Facts/combacks for omnivores' pathetic excuses to continue the murder

August 16, 2008

I know this may seem long but it is very, very important to have our facts straight when attacked by desperate meat eating losers. They think they are so bright, well think again. The bolded parts are their pathetic arguments, the rest is the truth. Commit to memory and put them in their places, standing in the manure they spew. I added a comment not addressed, but you might want to know when your lactose-intolerant ice cream loving friends insist that "at least the cows aren't killed". Ha.

Vegan Verve

Veganism and Animal Rights Vilified Yet Again

August 16, 2008 at 4:18 am (Animal Rights, Animals)

It seems as though people have found a new target to focus their aggressions on: vegans and/or animal rights supporters. Not only that, but these individuals have begun writing anti-animal rights books. Their “reasons” to vilify our beliefs are proposterous and unwarranted. Apparently believing in the lives of animals makes us inconceiveably evil and elite. How dare we think of others! The irony of this is that true animal rights supporters will just become more vigilant in the face of these people and perhaps even change their opinion of the human species.

What on earth am I talking about? I’m talking about this article on the National Review Online (*ahem* screams right-wing) by an idiot by the name of Wesley J. Smith. It appears that Smith doesn’t like vegans and animal rights supporters. His main reason for writing this article seems to be various antics of PETA. Did you know that PETA was the one and only animal rights group? Did you also know that they represented all of our beliefs? No? Well good thing Smith came along to help us realize this!

The driving foundation of this article is the response of PETA regarding Jessica Simpson wearing a t-shirt declaring that upstanding females consume the flesh of others. PETA’s response, which was unnecessary considering who is taking dietary advice from the likes of Jessica Simpson, was the usual meat consumption causes death and anguish declaration. True indeed, but yet another move by PETA that allows twits like Wesley J. Smith to accost our belief system.

It appears that those in the vegan and animal rights community are “hold(ing) a weak intellectual hand” when it comes to debating the issue of “meat is murder”. Did you know this? Because this was all news to me. It appears that we are not actually vegans in the true sense, since mice, rabbits, birds, snakes and other small creatures are killed by the cultivation of the land. It is true that those poor little guys probably do get killed by farm equipment daily, and for that I am sorry. But how is this fact a reason to attack vegans? Since we consume only vegetables, grains, fruits etc., we are apparently responsible for each and every death that occurs on the farms. Or at the very least we cannot claim we are eating a murder-free diet. But is that really true?

I see it this way: those in opposition to us have so little in their favor in terms of evidence for maintaining their heart-clogging, global warming enhancing, death mongering lifestyle that they now need to vilify us to make themselves feel better. It is becoming ever-more alarming how similar war mongers are to meat mongers. What’s that? Yes, you’re right. Most vegans probably do come from the left-wingers side. Good catch! (Oh but this is a whole ‘nother story indeed!)

So let me just break down the article of this special consultant to the Center of Bioethics and Culture (that gave me a good laugh).

Nor can they argue that field animals experience less-agonizing deaths from plant agriculture than food animals do from food-animal slaughtering. Field animals may flee in panic as the great rumbling harvest combines approach, only to be shredded to bits within their merciless blades; they may be burned to death when field leavings are burned; they may be poisoned by pesticides; they may die from predation when their plant cover has been removed.

Really? Are “food-animals” allowed the option to flee? Are they allowed the option to live in this field or that one? Are they allowed the option to eat what they want instead of being force-fed antibiotics and remains of their former relatives? I think not. I am sure that many animals do die in the harvesting process of modern-day grain etc. farming. But, Smith seems to deliver us a terrible image of animal after animal being killed by farm equipment at every turn. First of all, has this guy ever seen a farm actually harvested? Farm equipment doesn’t exactly move 90 MPH. On the other hand, have you seen a rabbit run? I’m quite certain that most animals that enter the fields leave the fields alive (except if captured by predator species). This cannot be said for any farm animal grown for food (except for those lucky few that are rescued by farm sanctuaries!). Have you ever known a mouse to NOT be afraid of a human nonetheless a gigantic

machine? Most of the animals listed on Smith’s article are either skiddish by nature or very quick. In no way am I saying NO animal ever dies from the likes of farm equipment, I just suspect it is much lower than individuals on Smith’s side contend. Also, do animals no longer have the capability to smell? Do they not realize to run when a huge fire ball is headed their way? Generally animals killed in fire deaths are surrounded by fire with no escape. This would not often be the case in controlled burns on farms. Poisoned by pesticides? People poison animals in their homes and call it “pest control”, when are those people going to be attacked? Plus, humans are be continually poisoned by pesticides daily…its just a much slower process that is supported by pesticide companies and non-organic farmers. Lastly, animals dying from predation is the least of any animals problems these days. At least predation is a natural norm and necessary for a

healthy ecosystem. Did anyone care to consider all the animals and entire species being wiped out by global warming (which factory farming of animals is the #1 contributor to)? Also, does it even matter to such people as this that most grain, soybeans etc. are raised for livestock feed? Eh? I feel absurd for even validating these reasons of Smith’s by repeating them here, but I wanted everyone to see the stupidity!

