Pregnant Sheep Skinned Alive, hung on barbed wired

_Brian wrote: »

Vegans/veggies think we can turn the whole world into a veg patch and feed us like our ancestors did.
News flash, they used the manure from their farmed animals to grow the veg

That's actually a fair point. What would we fertilise the crops with without animal manure? We'd have to use chemical fertilisers in much greater amounts.

Aside from the ethics and issues of global warming etc...I am not convinced that meat is a good food source at all.
My personal experience of it is that it sits heavy in the stomach and leaves me feeling lethargic for hours after consuming...the impression I get is that it takes nearly as much energy to digest it as you gain from it.

While I am not technically vegetarian I have found that avoiding meat whenever possible leaves me feeling much healthier and fitter.
The only time I ever end up eating meat is if I am a guest somewhere and its part of the meal..or sometimes on airline flights when I have forgotten to tick the vegetarian meal box when booking.
But basically I would be happy never to see it...and I don't have any problem with weight, health or lack of energy as a result.
Its about 20 years ago since I was last in a Doctors surgery.

Ok folks, it's taken me a while to finally have time to address the above. I'm going to do my best to get through them below, but I won't be engaging any further once I'm through with the below because, well as you can see from the post and thread history, it was just non stop and once I finished writing one post, I'd see there's been more posts made in the time it took me to write a reply, and frankly, I've better, more productive and more impactful things to be doing with my time

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

You do, of course, realise that Somatic Cells, or to use your vernacular, pus, is a normal mammalian function in the defence against infection. They are present in all mammalian milk in small quantities, even in human breast milk.

So, again using your vernacular, consumed human pus cells when you were a child any and descendents of yours will be consuming them as a matter of course.

The interesting thing is there are strict limits to the acceptable levels of Somatic Cells in cows milk but none at all for human milk. So technically, human milk can be fed with higher levels of 'pus' than cows milk.

Yes, but why have strict limits on levels for humans consuming calf milk so at all? Either way, taking milk from an infected cow isn't my idea of a healthy practice, on top of all the studies on the affects of animal proteins and fats.

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

Primarily vegan or, as society would term it, omnivorous.

But far far away from what a typical omnivorous diet is considered in society. Their animal product consumption was absolutely minimal.

gozunda wrote: »

It remains a bunch of extemist vegan hoodlums broke into some farms - produced some highly edited footage and then 'claimed' it showed poor animal welfare issues in the UK.

The RSPCA and others called bull****e on that and rightly so.

If you know as much as you claim to know about farming you would know exactly how the use of antibiotics are heavily restricted and the use of hormones have been banned for years.

Not being personal - but the problem with every other silly vegan propagandist who appears on Boards sprouting drivel is that they get their 'information' from other vegan propagandists- mainly from the US and Australia.

Of course feel free to spout away all you like - even hijack other threads - but just dont expect that type of rubbish not to be held up to scrutiny by other posters

I don't see the RSPCA calling bull**** on it anywhere, just because nobody came forward to say they did what the legal system considers a crime, for obvious reasons, doesn't mean it isn't real footage. I mean, it's either real footage, or not real footage and somewhere along the line in the consumption of animal products, your dollar, or part thereof is contributing to it.

_Brian wrote: »

Vegans/veggies think we can turn the whole world into a veg patch and feed us like our ancestors did.
News flash, they used the manure from their farmed animals to grow the veg, they also milked the cows and slaughtered them for their meat, it was a holistic system where
Everything had it’s place and purpose.

It’s interesting that the handful of vegans I know work in multinationals and sit in Coffey chain stores sharing their knowledge of how their way of life is so much better for everyone. Not one grows so much as a head of lettuce. It’s an ideology, like a religion of sorts, it’s not an actual real way of a population living and thriving. There’s no evidence of a large population of people surviving successfully by living a vegan lifestyle.
Traditional farming is proven and will meet the demands of an ever increasing population. It will develop to do this on a sustainable way that more complements the environment, animal husbandry is improving all the time and will continue to do so.

More cruelty is served onto pets that farm animals, and I know many vegetarians and vegans who keep pets.

More cruelty is served onto pets than farm animals? Where did you get that from? Just ask yourself, is killing something that doesn't want to die cruel, then ask yourself how many animals are killed on farms?

