Earthlings

DoozerT6

Synthol, I'm veggie tending towards vegan, and while I agree in principle with your sentiments, I think you need to chill out a little on your delivery. Any thread about veganism on Boards tends to get heated - these responses are pretty typical from other uses (just a fact, I'm not dissing ye, Boardsies ). I think starting threads about veganism, however well-meaning, are not going to go down well until there is a societal shift and acceptance towards eating less animal products in general. We're just Not There yet. Maybe another generation or two.

Synthol

Help!!!! wrote: »

Less meat eaters = less animals maybe even the extinction of some.
What use has a pig if it isn't for putting between 2 slices of bread with tomato sauce & cheese......mmmmmm bacon

Pigs are comparable to dogs in intelligence and in a lot of tests are smarter than dogs.

DontThankMe

Synthol wrote: »

Getting all your children taken away then getting cut into pieces and sold for consumption is not worse? I don't feel that humans are more superior than other animals. Humans are destroying the planet with their insane rates of breeding, I believe that everyone should need to have a licence to have children or be sterilised until they decide that they want to have children. I also believe that abortions should be free and easily available. Do you know how many extinct animals are humans responsible for? And yet the population keeps increasing and more animals will have to be slaughtered to meet the demand and I am sure that more animals will be going extinct. So many animals are now endangered or near extinction thanks to human activity.

So the suffering of animals is a more important problem than the suffering of children and human beings. You'd rather save a cow/pig/chicken from being slaughtered than save a child stuck in a sweat shop making clothes using slave labour. What about the millions of people throughout the world that are starving should we devote all our resources to saving animals instead of innocent people that are starving to death every day? What about the people in war torn countries trying to flee death and persecution should we just turn around and say "sorry we are too busy saving animals to help you you're on your own"

Synthol

DontThankMe wrote: »

So the suffering of animals is a more important problem than the suffering of children and human beings. You'd rather save a cow/pig/chicken from being slaughtered than save a child stuck in a sweat shop making clothes using slave labour. What about the millions of people throughout the world that are starving should we devote all our resources to saving animals instead of innocent people that are starving to death every day? What about the people in war torn countries trying to flee death and persecution should we just turn around and say "sorry we are too busy saving animals to help you you're on your own"

Humans brought this on themselves by overpopulation and nonsensical beliefs. Yes I would save an animal instead of the human because the human is not getting slaughtered, as I have wrote, I consider humans the same as animals so of course I would save the animal from death instead o saving a human from slave labour. If you find this offensive then that means that you believe humans are superior.

DontThankMe

Synthol wrote: »

Humans brought this on themselves by overpopulation and nonsensical beliefs. Yes I would save an animal instead of the human because the human is not getting slaughtered, as I have wrote, I consider humans the same as animals so of course I would save the animal from death instead o saving a human from slave labour. If you find this offensive then that means that you believe humans are superior.

So you believe that animals are superior to humans? because you would rather save an animals life instead of a human life that is enduring the same amount of suffering as an animal.
As for the first line of your post "humans brought this on themselves"
What about people in 3rd world countries that are born into a family that is already struggling to find food to feed themselves and are starving on a daily basis. That starving baby brought it on themselves? We should just let them die and save a cow instead?

Synthol

DontThankMe wrote: »

So you believe that animals are superior to humans? because you would rather save an animals life instead of a human life that is enduring the same amount of suffering as an animal.
As for the first line of your post "humans brought this on themselves"
What about people in 3rd world countries that are born into a family that is already struggling to find food to feed themselves and are starving on a daily basis. That starving baby brought it on themselves? We should just let them die and save a cow instead?

So I say that humans and animals are the same and you ignore everything I said and continue with this argument??? Are you actually serious?

I would rather same an animal from DEATH than save a human from NOT DEATH

Why would a child be born into a family which cannot feed themselves? This is why I support sterilisation for everyone until they pass the tests. A child should not be born into a family that can't feed itself, it's unnecessary suffering.

DontThankMe

Synthol wrote: »

So I say that humans and animals are the same and you ignore everything I said and continue with this argument??? Are you actually serious?

I would rather same an animal from DEATH than save a human from NOT DEATH

But if both are going to die because people die from starvation on a daily basis and you would rather save a dieing animal than a dieing human being that means you think animals lives are more important than human beings lives and therefore animals are superior to human beings.

Professor Moriarty

Synthol wrote: »

Humans brought this on themselves by overpopulation and nonsensical beliefs. Yes I would save an animal instead of the human because the human is not getting slaughtered, as I have wrote, I consider humans the same as animals so of course I would save the animal from death instead o saving a human from slave labour. If you find this offensive then that means that you believe humans are superior.

Are you saying that humans and animals are of equal worth?

Grandeeod

Synthol wrote: »

You pretend you care while you eat animals? Sorry but this is laughable, I am not dismissing human suffering, I have wrote that it is unreasonable to find exactly where your clothes came from. Do you know exactly where all your clothes came from? I mean exactly, do you know that a child slave made your clothes? Do you think that all the cloth factories in poor countries are made by slave children? You are delusional, most of these people actually WORK voluntarily to make money and are not forced to. Please do your research first.