Moreover, even if the relative number of animals killed were the morally decisive issue, veganism might not be the most ethical solution. In 2001, S. L. Davis of the Department of Animal Sciences at Oregon State University, Corvallis, wrote a paper claiming that the diet most likely to result in the deaths of the fewest animals would be beef, lamb, and dairy — not vegan. Davis found a study that measured mouse population density per hectare in grain fields both before and after harvest and estimated a harvest casualty rate of ten mice per hectare. Then, he multiplied that figure by 120 million hectares of farmland in the U.S.; meaning that 1.2 billion mice would die each year in food production if America became a wholly vegan country.

Oh the insanity continues! First of all, S.L. Davis is an ass. I am officially ashamed of Oregon State University. I am increasingly disturbed by these individuals in the academic community, frequently in the animal sciences/biology departments completely vilifying animal rights and animals in general. I was under the impression that academia was supposed to be better informed and wise. All this makes me wonder how my former professors stand on these issues. I may be horrified to know! But I digress! Davis’ paper is ridiculous, plain and simple. First off, he is assuming that dietary habits regarding beef, lamb and dairy would stay exactly the same if people in this country no longer ate chicken, turkey and pork. Really? No one would eat more beef or lamb or milk or cheese? Wow. What a omnivorian utopia. Consider the more likely scenario: no chicken, turkey or pork would raise the consumption of beef etc. drastically, thereby completely

negating Davis’ thesis. Second, if we are all supposed to be omnivorian, based on this paper, wouldn’t the very idea of current vegans and vegetarians now eating beef, lamb and dairy cause an increase as well? Wonder why Davis’ chose to just make it a beef, lamb and dairy diet? Because chickens would have thrown a gigantic loop into his logic, since more chickens are killed than the concocted number of mice in his theory. Secondly, his estimations regarding population density are fairy invalid as well. He does not take into account that the field equipment may have scared away individuals, natural predation and general mouse lifespan. But don’t take my word for it, here are the ridiculous notions straight from Davis”:

Accurate numbers of mortality aren’t available, but Tew and Macdonald (1993) reported that wood mouse population density in cereal fields dropped from 25/ha preharvest to less than 5/ha postharvest. This decrease was attributed to migration out of the field and to mortality. Therefore, it may be reasonable to estimate mortality of 10 animals/ha in conventional corn and soybean production.

So just for the hell of it, lets assume half of the missing mice are dead from human activity–even though we have no actual mortality numbers available and no decent former studies to prove it. Yeah, good science Davis’, you should be up for an award. And with this blatant assumption game on Davis’ part, anti-vegans/animal rights individuals are finding ammunition. Oh, their reasonings are flawless!!

Also from Davis’:

According to the USDA numbers quoted {…}, of the 8.4 billion animals killed each year for food in the US, 8 billion of those are poultry and only 41 million are ruminants (cows, calves, sheep, lambs). Even if the numbers of ruminants killed for food each year doubled to replace the 8 billion poultry, the total number of animals that would need to be killed under this alternative would still be fewer than in the vegan alternative.

I suppose that answers my previous statement regarding increase of beef etc. consumption, but double? So this country will go from consuming 8 BILLION chickens and 41 MILLION ruminants, to ONLY consuming at most 82 MILLION ruminants? Really? What on earth will all those flesh craving individuals do with 7.6 BILLION less creatures to eat? Seriously? The idea of only doubling is proposterous!!!

Further brilliancy from Smith:

Contending that meat eating is somehow murder while veganism is morally pristine because it doesn’t result in intentional animal deaths is factually false and self-delusional. No matter your diet, animals surely died that you might live.

I cannot believe oxygen is being wasted on idiots like this. How are vegans simply “contending” that meat is murder? Are animals NOT in fact raised for the sole reason of being killed for consumption? Isn’t intentional killing in fact murder? Did I miss something during my time on earth?? If us vegans are not “morally pristine” I would like to know what strict omnivores or carnivores are then. Morally vacant perhaps? I know two people who are morally vacant *ahem*.

Comments

S Morgan said,

August 16, 2008 at 8:38 am

Continuing dairy would contribute to less deaths?

Let’s consider this:

A. When a dairy cow is “spent” meaning she can no longer produce milk because her poor body is totally broken down, she is slaughtered for hamburger. But,even if we didn’t eat beef, (which Mr. Clueless says we should) she would still be murdered at around 4 years of age (normal life span is 25 years) for non production.

B. Since dairy cows have to be impregnated constantly in order to lactate, many of the calves born are males. Males are of no use to the dairy industry. They are either killed shortly after birth and taken away by “calf jockeys” to make leather and other “luxurious” products or sold to veal farms. Of course if we didn’t eat veal, the number of male calves born to dairy cows would be the same anyway. Veal is not to be confused with "beef". Dairy breeds are never used for beef.

Dairy, IMO may possibly be the MOST cruel industry in animal agriculture, if it is actually possible to rate levels.