Why should a human decide what an animals place and purpose is? It may have been a need for our ancestors, but it's not a need for us. Just because humans did something throughout history, doesn't mean it's morally right.

If you're talking about a holistic system, then you have to take everything into consideration. Health, environment and other lives.

To say traditional farming is proven and will meet the demands of an increasing population isn't really correct. The methods to meet these demands are anything but traditional now and meeting demands may be one thing, but doing so in a sustainable way (for the planet) is another.

Here's some info on entirely veganic farming: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWDznkdUjb0

And for large population on a vegan lifestyle, here you go: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbpyCC0g2yg (they just happen to be probably the longest living population studied too)

kylith wrote: »

Protein. Omega 3. B12. Vitamin D.

Can you give me some examples of plants which one can cultivate oneself which can give those nutrients?

There's also iron. Yes, it's also available in leafy green veg, but the type found in meats is more easily absorbed.


Thanks for that. I shall have to research further.




As they have eaten more animal products. They have always eaten fish and pork.

Protein is made by plants, all plants.
Omega 3 is also available in most plants (purslane, flax seeds, walnuts)
B12 I think is already answered - bacteria make it, can be found in seaweed and the likes too
D - get outside, plus mushrooms etc.

Iron - easier absorbed and more oxidative. Non heme iron is superior in that sense. More is not better: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQVc8Tpg3T8

I'm not sure what the point of the initial question was anyway, I mean were in a global world now and again, it's about needs vs wants.

RE Okinawan's, they had eaten animal products at the time of being one of the longest living populations, but now that their animal product intake has increased, their mortality rates have dropped too. The Adventist vegan population then goes on to have better results than even the Okinawan's.

wexie wrote: »

That's not what you said though is it? You equated ownership with abuse?




So you'd be happy to just wipe the enormous amount of animals, dogs, cats, rabbits etc. etc. that people keeps as pets off the face of the planet?

The concept of owning another life I don't believe is a moral concept. There's a big difference between "owning" to exploit a life, and being a carer of a life for the best interest of that life.

I'd be happy to see all lives cared for that need caring until their last days and not exploited and then those who can be re adapted to the wild, be re adapted.

gozunda wrote: »

Because it is "Propaganda" Cormie - pushed by vegans. There is NO other word for it. Yes I've pointed out loads of the vegan propaganda posted and so have other posters. You want me to do even more? Really?

Let me suggest you go and spend some time on a real farm and oh and find out about things like antibiotics etc and not just watching some rubbish extremist videos pushing veganism like "Land of Hope and ****e" or whatever

Man, the more you say propaganda, the more you sound like a conspiracy theorist. Honestly, it's usually the one who goes against the norm (in this case, the vegan) who may come across as the conspiracy theorist, but your manner of completely refuting any and all evidence just makes you seem super stubborn and closed off to any actual science and fact.

kylith wrote: »

That's actually a fair point. What would we fertilise the crops with without animal manure? We'd have to use chemical fertilisers in much greater amounts.

Look at the video linked to above on veganic farming: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWDznkdUjb0

Lady Haywire wrote: »

You really don't know much about farming for someone who spouts a lot about it. If the SCC (pus count to you) goes over a certain limit, then it will be investigated & treated as such. A cow with high SCC isn't going to be allowed to continue giving milk for humans, mainly as she's at high risk of mastitis, not that it has any affect on taste, colour or nutrition in the milk. She either be culled humanely or used as a feeder to suckle calves.

If a vegans aim is to cause the least amount of harm possible, then surely they can see even humans existing at all causes harm. So why do vegans exist then, surely their beliefs would mean that they'd have died out long ago as procreating themselves would bring more humans into the world & cause more issues down the line.

I've never had a dog, nor would allow it to have puppies as there's enough in shelters to do us. And anyway, how would we feed all those dogs if there were no farmed animals to provide food for them?

Grass is the predominant feed used here, sure i'll accept that some is imported but as soya is usually the leftovers that humans can't digest, it's better to use it than do nothing with it. I'd certainly take importing that than using a measly % of a soy bean to make a fake burger, fly it halfway around the world & sell it as the ethical option.

