I'm not disagreeing with you that there are farms where the animals are treated well in comparison. But the majority of food does not come from these farms. Like you said these are usually small scale operations like your aunt. We're talking 50-60 billion animals a year. Millions of animals per hour in the US alone. They simply need to kill them as young as possible to even meet the demand, through industrialized means. They call it factory farming for a reason.
And no factory farmers don't care about the well-being of animals. Any minor growth benefits of happy animals are easily outweighed by a few hormone injections. It's cheaper and faster. If they cared: They wouldn't rip piglets balls off with their bare hands to neuter them. They wouldn't keep "cage less" chickens in the dark to save on electricity. They wouldn't hold a chickens head to a sander or iron to de-beak them. They wouldn't grind up baby male chickens in a blender alive. They wouldn't cut off pigs tales without anesthetic. So on and So on. Your food might comes from some nice farm like your aunts, but for most of people it does not.

You're right that eating animals that died of old age is probably the only truly ethical way you could eat them. Though they'd have to have reproduced naturally too.

I'm not a fan of the eat less concept because of the morality aspect. It might work for some people, and it's probably not a bad short term stepping stone to get to people thinking about the consequences. But it just doesn't add up to me ethically: I wouldn't go from kicking a dog 10 times a week to just 3 times a week, because it means I'm kicking 7 less dogs. It's still a terrible thing to do, so why even be part of that cycle.

Because most people are raised as meat eaters, I think their perspective is completely wrong, as was mine. When they talk to vegans they always give reasons to not give up animal products. But to me the question really is: What is the reason TO eat any animal products at all?


Health wise it's a no-brainer there are a ton of good books about nutrition, like "How Not To Die" by Dr. Michael Greger, or any book by Dr. Neal Barnard, Dr. Cadwell Esselstyn, or Dr. John McDougall. ( all their work is based on thousands of peer reviewed and published research papers ).

Animal compassion wise it's a no-brainer. Animals want to live and be happy period. Everything else is just an excuse to keep exploiting them.

With documentaries like Cowspiracy and Earthlings coming out, it's people are becoming aware that we're all on one planet and if people went vegan overnight, that's 1/2 of the global warming gone. That's 1 football field a second of rainforest (and all of the animals and unique species ) being destroyed. That's the fish not going extinct in the next 10 years. That's GMO's not killing the pollinating bees and earthworms (which are necessary part of the ecosystem, we'll die without them).

So what reason is really left to eat any animal products?

Taste. People don't want to become vegan because they think they are giving up something and it's not true. It's more like trading a bad habit for something truly great. And it's free. And it has the potential to change the world.

I'm yet to hear a good reason to eat any animal product.(from anyone I mean)

Are farm animals purchased (or bred) with the intention of making money. Yes. Does that mean their well being and happiness is not a concern? Absolutely not. Even factory farmers would admit that happier, healthier animals are more productive (grow faster) and are better quality. It does take more money and effort to farm that way, and is not scalable, so corporate farms go for the quicker dollar at the expense of the animal, usually. That doesn't mean all farms operate that way, with profit being the first and only concern.
And no, it's not 100% certain farmed animals will die young or be abused. For instance, when we raised cattle, we allowed the herd to roam and breed naturally, took good care of them, and many died of old age before we sold off the herd. My aunt still raises her own beef with I think <10 cows, and they often die of old age because she can't eat all she raises, they live happy lives. In factory farms, you're likely correct.
My point is, if you really want to make a difference in reducing animal suffering, I think you would have more success trying to convince people to buy free range, non hormone meats from good smaller local farms with good reputations for proper animal treatment over attempting to convince them to give up meat completely. It's a matter of how much people are willing to change, and getting the best outcome possible for the animals, right? I think convincing meat eaters to go vegan is a non starter 99% of the time at best.