Who the fook are you to claim I pretend to care? Your entire defense of your position is arrogant. You are an angry person with beliefs that you want to promote beyond any reasonable fashion. You are bordering on an obsessive behaviour akin to Nazi Germany in relation to Jews. That is how you are coming across. By all means have your beliefs, but respect the rights of others to disagree. And please stop calling me and others delusional. If you said that to my face I punch you in the head.

Synthol wrote: »

3 stages of acceptance

1. Ridicule
2. Violent opposition
3. Acceptance

I just proved your little dictator/propaganda head right for the first two. The third you can go fook yourself with. My ban is coming, but you are so worth it. Sorry Mods.

Grandeeod

DoozerT6 wrote: »

Synthol, I'm veggie tending towards vegan, and while I agree in principle with your sentiments, I think you need to chill out a little on your delivery. Any thread about veganism on Boards tends to get heated - these responses are pretty typical from other uses (just a fact, I'm not dissing ye, Boardsies ). I think starting threads about veganism, however well-meaning, are not going to go down well until there is a societal shift and acceptance towards eating less animal products in general. We're just Not There yet. Maybe another generation or two.

What a sensible post. What a pity Synthol has a militant view.

Professor Moriarty

Synthol wrote: »

So I say that humans and animals are the same and you ignore everything I said and continue with this argument??? Are you actually serious?

I would rather same an animal from DEATH than save a human from NOT DEATH

Why would a child be born into a family which cannot feed themselves? This is why I support sterilisation for everyone until they pass the tests. A child should not be born into a family that can't feed itself, it's unnecessary suffering.

So, on your planet, everyone gets sterilised until they pass tests. Who does the sterilising? How do they reverse it? What's the test? IQ? Recite the Hail Mary? Jump over a wall?

Amazing to think that you might actually believe any of the stuff you're writing.

DontThankMe

Synthol wrote: »

So I say that humans and animals are the same and you ignore everything I said and continue with this argument??? Are you actually serious?

I would rather same an animal from DEATH than save a human from NOT DEATH

Why would a child be born into a family which cannot feed themselves? This is why I support sterilisation for everyone until they pass the tests. A child should not be born into a family that can't feed itself, it's unnecessary suffering.

Many places suffer from drought which means crops they rely on to harvest fail leaving them with no food to feed their families even though they had enough food to their family before the child was born.
So we should send in a doctor to these 3rd world countries and setup a sterilisation clinic? Instead of educating them and helping them feed themselves?

Synthol

DontThankMe wrote: »

But if both are going to die because people die from starvation on a daily basis and you would rather save a dieing animal than a dieing human being that means you think animals lives are more important than human beings lives and therefore animals are superior to human beings.

Read back my posts.

Synthol

Grandeeod wrote: »

Who the fook are you to claim I pretend to care? Your entire defense of your position is arrogant. You are an angry person with beliefs that you want to promote beyond any reasonable fashion. You are bordering on an obsessive behaviour akin to Nazi Germany in relation to Jews. That is how you are coming across. By all means have your beliefs, but respect the rights of others to disagree. And please stop calling me and others delusional. If you said that to my face I punch you in the head.



I just proved your little dictator/propaganda head right for the first two. The third you can go fook yourself with. My ban is coming, but you are so worth it. Sorry Mods.

Do you want me to say it to your face? Pm me.


Mod-Banned

Grandeeod

Why would a child be born into a family which cannot feed themselves? This is why I support sterilisation for everyone until they pass the tests. A child should not be born into a family that can't feed itself, it's unnecessary suffering.

I know Im facing the ban hammer, but folks read the above. We are dealing with a very sick individual here with extreme views that go beyond Veganism.

Professor Moriarty

Synthol wrote: »

Do you want me to say it to your face? Pm me.

How can you say it to their face via email?

Synthol

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

So, on your planet, everyone gets sterilised until they pass tests. Who does the sterilising? How do they reverse it? What's the test? IQ? Recite the Hail Mary? Jump over a wall?

Amazing to think that you might actually believe any of the stuff you're writing.

Research would have to be involved. The test would ask to prove that you are able to support the child. Sterilising would be done in hospitals. Wouldn't be a problem if world wasn't overpopulated.

Gunmonkey

Synthol wrote: »

Veganism is taking reasonable steps to reduce animal suffering, and no you wouldn't have to increase farmland as most of it is used for feeding the animals.

Ok then how about you answer the question I have posed to all pro-Vegan people several times in this thread:

What do we do with all the animals we have now destined for slaughter?

You state above we ain't gonna be feeding them......so I can assume we aren't going to give up prime crop growing space for them either, as we won't be increasing field space, as you also alluded to!