How do you humanely cull an animal that doesn't want to die? Can you answer that? Once the cow (the product to you) is spent, or infected to a point where it's not financially viable to treat, they are killed. So it's exploit their bodies to the point of exhaustion over 4/5 years, then kill them, while in the interim, forcefully impregnating them against their will (rape if the same act was committed to a human), then taking their babies away... Seriously, I get it, it's probably the most efficient system and there's probably a lot more cruel ways about it that would be considered a necessary evil if we actually needed their food for our health, so a need vs need situation, but that's far away from the reality, to the extend where animal proteins and fats are detrimental to human health. I really don't need to know the intrinsic details of farming to know that it's morally wrong, in a want vs need situation to put another life through what they go through and to view them as nothing more than a commodity. I do feel for your situation and that you may see it as a need for your own living/survival etc, but there are other options.

As a dairy farmer, this is a beautiful 15 minute documentary on a dairy farmer and it really touches on the emotional side of things: https://vimeo.com/293352305

So you think it makes more sense for a vegan to kill themselves and not pro-create, than to live and advocate for veganism and have a much wider positive impact than the tiny impact the cessation of one human life would have from a population of billions? One person can have a great knock on impact on others, so it's obviously in their best interest to create more awareness then to simply cull themselves.

Dogs can actually meet all nutritional requirements on a vegan diet, this isn't true for cats, but you know, dogs and cats are domesticated because of humans, they'd just be like any other wild animal if it weren't for humans. Some dogs and most cats still hunt, kill and eat when they are outside.

The vast majority of soy and corn production is for animal feed, it's not for humans and then the leftovers go to animals. Also, you're speaking as if soy is a requirement on a vegan diet. It's not.

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

Tbh, that's the greateat fiction in the vegan belief system. Every time the land is ploughed, it releases more nitrogen and sulphur from the breakdown of soil organic matter due to the exposure of these organic compounds to oxygen. This gives crops a fertiliser boost equivalent to more than a common 50kg bag of fertiliser compound.

Now, vegan crops are predominantly grown in monocultures on the same soil year after year after year and needing increasing quantities of inorganic fertilisers to maintain the same yields. This is because the decreasing quantities of organic matter in the soil cannot release the same quantities of organic nutrients.

After a very short time, a few years in shallower mineral soils, longer in deeper soils, that organic matter reaches a point where the soil starts to collapse in on itself because there is little food left for soil microorganisms and earthworms.

That soil is quite simply worn out and will grow little for years, decades even, until the organic matter levels return to a good enough level for the microorganisms to recover.

And the best crop to return organic matter levels to a sustainable level?
The humble graminae species, or as it's better known.....grass.

I already linked this video twice above, but there's some very very successful vegan farms and systems in place:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWDznkdUjb0

gozunda wrote: »

Sorry my bad ...



I had meant to reply to that one my apologies ...
So you ask whether the dietetic associations recommendations are propaganda too?

You posted two - one from the UK and the other from the US.

Well guess what? The US recommendation does indeed appear to have many of the hallmarks of more vegan 'propaganda'

On investigation it is evident that that both authors of that paper are vegan (one is also a seventh day adventist). In addition it comes as little surprise that many of the reviewers of said paper are also vegan / vegetarian!

Here's the nub of the issue with that as explained by someone else ...



See: http://letthemeatmeat.com/post/26647492370/final-thoughts-on-the-american-dietetic

I'm short for time - but I will come back to the other recommendation at another point.

Bye ....

Ok, well here's some more:

**[Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27886704/)**

* *It is the position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics that appropriately planned vegetarian, including vegan, diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits for the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. These diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, adolescence, older adulthood, and for athletes.*

**[Dietitians of Canada](https://www.dietitians.ca/Downloads/Factsheets/Guidlines-for-Vegans.aspx)**

* *A healthy vegan diet can meet all your nutrient needs at any stage of life including when you are pregnant, breastfeeding or for older adults.*

**[The British National Health Service](http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Vegetarianhealth/Pages/Vegandiets.aspx)**

* *With good planning and an understanding of what makes up a healthy, balanced vegan diet, you can get all the nutrients your body needs.*

**[The British Nutrition Foundation](http://www.nutrition.org.uk/publications/briefingpapers/vegetarian-nutrition)**

* *A well-planned, balanced vegetarian or vegan diet can be nutritionally adequate ... Studies of UK vegetarian and vegan children have revealed that their growth and development are within the normal range.*

**[The Dietitians Association of Australia](https://daa.asn.au/smart-eating-for-you/smart-eating-fast-facts/healthy-eating/vegan-diets-facts-tips-and-considerations/)**

