Pregnant Sheep Skinned Alive, hung on barbed wired

gozunda wrote: »

So said every other vegan preacher ever. :rolleyes: Ffs I've read the same drivel so many times on Boards and elsewhere it's ridiculous. Stop watcing the stupid propaganda videos and trust me you'll find you feel a lot better. This is a story about a sheep and not some daft personal belief system. Thanks....

Huh? First you say why do all vegans say that they were big meat eaters before going vegan, then when I tell you I was never really a big meat eater, you say "so said every other vegan preacher ever"

What drivel are you referring to and what exactly are you calling propaganda?

What exactly do you disagree with?

Do you disagree with the American and British dietetic associations?

If you don't disagree with them, then it's only logical that you agree that causing harm to these animals is unnecessary if we don't need them for health/survival or any of our needs, not wants.

If you then agree that causing harm, where harm is known to be unnecessary, is wrong, then anyone who knowingly contributes to the suffering of others, when they know it's not a necessity, can be said to be acting against their moral principles.

So rather than just spouting words like propaganda and drivel, can you put forward a logical argument how the above is flawed?

Sheep Skinned Alive....

...part of a satanic ritual ??

i wouldn't mind too much once the hair was cut and the ears weren't

cormie wrote: »

I noticed the shearer had only one arm straight away yeah, if that's what you're referring to, that doesn't excuse his rough handling of the sheep. As I asked, would you be happy if your child was handled like that while getting a haircut?

Is your child entirely covered in thick wool? Is your child capable of understanding instructions? You do understand that there are differences between humans and sheep, yes?

This is a regular event for sheep. They are used to it, and in summer I can only imagine that shearing is a blessed relief for them. Have you seen what happens sheep if you don't shear them? You think that being unable to move and dying of heatstroke is a better option?

cormie wrote: »

The ideal scenario is all animal exploitation ceases , then all the animals go to a sanctuary to live out their lives as comfortably as possible.

Which is never going to happen, the costs would be astronomical. You're right that from a vegan point of view a gradual phasing out will be the best that can be hoped for. However, that will still mean many animals in dairy or meat industries that are superfluous and will wind up being slaughtered and, due to lack of demand, what do we do with the carcasses? And then there's the loss of biodiversity: no sheep on the mountains, no cattle in the midlands, instead pesticide-laden monocultures of grain, or vast tracts of unproductive land that's unsuitable for anything but livestock.

What's even more annoying than vegan preachers are vegan bashers who spout the usual sh1te that they looooove meat and proceed to make the same old anti-vegan jokes. :rolleyes:

archer22 wrote: »

Can't understand why some people get so upset about Vegans and Vegetarians expressing their views...Jasus lighten up guys!.
It's not like they are going to grab the greasy auld burger out your pudgy mitts and throw it on the floor.
Anyhow their diet is a perfectly viable alternative for people who only wish to eat to live as nature intended....however I can see how gluttons who live to eat might have problems with it.

I get annoyed because they are spreading lies about what farmers do. I've said it before & I'll say it again, they could go around eating trees for all I care, but it's when i get called heartless/murderer/accessory to cattle rape that I draw the line.
I'd much prefer to see an animal brought up locally, eating feed that we can't (substandard grain, grass, etc) and getting killed in an efficient, humane fashion and providing food for many people, than eating soya cr@p/imported foodstuffs with how many air miles behind it.

There has never been a tribe in history which lived as a vegan society. So I wouldn't say as nature intended.

kylith wrote: »

Is your child entirely covered in thick wool? Is your child capable of understanding instructions? You do understand that there are differences between humans and sheep, yes?

This is a regular event for sheep. They are used to it, and in summer I can only imagine that shearing is a blessed relief for them. Have you seen what happens sheep if you don't shear them? You think that being unable to move and dying of heatstroke is a better option?



Which is never going to happen, the costs would be astronomical. You're right that from a vegan point of view a gradual phasing out will be the best that can be hoped for. However, that will still mean many animals in dairy or meat industries that are superfluous and will wind up being slaughtered and, due to lack of demand, what do we do with the carcasses? And then there's the loss of biodiversity: no sheep on the mountains, no cattle in the midlands, instead pesticide-laden monocultures of grain, or vast tracts of unproductive land that's unsuitable for anything but livestock.

There's of course a difference between humans and sheep, but which part of that difference makes it ok to mistreat one and not the other? So instead of a child, what about a mentally challenged human getting their hair cut, how would the internet react to a video of a disabled human flailing while getting their hair cut, only to have a knee shove them back in their seat? There'd surely be outrage.

The issue shouldn't be how best to shear a sheep, but how to make the life of these animals who have been selectively bred by humans, for humans, live out their lives in as peaceful and comfortable circumstances as possible.

