EnviroLink Forum

Having a vegan diet means trying to minimise suffering. Vegetariansim does't come as close to the minimising of suffering. Milk was meant for the calf, we are the only mature species thet drink milk apart from cats.

There is scientific proof that a bereavement occurs between the mother cow and calf when they are separated then the frightened calf is put in a crate and fed a milk substitute.

In the egg laying industry the male chicks are either gassed or fed live into a mincing machine.

Of course there is cruelty in arable farming but that is not intentional.

Sure they wouldn't exist but that which never existed could never have suffered.

Indeed it would be sad to see green fields void of sheep and cattle but if that meant no intensive farming and no slaughterhouses that would be fine by me.

I can jump over the fence and see where you are coming from but I have a different belief rightly or wrongly.

Whats your thoughts on intensive farming?

One other thing. You made no reference when I mentioned the frightened calf. Do I conclude you accept this as part of mans ill-gotten gains?

I 'm not talking about a highly trained fireman I'm talking about the basic sexual drive. Thinking with the wrong head comes to mind. So many abortions don't you think? and that is humans

The penquin doesn't think 'hey I really fancy you but I must refrain from any sexual urge cos the chicks will be freezing in this climate'. And yes they do suffer.

death is death in the objective sense whether its accompanied by subjectivity that is endowed upon the deceased by a living sentient or not. although dying is real to the victim.

And I ain't talking about the small farm that is full of compassion which many are but the industrial side of the market.

Animals are often easily frightened by many things, especially younger animals.

My sister is a vegan, and forced it on her kids. A nutrient only found in meat or excessive amounts of cheese prevents ADHD in boys, from Mother Earth News a few years back. Her son got ADHD.
She said she would not eat anything that had eyes. I said, how about potatoes??
If it has eyes, eat 'em!!!

That is not answering the question.

Vegetarianism goes a long way ... and Veganism goes further.

Anyways, what is wrong with my picture? The does (NOT NANNIES!!) walk around in the fields, eat browse and grass and get a grain supplement when they come up to be milked.
Contrast this, of course, with a cow CAFO that injects their animals with all manner of unhealthy drugs, and keeps them confined and milks them, I can see your concern and where you are coming from.

it is not only the health of humans that one is concerned with, but also the well being and ualty of life of the farm animal. Some constitutions need to eat meat .... sometimes.



That is veal extremism. Nowadays, veal simply means "young calf meat" and has been shown to be extremely good for people, particularly the ill. And because it is a calf, it will not have been put in a CAFO. It may have been dry lotted, however, but that is not a concern provided the drylot is large enough.

?????? Young calfs are called veal in the US and are an economic resource. That is the bottom line really, or at least one of them. It's a strange practice when you look at it full on, when you see it for what it is, simply.



I wouldn't doubt that. That is awful, and wasteful. Of course the male egg-layers are perfectly useless, anyways. Contrast this with my operation where the chickens free range and eat bugs 80% of the time.

What do you do with the male chicks? Especially since the males are useless? "The male egg-layers are pefectly useless". Of course they are and yet they are still animals. Or are they?



In that case, killing the chicks is humane, right? That way it can't exist to be harmed. Animals were put here to provide us with sustainance. There is no getting around that,

It is necessary to kill animals for food sometimes, but expecting animal protein as THE source of protein is simply wrong as there is so much protein around and the eating of animals as a source of protein is a cultural belief, habit, and tradition.



Why do the two have to exist together for either to survive? The answer is they don't. If you buy pasture-based meats, you are helping the environment, farmers, and knocking a blow on the CAFO practices. Also, I believe your comments about "intensive farming" are misdirected. Pastures can be intensively managed as well.

Small farms are inherently more humane for the animals bred upon them. CAFO operations are in existance, now. They are here because the population believes they are necesary. They ARE necessary if one wants and expects meat at every turn. As if the main and only source of protein is from animals. This simply is not true. We have CAFO's because of a false belief. This false belief is fed by the industry itself.

Another thing is animal welfare vs. animal rights. I'm all for animal welfare, but not rights. They have none. Instead, humans are obligated to be good stewards and make decisions that benefit the farmer. Do you know any local farmers? You should buy food from them.

Mans ill-gotten gains as far as milk is concerned are directly connected to the scaring and suffering of the calf.

Nature intended milk for the young, not for some pussy to put in his tea.

We can be good sovereigns or bad ones.

This is not the act of a good sovereign.

If God made man in his image then we should treat animals the same way we would expect a good God to treat us.

Not necessarily, as you can get milk without scaring the calf and the calf may be scared without human influences.



Nature intended? Did Nature speak directly to you on the subject? It would seem that if nature did not intend for humans to drink milk we would not be able to digest it. Just as it is not natural for humans to digest cellulose, we can infer no such unnatural aspect to consumption of milk given the number of other creatures which will consume it given the chance. Humans use their nature skills to allow them to obatin milk for their consumption, thus that must be classified as natural.



Or we may be indfferent soverigns which are neither good nor bad.



That would be one opinion on the subject.



And if there was no God creation of man, this would be void? The logic is flawed even if one could produce evidence to support divine creation of humanity, as such a creation does not require treatment of animals in any certain manner.

can you briefly explain that what is vegan...how we can kill lifeforms????