PDA

View Full Version : Vegans and eggs



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 [21] 22

cobweb
Mar 22nd, 2008, 01:18 PM
gotta say, i agree with you zan - it's just idealism to think that animals can all instantly be set free, or that they can or should be treated exactly like humans.

i would like to see an end to all animal exploitation, including the keeping of 'pets' (our fettered friends) but i don't see them as mini humans either.

if people were to treat all animals (not just the cute ones!) with respect, and all 'farm' animals were truly free ranging, it would still be wrong that they were being 'kept' against their will, and it would still be wrong that they were killed. it would, however, be an improvement on factory farming, and it might well be the first step to people really thinking about animals as sentient beings. thinking about animals this way would hopefully make people go a little further with their thoughts until they arrive at veganism.

however, i also see your point Korn in that veganism as a movement, needs to hammer home the message that it is morally unnacceptable to use/restrain/incarcerate animals for food or entertainment, or science.

cobweb
Mar 22nd, 2008, 01:20 PM
btw, i had a similar argument once with another vegan that i knew in 'real life' who accused me of being a 'welfarist'. ironically, he had been involved in the 'liberation' of many animals who then found themselves needing the care and attention of 'welfarists' like me :rolleyes:.

cobweb
Mar 22nd, 2008, 01:52 PM
i just had a thought on this - for me it's a bit like my feeling on 'pet' keeping. i am no longer happy with the notion, however, i accept that people keep pets and for that reason i would always campaign for greater 'rights' for pets, eg right to be exercised and not kept on chains, etc, even though, ultimately, i would like to see the end of captivity for all animals.

yes, we should not be afraid to have 'extreme' views but also, with respect, if you alienate the majority of the population instead of trying to find some ground to start from then you risk a totall lack of respect for the vegan movement which could be harmful for animals in the short term, if not the long term, too.

Korn
Mar 22nd, 2008, 03:04 PM
I did say right at the very beginning "truly" free range. I am not talking about keeping animals in slightly larger cages. I don't know why you have labelled me as "welfarist" because that is not where I am coming from.

I didn't label you welfarist or suggested that you talk about slightly larger cages, but I'm asking two questions: Is it realistic to assume that converting commercial farming into a model that hardly is profitable will be realized? What does your potentially different viewpoint mean in real life terms? My viewpoint is that opinions more or less have no value unless they are converted into actions, which is why I'm (still) curious about your answer...



Birds and animals have feelings, just like humans, and I don't think a life in a concentration camp, where you regularly see your mates disappear in large amounts belongs to the same sentence as 'good quality life'.

Yes they certainly have feelings, but not exactly like humans---that verges on anthropomorphism.
Not exactly like us, but (sorry, a third question) is that really relevant? They don't want to be killed for food or overproduce eggs or be milked constantly, so - do we need more about how close their feelings are to humans' feelings?

Korn
Mar 22nd, 2008, 03:16 PM
gotta say, i agree with you zan - it's just idealism to think that animals can all instantly be set free I think everyone will agree that it's totally unrealistic, but since I think of idealism as a generally good thing, I'll skip commenting if it's idealistic or not. :)


it would, however, be an improvement on factory farming, and it might well be the first step to people really thinking about animals as sentient beings.
It wouldn't be a first step, and that's where I may disagree with some of you (or not). Before animals are treated with more respect, a change of attitude, a different (human) view on animals has to exist first. Most people are lazy, and don't want to change lifestyle or viewpoints, even if they know it would make them happier and healthier. If someone is going to do anything to change how they look at animals, we should IMO promote the right thing - right from the start - the effect of what environmentalists or vegans or fair trade promoters will in most cases only be received with reduced effect anyway.

cobweb
Mar 22nd, 2008, 04:14 PM
I think everyone will agree that it's totally unrealistic, but since I think of idealism as a generally good thing, I'll skip commenting if it's idealistic or not. :)


actually i like that :) - so many people are critical of idealism, but if you haven't got any ideals then what have you got?