It's not just sheep. Hens naturally lay maybe 12-15 eggs a year, selective breeding puts their bodies under tremendous hardship (imagine a human female on her period all day, every day, for her whole adult life). Even dogs have been bred resulting in bone, breathinga nd other issues.


There's more animals on the planet now for human consumption, then there ever has been, each one of them will be slaughtered. Yes, the world is never gonna go vegan overnight. As demand decreases, the need to breed more animals decreases too. The alternative to what you're suggesting is to just keep going as we are, which results in a cycle of animals being continually bred and slaughtered. There's plenty that can be done to maintain biodiversity and there will surely be continuous innovations to improve on methods too, especially if more land were to become available.

archer22 wrote: »

Can't understand why some people get so upset about Vegans and Vegetarians expressing their views...Jasus lighten up guys!.
It's not like they are going to grab the greasy auld burger out your pudgy mitts and throw it on the floor.

Anyhow their diet is a perfectly viable alternative for people who only wish to eat to live as nature intended....however I can see how gluttons who live to eat might have problems with it.

Plenty of vegan gluttons out there who don't give a **** about their health and plenty of satiating, satisfying, tasty foods out there for them

archer22 wrote: »

No I am not...because if we were we would be able to run like the wind and be happy to eat meat raw.

We don't run like the wind because we are persistence predators; we run prey down. Very few animals have the stamina to run and run like humans do, especially in heat (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistence_hunting#Current_hunter-gatherers), we then developed tools to allow us to kill animals without having to run them down, and then developed farming so that we could do it with as little hassle as possible.

Being able to get enough calories from a totally animal-free diet is a very new phenomenon, and still involves using supplements in order to get all necessary nutrients.

archer22 wrote: »

Well I have never seen anybody eat raw meat and I am sure if you put it on a plate in front of most people they would turn green around the gills either before eating it or after.

Just because there are a few that eat it doesn't make it the rule.

Lets put it this way, there are no Tigers who would get repulsed at the sight of raw meat.

I'm not sure I'd count most of Italy, France, Japan, Inuit peoples, large parts of Germany, and every Irish person who has ever tucked into a nice piece of smoked salmon, to name but a few as 'a few that eat it'. Turning green around the gills over the idea of raw meat is cultural more than anything else.

Cooking anything came about because it makes the calories and nutrients easier to digest. In order to get enough calories from a raw vegetable diet you would need to do nothing but eat for about 12 hours a day. If we hadn't taken to eating meat we would never had had the energy to evolve to the level we are now.

You want to talk green around the gills, try eating a raw potato.

cormie wrote: »

There's of course a difference between humans and sheep, but which part of that difference makes it ok to mistreat one and not the other? So instead of a child, what about a mentally challenged human getting their hair cut, how would the internet react to a video of a disabled human flailing while getting their hair cut, only to have a knee shove them back in their seat? There'd surely be outrage.

I saw no 'flailing about', I saw flopping as the animal was moved from one position to the other, and that would have been minimised if the shearer had two arms. Hurting or mistreating the animals is not in a shearer's interest: a sheep that fears shearing is going to be panicky and hard to control, which means that shearing will take longer and decrease productivity. Seriously, have a look at shearing videos: once the sheep is sitting then it is calm, it knows the drill. Not a drop of blood is spilled because, funnily enough, fleeces covered in blood are harder to sell.

cormie wrote: »

The issue shouldn't be how best to shear a sheep, but how to make the life of these animals who have been selectively bred by humans, for humans, live out their lives in as peaceful and comfortable circumstances as possible.

I agree. And I think that that can be achieved within the framework of an omnivorous diet.

As I said, a vegan diet is not a locally sustainable one. A vegetarian or omnivorous diet which focuses on a lower intake of meat than a lot of people currently go for is a much more environmentally friendly one.

kylith wrote: »

The issue I have is that there's so much vegan propaganda and outright nonsense being pedalled as fact, and I say this as someone whose partner is a non-dairy vegetarian.

Just the other day I had a friend try convince me that farmers were cutting holes in cows' stomachs so that feed could be pumped directly in. A short google showed that it's actually a veterinary thing for cattle who can't digest their food properly. But because this person got their info from PETA (who kill >95% of animals in their 'shelters') the information was very wrong.

Many of the issues are also specifically American, not to say that they are acceptable but deriding the Irish dairy, meat and egg industries over problems in a foreign country is unfair.

Like I said, the nut-milk industry uses huge volumes of water, Peruvians have been priced out of the market for Quinoa leading to, ironically, increased meat consumption by them. Basically, in Ireland at least, it is perfectly possible to have a good, balanced omnivorous or vegetarian diet which is locally sourced and sustainable, but is unfortunately impossible with a vegan diet.

The hole in the stomach thing is nearly entirely in America because they are feed corn