So we have 2 choices:

A) throw em onto "wildlands", which if you had even the most simplest understanding of Ecology is an absolute s**tshow of an idea! Leaving aside the impact dumping billions of domesticated animals into predator rich areas is a disaster waiting to happen, even if they dont all contract (or spread) one of numerous diseases to local fauna, there is the problem of them stripping areas bare...before wandering back towards our nice shiny cropland...and if a fully grown cow or bull is hungry, a fence is gonna have to work hard to keep them out. So we are left with either more fences, and if that fails, option B....

cull the lot of them, which means your move for animals well being and to prevent suffering could lead to one of the largest animal extinctions since a rock in space thought the dinosaurs were "startin" on him! And thats not taking into account of what we do with corpses of these billions of animals, since we cant eat them as thats apparently where we are now drawing the line! If we are gonna bury the then thats more land cleared (who wants a carrot that grew ontop of a mass pig grave?). Plus, there is the huge elephant in the room (possibly worried the vegans will say "Your next!" while polishing their guns) of the colossal vermin problem dumping billions upon billions of tons of dead meat in the ground will create, all it takes is one enterprising rat to tunnel in and its open season once the meat El Dorado is discovered!

Synthol

DontThankMe wrote: »

Many places suffer from drought which means crops they rely on to harvest fail leaving them with no food to feed their families even though they had enough food to their family before the child was born.
So we should send in a doctor to these 3rd world countries and setup a sterilisation clinic? Instead of educating them and helping them feed themselves?

We should so both things.

Professor Moriarty

Synthol wrote: »

Research would have to be involved. The test would ask to prove that you are able to support the child. Sterilising would be done in hospitals. Wouldn't be a problem if world wasn't overpopulated.

Great to see eugenics making a comeback. So only poor people get sterilised and, having sterilised all of the poor people, the rich then outbreed the poor people. Sounds good but who will deliver our pizzas?

Synthol

Gunmonkey wrote: »

Ok then how about you answer the question I have posed to all pro-Vegan people several times in this thread:

What do we do with all the animals we have now destined for slaughter?

You state above we ain't gonna be feeding them......so I can assume we aren't going to give up prime crop growing space for them either, as we won't be increasing field space, as you also alluded to!

So we have 2 choices:

A) throw em onto "wildlands", which if you had even the most simplest understanding of Ecology is an absolute s**tshow of an idea! Leaving aside the impact dumping billions of domesticated animals into predator rich areas is a disaster waiting to happen, even if they dont all contract (or spread) one of numerous diseases to local fauna, there is the problem of them stripping areas bare...before wandering back towards our nice shiny cropland...and if a fully grown cow or bull is hungry, a fence is gonna have to work hard to keep them out. So we are left with either more fences, and if that fails, option B....

cull the lot of them, which means your move for animals well being and to prevent suffering could lead to one of the largest animal extinctions since a rock in space thought the dinosaurs were "startin" on him! And thats not taking into account of what we do with corpses of these billions of animals, since we cant eat them as thats apparently where we are now drawing the line! If we are gonna bury the then thats more land cleared (who wants a carrot that grew ontop of a mass pig grave?). Plus, there is the huge elephant in the room (possibly worried the vegans will say "Your next!" while polishing their guns) of the colossal vermin problem dumping billions upon billions of tons of dead meat in the ground will create, all it takes is one enterprising rat to tunnel in and its open season once the meat El Dorado is discovered!

The only reasonable thing to do is to stop breeding new animals for the meat industry. There would obviously have to be a transfer period just like with everything else.

Professor Moriarty

Synthol wrote: »

We should so both things.

So anyway, animals are worth as much as humans? Is that right

Synthol

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Great to see eugenics making a comeback. So only poor people get sterilised and, having sterilised all of the poor people, the rich then outbreed the poor people. Sounds good but who will deliver our pizzas?

Developed countries have much lower population growth than developing countries so that wouldn't be a problem. Some developed countries have negative population growth.

Synthol

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

So anyway, animals are worth as much as humans? Is that right

Animals are the same as humans? No.
Are animals worth the same as humans? Yes and they should have rights to live.

Professor Moriarty

Synthol wrote: »

Developed countries have much lower population growth than developing countries so that wouldn't be a problem. Some developed countries have negative population growth.

Oh right. So people from some countries would be sterilised and people from other countries would not be sterilised. I like you.

Synthol

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Oh right. So people from some countries would be sterilised and people from other countries would not be sterilised. I like you.

Everyone would be sterilised.

Professor Moriarty

Synthol wrote: »

Animals are the same as humans? No.
Are animals worth the same as humans? Yes and they should have rights to live.

Are an earthworm and and a human being of equal value? What rights should the earthworm be given?

Professor Moriarty

Synthol wrote: »

Everyone would be sterilised.

Everybody? So the human race dies out?

Synthol

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Are an earthworm and and a human being of equal value? What rights should the earthworm be given?

Reasonable rights to life.

DontThankMe

Synthol wrote: »

Everyone would be sterilised.

Who would pay for or fund these mass sterilisations?