability'.

What? Veganism-vegetarianism is an ancient and historic Indian practice (among a few people) but I never claimed that most Indians were vegans or vegetarians.

I don't adhere to "reciprocated rights" I adhere to unreciprocated duties of not harming others and helping others that are being harmed.

I don't need to, I just need to shoot anyone that attempts to harm me or another. I also don't expect to convince every human not to harm others since that's obviously impossible as proven by reality.

You will not do shit you hedonistic weeaboo faggot.

The faroese are the ones doing the hunt against the whales.

you adhere to a spook, congratulations

You don't need to convince literally every human, just enough for society to function. The rest can be handled by criminal justice. So we don't have loons running around shooting people for slaughtering their own chickens.

You're completely missing the point here. The fact of the matter is that there places on the planet with communities that neither have the infrastructure (in terms of distribution) nor the arable land to make living on a purely vegan diet remotely feasible. Granted the Faroese, at this moment in history, are not the best example of this, but they are an example of a community who historically have been in this category. What the roseposter said about sealing is also correct. In Greenland small communities, who until recently have relied almpst solely on trapping/hunting, have been COMPLETELY decimated by the sanctions against their means of existence. And for what? To satisfy some citybois petit-bourgeois sense of morality.

then you don't understand what a spook is.

Reciprocated rights aren't some worship of a non existent higher principle of the golden rule or what have you, it's straight up "we can both agree not to stab each other in the dick, because the potential rewards for doing so are far lesser than the consequences of the risk of getting stabbed in the dick"

that's what I mean by "reciprocated", to bring it back to stirner proper, the simplest form of a "union of egoists".

No, you said you are batman and you have a personal sacred mission to uphold your holy ideals of protecting animals that will never be capable of giving a fuck about you

Ahahaha how the fuck is speciesism real hahaha cows dont feel oppressed they dont have the intelligence for it. Ever heard of farm animals revolt, other than in a book?

Seriously though, you dont get to fucking moan about animal's rights until every last people has their human rights in check first. The idea that animal rights are equal or superior to human rights comes literally from none other than Adolf Hitler.

Why can't you just be against factory farming instead of eating meat?

Speciesism isn't a real problem. Non-human nature and human beings are different. The former belongs to the realm of biology, and the latter has uniquely evolved into the realm of culture.

If animals have the same rights as humans, does that mean a zebra's family is completely justified in taking out revenge on a lion that ate their father?

We must teach the animals forgiveness and compassion! Violence is not an answer!

Not an argument, Lions need to consume meat to survive while arguably consuming meat is detrimental to humans, factory farming is also ecologically unsustainable.

I deleted my post because I wanted to write a better reply. Oh well.

Ok. Personal duties aren't some devotion to a non existent pre-defined oath or what have you, it's straight up "I will attempt to protect myself and others from harm, because I care about other fellow living beings in this world and I will attempt to sacrifice myself to achieve that if it's necessary since rewards and consequences are meaningless for me".

>No, you said you are batman and you have a personal sacred mission to uphold your holy ideals
Yes that's exactly what I said. Much better than being a hedonistic egoist that seeks only to benefit himself over others and has to collectively define social parameters as to how much he can hurt others without expecting retaliation.

Most humans don't give a fuck about me too, yet I won't hesitate to help a stranger in the street. Animals might be incapable of caring about others (at least not to the same extend as humans), but egoist humans like you are capable of it and yet choose not to unless it ultimately benefits themselves.

Thank God I am an ethical socialist and not a sociopathic autistic dialectical-mystic hedonistic marxist!

Then those people should move out from there and be helped to settle in a better place. This is why I'm a supporter of total freedom of movement and open borders.

This is good, I applaud this but I condemn those authorities that impose sanctions not offering to help those people to move out and not impose sanctions against all animal products in their own countries.

Better than to satisfy some arctic tribesmen meaningless sense of preservation.

The intelligence of the oppressed is completely irrelevant with the self-evident condition of being oppressed: cows are not free to do what they want, they suffer subjugation and agony under humans and if given the choice they would choose to not be in that condition.

No, because they are physically incapable of it just like highly disabled people are physically incapable of revolting against oppressive able bodied persons. Nevertheless there are an infinitude of cases of animals revolting against their owners and attacking them when they are mistreated.

I do and I will. What's the point of saying this if you completely dismiss animal oppression in the previous sentence?

Yes we are different, just like how individual humans are different from each other. But all living beings are fellow prisoners in this fucked up world, whether they are self-aware is irrelevant, so you can either choose to view them as resources to be used by you or you can choose to view them with compassion and try to help them as much as you can.

This means that vegan faggots will invest resources into lab-grown meat and force carnivores on that instead, no? Not doing this would be hypocritical.

that's sentientism tho

that's nothing, this whole board suffers from exist-ism: the belief that we only have a moral obligation to shit that exists. If ppl saw the sorts of conditions that things that don't exist are kept in there'd be a moral outrage in this country

we should enforce laws on animals. zebras have rights and don't deserve to be killed. lions should be tried for murder until they learn how to behave justly

So your solution to having your irrelevant feelings hurt is simply that those people should be forcibly removed from the land where they have lived sustainably for thousands of years?
You are beginning to show your true colors.

When it comes to sealskins produced by inuit, in both Canada, there is infact already an exception (in the EU). The problem is that the damage has already been done. So-called enviromental organizations like Greenpeace have succeded in bringing the image of sealclubbing into the mind of the consumer as soon as they even think of, or see, sealskin.

Again your pathetic petite-bourgeois feelings are what's important here. If that is not both rascist and culturally imperialist then I don't know what is.
When you talk about industrial agriculture, or industrial scale sealing for that matter, you have a point. A point about a problem inherent to capitalism. What is your solution? You want to treat the symptons instead of tying it into a larger meaningful context. The true illness - the commodity form, profit motive and production for exchange remains.

Whale meat is fucking toxic. Any fish at higher trophic levels should not be eaten regularly and ideally not at all.

Cool, so long as you accept that your personal moral code is totally irrational and is only your personal moral code, and any discussion thereof would be as about as fruitful and objective as discussing whether or not chocolate chip cookies are yummy.

So the whole point of a discussion is to be able to exchange ideas in meaningful ways. Sure you have a personal code of ethics, but your rationalization for it is "I feel this way because I feel this way", which means absolutely nothing to the other party. You misinterpret my arguments as sociopathic because I haven't explained my personal feelings, because my personal feelings are as irrelevant as yours.

In both Canada and Greenland*

True.

I like animals but i draw the line in helping humans first.