* *Vegan diets are a type of vegetarian diet, where only plant-based foods are eaten. With good planning, those following a vegan diet can cover all their nutrient bases, but there are some extra things to consider.*

**[The United States Department of Agriculture](http://www.choosemyplate.gov/tips-vegetarians)**

* *Vegetarian diets (*see context*) can meet all the recommendations for nutrients. The key is to consume a variety of foods and the right amount of foods to meet your calorie needs. Follow the food group recommendations for your age, sex, and activity level to get the right amount of food and the variety of foods needed for nutrient adequacy. Nutrients that vegetarians may need to focus on include protein, iron, calcium, zinc, and vitamin B12.*

**[The National Health and Medical Research Council](https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/file/publications/n55_australian_dietary_guidelines1.pdf)**

* *Appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthy and nutritionally adequate. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the lifecycle. Those following a strict vegetarian or vegan diet can meet nutrient requirements as long as energy needs are met and an appropriate variety of plant foods are eaten throughout the day*

**[The Mayo Clinic](http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-living/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/in-depth/vegetarian-diet/art-20046446)**

* *A well-planned vegetarian diet (*see context*) can meet the needs of people of all ages, including children, teenagers, and pregnant or breast-feeding women. The key is to be aware of your nutritional needs so that you plan a diet that meets them.*

**[The Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada](https://www.heartandstroke.ca/get-healthy/healthy-eating/specific-diets/for-vegetarians)**

* *Vegetarian diets (*see context*) can provide all the nutrients you need at any age, as well as some additional health benefits.*

**[Harvard Medical School](http://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/becoming-a-vegetarian)**

* *Traditionally, research into vegetarianism focused mainly on potential nutritional deficiencies, but in recent years, the pendulum has swung the other way, and studies are confirming the health benefits of meat-free eating. Nowadays, plant-based eating is recognized as not only nutritionally sufficient but also as a way to reduce the risk for many chronic illnesses.*

**[British Dietetic Association](https://www.bda.uk.com/foodfacts/vegetarianfoodfacts.pdf)**

* *Well planned vegetarian diets (*see context*) can be nutritious and healthy. They are associated with lower risks of heart disease, high blood pressure, Type 2 diabetes, obesity, certain cancers and lower cholesterol levels. This could be because such diets are lower in saturated fat, contain fewer calories and more fiber and phytonutrients/phytochemicals (these can have protective properties) than non-vegetarian diets. (...) Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for all stages of life and have many benefits.*

Are you really so convinced that this is all propaganda, that you're refusing to believe these resources? There's a lot more people here trying to justify the use of animals, but you seem to be the only one refusing to believe the science on nutrition. Also, so a vegan conducted the research, you think that means it shouldn't be respected? How many of the other studies have been conducted by vegans? Does this mean I shouldn't believe any nutritional data compiled by meat eaters, even though it was most likely studies by meat eaters that lead me on the path to realising animal products weren't a need? What about when omnivores do studies on the advantages of plant foods?

Also, go to any chronometer type website, where nutritional levels of almost every food on the planet is listed, you can easily meet all recommended daily intakes using nothing but plant foods.

In order for veganism to be the propaganda and conspiracy you're making it out to be, it would require pretty much every nutritional and dietetic and scientific association on the planet to be in on the conspiracy. I mean it would take many times more people to be in on it, than the amount it would take to be in on the World being round if you don't believe that too?

If you can accept simple nutritional facts and science, the same way you should accept the world is round... then ask yourself, if your nutritional requirements can be met without bringing harm to another life, then is it wrong for you to bring harm to anther life, just for taste/texture/convenience/culture/tradition?

That's really all it's about.

As humans, we all have a need, a need to survive and be healthy. If that need can be met by causing the least amount of harm, then is it wrong to cause more harm than necessary, just to fulfil wants. You've failed to answer that simple question of moral principle and have just dismissed it as "No cormie I do not agere with that sound bite philosophy. More vegan bs nonsensencial wordisms "...

It's a very simple question and you have failed to answer it. As I said, I feel for anyone who works in this industry and has considered the morality of their actions and how they still need to make a living, often times the only way they know how. I'd advise you to watch that little vimeo documentary on the dairy farmer above too. It touches on a lot of what you may relate to.