And to answer the above morality question, would it be immoral for you to do that to my dog? Yes. Would it be immoral for ME to do it to my dog? I guess that depends on many things, like if he's used completely as part of the early termination (eaten, worn, etc.), is he euthanized painlessly and without fear, etc. ...but I liked Logan's Run, so I'm probably the wrong person to ask those kinds of morality questions. ;-)

What's the difference between a pet pig and a livestock pig though?
They both want blankets and cookies. Or at the very least neither of them wants to stand in a tiny metal and concrete cage and be pumped full of antibiotics, hormones and god knows what else for their short miserable lives. Neither of them want to be bruised because they have only enough room to face one direction their entire lives. Neither of them want their testicles ripped out without anesthetic while they are piglets. Neither of them want to be beaten when they don't eat.

Also, despite what the marketing people say, humans are not omnivores, everything healthwise and physiologically suggests we are somewhere between herbivores and frugivores. It's also backed up historically too by analyzing fossilized poop!

Here is a quite simplified chart, but I think it does a pretty good point of showing how far away we are from typical mammalian omnivores http://www.whale.to/c/10013268_676368449097110_1949968139_n.jpg

I'm not having a go at you, but I just hope you aren't acting according to a few labels that some organisation has set.

A foetus is a living entity. You'll be going down a fairly preposterous set of arguments that go against all of our understanding of life if you try to maintain that it isn't a living entity. It is in many ways a parasite that has latched onto the mother's body and is trying to suck nutrients from it long enough to be able to be born. The foetus releases hormones to fight against the mother's immune system to prevent the mother's body from rejecting this invasion by such a vastly different genetic entity. At least, that's one way to look at it. There are many others that are correct. None of those suggest that the foetus isn't a living entity.

It is somewhat true that the foetus is part of the mother's body. Her body certainly envelopes the foetus' and the foetus couldn't live without it.

To say that it's her choice whether to terminate is clearly not true. The state has permitted women to make that decision in some places around the world, in some periods of time. It certainly isn't an inalienable right as you seem to be suggesting. It's a fight that women have had and continue to have in order to be able to express control over the bodies and lives. A simple expression of what you think should be the law isn't an argument for why the law should be that way.

Unfortunately...

http://www.joslin.org/info/correcting_internet_myths_about_aspartame.html

The whole "sweet taste tricks your body in to releasing insulin" is complete bunk. A simple glucose tolerance test would show if pancreatic hormone secretion was elevated due to aspartame ingestion...

Oh look!

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3522147

A nutritive sweetener, aspartame (L-aspartyl-L-phenylalanine methylester) was administered orally to normal controls and diabetic patients in order to evaluate effects on blood glucose, lipids and pancreatic hormone secretion. An oral glucose tolerance test was also performed in the same subjects as a control study of aspartame administration. In 7 normal controls and 22 untreated diabetics, a single dose of 500 mg aspartame, equivalent to 100 g glucose in sweetness, induced no increase in blood glucose concentration. Rather, a small but significant decrease in blood glucose was noticed 2 or 3 h after administration. The decrease in blood glucose was found to be smallest in the control and became greater as the diabetes increased in severity. No significant change in blood insulin or glucagon concentration during a 3-h period was observed in either the controls or the diabetics. The second study was designed to determine the effects of 2 weeks' continuous administration of 125 mg aspartame, equal in sweetness to the mean daily consumption of sugar (20-30 g) in Japan, to 9 hospitalized diabetics with steady-state glycemic control. The glucose tolerance showed no significant change after 2 weeks' administration. Fasting, 1 h and 2 h postprandial blood glucose, blood cholesterol, triglyceride and HDL-cholesterol were also unaffected. From these and other published results, aspartame would seem to be a useful alternative nutrient sweetener for patients with diabetes mellitus.

Yes, phosphoric acid isn't great for your teeth, and yes, it's better to drink water, but the majority of the blurb against diet type low calorie sweeteners start with conspiracy theorists and nuts who believe you can cure cancer with herbal teas.

Sorry poster, no upvote for blatant misinformation.