RedWellies
Mar 22nd, 2008, 04:17 PM
True. In my ideal world, Zippy wouldn't exist.

Haniska
Mar 22nd, 2008, 09:13 PM
Using marginally better living conditions as an excuse to keep eating animals is totally lame. And as has been said, there are no real regulations for it anyway. That's how an RSPCA "Freedom Foods affiliated chicken farm turned out as being a battery farm without wire between the chickens! As far as I'm concerned, unless the animal involved is a cute, cuddly "pet", that cannot be gained from financially, who is on death's door because of abuse, they do not have to count on the RSPCA for any sympathy, let alone action. And Compassion in World Farming to me is a contradiction in terms.

Is recycling an excuse to use plastic carrier bags rather than re-usable ones?
I understand that this example is not a life or death issue; and I realize that is the whole point of being opposed to ethical meat. Thing is I rather doubt that the thought process of "its okay because they animal is treated better" comes into play with most people. I doubt most people ever questioned whether or not it is okay to kill animals.
I would never ear meat, unless to save my own life...but for the people that I love who still eat meat.., for them I would rather they were not eating hormones and for my peace of mind I'd rather that they at least think they are eating *happy meat*.

cobweb
Mar 22nd, 2008, 09:45 PM
True. In my ideal world, Zippy wouldn't exist.


:( are you Bungle using the alias 'Red Wellies'?

littlewinker
Mar 26th, 2008, 04:25 PM
Simple: the egg/dairy industries couldn't exist without the chicken and beef ones.

Imagine if all meat were to be banned, but not milk and eggs.

There would be too many males, specially for chickens as 60% of fertilized eggs become males. They would have to be slaughtered.

My veggie mum keeps trying to tell herself that they would use artificial insemination and filter the sprem to only produce females. This wouldn't happen, it's too expensive. And fucking weird and unethical in itself in my opinion.

So many many many males would have to be slaughtered.

Even if you have a rescued happy pet chicken and eat its eggs, just think, that could not have happened without the egg/chicken industry.

Currently, if you eat eggs, remember that they are slaughtered at 16-18 months as after this age their eggs are less likely to be perfect.

nd as for dairy, remember that cows are slaughtered after they finish making milk, and are kept milking continually and have their babies taken away so humans can have the milk instead, and dairy cows are the mothers for all the meat cows, bulls and calves.

Not forgetting greenness reasons.

there are simply not enough resources in the world to feed the unnatural amount of livestock. So why hasn't anything happened then? It has - global warming. The Govenments likes to hide this for fear of scaring people off being green but the meat industry is a MAJOR cause of global warming. I'm going to find out the statistics soon but livestock is resonsible for at least 25% of greenhouse gases, I'l find out the true figures soon which are definately higher than 25%.

Manzana
Mar 27th, 2008, 10:52 AM
Not forgetting greenness reasons.

there are simply not enough resources in the world to feed the unnatural amount of livestock. So why hasn't anything happened then? It has - global warming. The Govenments likes to hide this for fear of scaring people off being green but the meat industry is a MAJOR cause of global warming. I'm going to find out the statistics soon but livestock is resonsible for at least 25% of greenhouse gases, I'l find out the true figures soon which are definately higher than 25%.

the statistics are here:

http://www.fao.org/ag/magazine/0612sp1.htm
http://www.activeg.org/articles/437.html

and you can also download the full report: livestock long shadow

Manzana
Mar 31st, 2008, 09:13 PM
:mad:Where is the post by Karmacake?!?!?!:mad:

:confused::confused::confused:

Zero
Apr 1st, 2008, 01:18 PM
It really comes down to this concept of "Happy Meat" that a lot of companies are pushing, where they have simply divised a niche for those people don't want to go vegetarian and feel ok about eating animal products as long as the animal was treated well before slaughter.