In closing, as I won't have time to address more replies on this as it's just too time consuming and the work to reward ratio of expected outcomes for such invested time simply isn't worth it, I'll just touch on the main points again in the forms of asking your own self:

Do you acknowledge the evidenced nutritional science as documented by studies and dietetic associations?
Do you acknowledge studies showing the main causes of environmental degradation?
Do you agree that causing harm, where harm isn't necessary is wrong?
Do you agree that animal cruelty is wrong?

If you answer yes to the above, then principally, you are vegan, it's then just a case of aligning your actions to your principles. This can take time in terms of adaption, education etc, but there's plenty of resources available

Good luck and take care everyone

cormie wrote: »

Ok folks, it's taken me a while to finally have time to address the above. I'm going to do my best to get through them below, but I won't be engaging any further once I'm through with the below because, well as you can see from the post and thread history, it was just non stop and once I finished writing one post, I'd see there's been more posts made in the time it took me to write a reply, and frankly, I've better, more productive and more impactful things to be doing with my time ....

So what you're saying (reading the rest of the post which I havn't included to avoid repetition) is that everyone else is wrong and you are correct because it took couple of weeks to find some even more dubious references and restated personal opinion?

It remains your original post on this thread was inaccurate, used misinformation and contained heavily biased / dubious vegan sources.

The definition of propaganda has nothing to do with 'conspiracy theories' but is defined as follows.

propaganda

information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view.

That is exactly what your first post was - biased and misleading information used to promote your views on veganism

And your subsequent comment continues more of same whilst going over the previous claims. It remains the film you linked is at best made of illegal footage of alleged locations which cannot be verified.

The first paper you misrepresented referring to a 'recommended' vegan diet was written by vegans and has been independently flagged as a biased source. As to your many subsequent sources which I'm not going to comment on fully as I havnt checked them out -
They funnily enough all seem to contain repetition of the exact same or similar words "A vegan diet can blah blah" lol. Whether or not this is pure repetition or you accept anyones recommendation - it remains all (good) diets "can" be good for you"

A vegan diet can also be made up of ****e processed foods such as fries and cola - doesn't make that diet good for you ....

You might be surpised to learn that propaganda doesn't have to be untrue - just use misleading or biased information . No it's not simply acceptable to accept "simple nutritional facts" (sic) from sources where self interest or conflicts of interests are not declared or are not clearly presented.

*And no I dont believe every bit of hookey science I read. I compare it with other data and research, look at who the authors are and who pays for the research. Then and only then I will make a reasoned decision as to the value of that information ....

As for maudlin beliefs about what you do and don't eat and conflating your own morals with issues of what others eat doesn't really help does it?

I already have you my answer to your 'questions" but cos you've asked again. Let's just clarify ...

cormie wrote:

Do you acknowledge the evidenced nutritional science as documented by studies and dietetic associations?

The ones you referenced in your first comment? And by acknowledge you mean take as gospel?
No - see above*.

cormie wrote:

Do you acknowledge studies showing the main causes of environmental degradation?

Again see above. Most studies show transport and fossil fuel use as the single biggest issue relevant to an environmental degradation. Research / studies should be evaluated with regards to conflicts of interest and come from peer reviewed sources*.

cormie wrote:

Do you agree that causing harm, where harm isn't necessary is wrong?
Do you agree that animal cruelty is wrong?

Cormie that is your most overt rouse so far lol. Let me ask you a question first.

When did you stop beating your wife / husband? Did you see what that hypothetical question does? It makes assumptions just the way your questions do...

what is your definition of harm?
What's your assumptions of 'animal cruelty'? Keeping pets? farming? eating meat? ...

Of note you appear more interested in using the story of this poor sheep as an opportunity to push a belief system than in genuinely expressing any feelings on the real topic of the thread. And yes I am definitly against animal cruelty.

KaneToad wrote: »

Maybe it was suicide?

Not a bad opinion. Certainly better than the bulloney posted in previous pages by the pro and anti vegans.

Does anyone know if the scumbags who carried out that atrocity in the OP were caught?

Kristopherus wrote: »

Not a bad opinion. Certainly better than the bulloney posted in previous pages by the pro and anti vegans.

Does anyone know if the scumbags who carried out that atrocity in the OP were caught?

Yeah pity what happened to the sheep was hijacked by those trying to use the story to sell everyone rs. You dont have to be an anti to spot it. But hey there you go.

Unlikely the ****ehawks who did this will be caught imo.