*promote (got me by 5 min)

When a man doesn’t love a woman very very much
He signs away his paternal rights and jizzes in a cup
Then with lots of money and scientific genius
Hormones, pain and of course, um… Jesus

The process begins the way god intended
With a transvaginal ultrasound
With a wand longer than a ukulele
When it comes out of my body, it makes this sound (pop)

I give myself daily intradermal injections
An acute blood thinner and estrogen concurrence
Cryopreservation through hormonal activation
And none of it’s covered by insurance

Then I’m knocked out and you’re removed
And combined with a stranger’s come
And as the saying goes
You win some, you lose some/you dispose of the defective ones in a hazardous waste bin

And then you’re frozen until I’m certain
It’s time to unthaw you into a person
Then you’ll expire or you’ll make the grade
And that, my darling, that’s how babies are made
(It’s so easy and natural)

CHORUS:
Hush little egg baby don’t say a word
Mama’s gonna freeze you til she gets rich

And when that day finally arrives
You’ll be constructed in a petri dish
With sperm donor 8w6-3
The silent partner of our family

So hush little egg baby don’t be sad
Just because I never fucked your dad

VERSE 2:
I know there are orphans everywhere
But I’m going to pretend that isn’t real
Don’t look at me like that just cause I admit it
You had kids and you knew the deal

Yeah I feel guilty about overpopulation
And ruining the environment for forever
But Osama Bin Laden had 20 kids
So fuck you or whatever

Sadly procreation is not a meritocracy
And we need to prevent a real life Idiocracy
Though it may be the ultimate form of narcissism
It’s also a way to re-reverse reverse Darwinism

Gonna mute the sound of that ticking clock
I just need the sperm now I don’t need the cock
My ovaries are like hey girl I’m over here
And I’m all like shhhh

I want all the stuff I don’t need a bucket list
It doesn’t make me greedy it just makes me feminist
Now I’m thinking back through all the guys I’ve dated
If they heard this song they’d fucking hate it

CHORUS:
Hush little egg baby don’t you cry
You’ll have the best genes mommy can buy

I don’t want to wait until I get in dire straights
My friends say if I want kids I should go out on some dates
But these working bitches don’t have time to leave it to the fates
The world deserves more Riki’s and the world deserves more Kate’s

So hush little egg baby dad’s are overrated
He did what mattered when he masturbated

BRIDGE:
Hush little egg baby just hold firm
Mama’s gonna buy you designer sperm

And if that sperm gives you random traits
Mama’s gonna test your dna

And if your dna doesn’t make things clear
Mama’s gonna just have to live in fear

And if that fear turns into guilt
Mama’s gonna hold onto what we built

And if I hold too tight as to suffocate
I’ll buy you lots of things to overcompensate

And if that overcompensation’s too transparent
I’ll pretend it’s somehow better with no male parent

And if you say but mom who’s my dad
I’ll say I don’t know and it’s just too bad

And if that badness forms a hole in your heart
I’ll want to make it up to you but won’t know where to start

I’ll probably start by saying it’s just you and me
And there’s no such thing as a normal family

So fuck being normal and let’s do this shit
Momma’s gonna freeze you til she… gets…. rich

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Puppy-Survivor-Hormones-Loving-Dog-PUPPY

Happy Birthday MilkmanDan! May it be hormone free

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Hormones-and-Puppy-Love

Hormones and Puppy Love has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579.

No. Aspartame is not bad for you. Sugar, however is absolutely bad for you. The purpose of this video is to show people how much aspartame is in Coke Zero vs the amount of sugar in Coke. Sugar, the number one cause of obesity, heart disease and other health issues, is far less sweet so you need a much larger amount to get the same level of sweetness as aspartame. The tiny amount of black stuff left over at the end of the Coke Zero pan is the aspartame. You need milligrams of aspartame compared to 30 grams of sugar.

All of the studies that have "shown" damaging effects of aspartame have given RATS not milligrams of aspartame, but GRAMS. This would be equivalent to a human being shoveling a pile of aspartame powder into their mouth, something that no one could even do because it would be too sweet to ingest.

Aspartame is a very simple chemical that when it enters the human body breaks down into three things, phenylalanine, methanol and aspartic acid. Once again, the amounts that these things break down into is smaller than you would get from eating comparable "natural products." You would get more methanol eating a few grapes or an apple. Aspartic acid is an amino acid that is good for you and you would once again find more of it in an oyster than in Coke Zero. And finally phenylalanine is the only thing that is of any danger to anyone. And even then, it is only dangerous to those who have phenylketonuria, a sensitivity to phenyl-groups that you would know if you have. Otherwise it is a hormone that only affects infants and is present in breast milk, one of the healthiest substances on earth for a human.