To me, it makes no difference ethically, it is still needless slaughter and as long as animals are kept and raised by us for food they are still being expolited in some way, even if this exploitation is to a lesser extent I still don't feel it is justified.

Some of the manufacturers of these "Happy Meat" products, believe they are "meeting vegans half way", I don't think they are personally, however Peta often seem to be supporting the concept, another example of where I don't agree with them.

I guess if this is the first step toward relieving animal cruelty then it's a good first step, although a very small one.

In should be noted however that the only way organic free range meat production is sustainable across the board is if mass amounts of people stop eating meat, the reason that modern agriculture is profitable is because of the horrific processes involved with factory farming because it can be done quickly.

Free range farming cannot be carried out on the same scale as factory farming is performed now, it would not be able to cope with present demand and would be unprofitable unless prices were greatly increased.

The ethical choice is clear, end human imposed animal suffering.

Korn
Apr 1st, 2008, 03:28 PM
:mad:Where is the post by Karmacake?!?!?!:mad:

:confused::confused::confused:
Hi,
two posts were recently removed from this thread; one about 'not having a problem with meat' and not supporting 'the industry' until it changes, and another one about loving eggs/dairy/yoghurt combined with statements like "I would eat very differently if I had access to my own chickens and cows".
After all - this is a forum for vegans - and vegans do 'have a problem' with meat - and vegans don't use eggs or milk from 'their own' chickens and cows...

Manzana
Apr 1st, 2008, 04:49 PM
Thanks Korn :cool:
You were too quick for me to get an angry reply in!:D

Twist Kick
Jun 17th, 2008, 04:37 AM
Eli, I'm with Eve on that one. Even if you drink 'organic' milk (which, I imagine, simply means the cow wasn't fed steroids and growth hormone, not that it lived any sort of natural life) and only eat free-range eggs (which, are in fact, doubtfully truly free-range), you're still doing one thing that most vegans refuse to do.

That is, putting cash in the pockets of people that kill animals.

As Eve pointed out, as soon as the cow stops producing enough milk, she's sent to slaughter. Likewise for chickens and eggs, free range or not.

I'm not going to touch on honey - but only because I'm currently somewhat uneducated on the subject.


As for the original topic, well, I think that my response above covers eggs..

However, even 'organic' meat is unethical, because 1) it's not a natural life, and 'organic' used in that sense basically just means it wasn't fed steroids, growth hormone, ecetera. Plus, how ethical can it truly be to have an innocent slaughtered for ten minutes of sensory pleasure? I mean, really. You can't say that a good tasting meal is worth a life. That's pure selfishness - and yet another reason I find meat-eaters that refuse to even consider changing absolutely despicable.

Meh.

Dylan Mulenburg
Jun 29th, 2008, 06:11 AM
Of course factory farmed meat is worse, however there are nearly no regulations for "free range." Let's say there are 10,000 chickens and they are given 100 square feet outside that is cleaned barely once every few months. Their meat/eggs can be considered "free range." And even if you know it is free range, the animals are still killed. Is it okay if I kill a human just because they have had a good life up until that point? No. So it's not okay to kill a cow, chicken, pig, fish, or any other animal even if they had a good life up until that point.

Edit: Add to this, free range animals, even if raised on small family farms, are generally killed at the same slaughterhouses where they are ripped apart, scaulded, shot, have their skin torn off, are electrecuted, have their heads ripped off, and much more while still alive, which sometimes kills them and sometimes doesn't (of course, ripping their heads off does--and yes, slaughterhouse workers have been seen by secret investegators ripping off the heads of live chickens and writing graffiti with their blood)

Korn
May 17th, 2010, 04:21 AM
Think going organic lets you eat meat with a clear conscience? This shocking investigation into a 'humane' slaughterhouse will make you think again (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1242503/Think-going-organic-lets-eat-meat-clear-conscience-This-shocking-investigation-humane-slaughterhouse-make-think-again.html#ixzz0o9ZLGHfT)

RhegHimself
Sep 7th, 2010, 02:58 PM
organic eggs and meat are unethical because the animals are still killed needlessly and buying them makes you complicit in that

Keane
Sep 7th, 2010, 06:12 PM
organic eggs and meat are unethical because the animals are still killed needlessly and buying them makes you complicit in that
Agreed, it is largely a 'feelgood' factor that is at work; those who eat 'organic' meat like to believe that it is 'friendly' meat as though the animals have voluntarily given up their lives for humans to eat them.

C1nxaQhsaaw

vegantraveler
Oct 2nd, 2010, 07:38 PM
Ditto response below.


It really comes down to this concept of "Happy Meat" that a lot of companies are pushing, where they have simply divised a niche for those people don't want to go vegetarian and feel ok about eating animal products as long as the animal was treated well before slaughter.

To me, it makes no difference ethically, it is still needless slaughter and as long as animals are kept and raised by us for food they are still being expolited in some way, even if this exploitation is to a lesser extent I still don't feel it is justified.

Some of the manufacturers of these "Happy Meat" products, believe they are "meeting vegans half way", I don't think they are personally, however Peta often seem to be supporting the concept, another example of where I don't agree with them.

I guess if this is the first step toward relieving animal cruelty then it's a good first step, although a very small one.

In should be noted however that the only way organic free range meat production is sustainable across the board is if mass amounts of people stop eating meat, the reason that modern agriculture is profitable is because of the horrific processes involved with factory farming because it can be done quickly.

Free range farming cannot be carried out on the same scale as factory farming is performed now, it would not be able to cope with present demand and would be unprofitable unless prices were greatly increased.

The ethical choice is clear, end human imposed animal suffering.

cobweb
Oct 3rd, 2010, 11:58 PM
^ I agree. I may have a dilema soon in that my boss is considering stocking free-range/organic meat in the shop where I work (a health food shop which has always been meat-free). I'm really not sure that I can handle it. If an animal must be kept for 'food' purposes then yes it's better the animal is reared free-range and well looked after, but the point is that we know that animals don't have to be used like this atall as there is no need for them to figure in the modern human food chain.

harpy
Nov 4th, 2010, 02:23 PM
Viva! managed to get their pictures of male chicks being disposed of into today's Independent as part of an article about poultry welfare standards. I think that's an important achievement as a lot of people don't think about this side-effect of their egg eating (which unfortunately applies to even the more "humane" forms of egg production if they are to be economically viable). A lot of people will be more shocked by it than by the stuff about stocking densities etc although that's bad enough.

Warning: upsetting material and images http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/food-and-drink/news/calls-for-boycott-of-british-chicken-2124580.html

leedsveg
Nov 4th, 2010, 11:59 PM
^^

Well said harpy.

lv

Clueless Git
Nov 8th, 2010, 01:58 PM
One reason to oppose organic/'happy'/whatever meat ...

In the muddied waters of the meat eaters mind so long as just one 'humanely' produced chicken fillet/rump steak/sausage has ever existed then every chicken fillet/rump steak/sausage that THEY ever eat is that particular chicken fillet/rump steak/sausage.

In every meat eaters mind it is always the OTHER muddy-b'stard who eats the unnaceptably produced stuff. Like the bloke at the table next to them in the local Kentucky Fried Cruelty may be eating a chook that suffered awfully but the chicken in their own bargain bucket had a wonderfull life (university education, fullfilling career, house with a pool, nice car, travelled widely .. etc) and then sacrificed itself, in a final act of gratitude, to repay humanity for our kindness to it.

Point being that, in a world full of idiots, you give ground that there is any acceptable way of producing meat and all meat THEY will ever eat could not possibly have been produced any other way.

It's kinda like for as long as the illusion is maintained that any animal has lived and died in happy-farm-heaven then NO animal will ever be acknowledged as having lived and died in hell.