Sure, aspartame is one of the most complained about items by consumers at the FDA. But does that mean the science is wrong? No. It simply means that someone gets a headache and they blame it on the diet soda they just drank instead of the fact that they are dehydrated. Or someone has a dizzy spell because they got up too fast and they blame it on the diet soda they just drank. Aspartame has been investigated by every Federal Consumer Product group around the world and none of them have found a sufficient link to any health danger in order to take it off of the shelves. If you believe that this is a conspiracy, you are wrong. The bigger conspiracy is the rampant disregard for the danger of sugar in processed foods.

If you are curious about the dangers of sugar that are backed by solid nutritional and molecular biology, you should watch "Sugar: The Bitter Truth" on Youtube, or the movie Fed Up.

I have to say that the premise of your argument (quoted herein) doesn't stand up. It is an incredible over simplification of something which could very easily be multi-faceted. I've been told to smile (usually by women) many, many times in the past and not only do i not consider it harassment, but i don't think that their motive was as you say it was.

Can you take a step back for a second and think about what you're saying there - you're saying that every single person that tells a stranger to smile is operating on a very specific line of thought. Every single one of them, and it probably happens thousands of times a day to men and women. And according to you, the thought is at best childishly selfish and at worst aggressively domineering. I feel like you've over-analysed and reduced it to the point of it being an implication towards "perform acts for my sexual gratification."

The times i've asked "why?" in return, I've usually get a lot more of a thoughtful and friendly reply than you'd expect. One example:
"why?"
"fake it till you make it"
"what does that mean?"
And she went on to explain about a study that shows smiling releases calming, happier hormones and chemicals because of the conditioning of smiling and hormone release when we are developing.

Someone else said i looked sad and she wanted to be friendly so i knew i had an ally somewhere in the world.

Where did you get the premise from and what do you base it on? Because it sounds like you're not the kind of person who goes around telling people to smile - you seem to dislike it. In which case, i think you might be trying to explain something that you don't and can't understand. If you want to know why someone does it, i think they themselves are the best placed to explain and probably the last person we should ask is someone dead-set against it.

I'm not on anyone's side here, i'm not defending any one person's actions. I'm just trying to say that, as i have previously commented, it is not easy to guess at someone's motive; especially if you're jilted by the issue.

Many people in the world will tell other people to smile tomorrow, and they're going to have a lot of different reasons. Some of them will be a form of harassment and some will not. Some will make people sadder and some will make people happier; can you deny that statement being true? And if not, do we agree that you cannot therefore assume that a) someone saying "smile" to someone else is harassment and b) it is based on their selfish desire to make others please them?

I imagine that organ is a bit dehydrated... but then if something doesn't move down the tube i don't know where the pleasurable feeling comes from...

Castration may cause more problems than it solves - a change in personality, he may need medication to replace certain hormones etc.. And some kinda distasteful comments too really..

Ok guys, Genetically Modified Organism refers to both "artificial selection" and "genetic engineering". But both are not the same. Artificial selection has gone on for millennia while genetic engineering has been going on for only a few decades. Genetic engineering comes in many forms: gamma ray bombardments for chaotic mutations, splicing and dicing genes, implanting and hormonal reproduction of clones can indeed create many monsters both visible and invisible. The invisible monsters and the toxins they can create with their genes are the threat here. The manufacture of biological warfare, virus engineering and playing with the elements that make up life without understanding the consequences is the threat here. The bullying of corporations playing God and patenting their spreading genes are the threat here. Not the fact that apples or cows are bred to be bigger and juicier. Give me a fucking naive simpleton break, gawd that was disappointing.

Dysphoria goes way beyond that. I still enjoy boy things. If you want to call them boy things. That's one issue there: we gender activities and clothing needlessly.

Instead, it's a matter of your body being completely and utterly wrong. To the point where looking in the mirror is a nightmare to be avoided. Absolutely no pictures. For the longest time I couldn't even recognize myself in a photo without trying. It didn't come naturally for me like it did with other people. That picture just *wasn't* me. It was *wrong*.

So yeah, in his case, being a tomboy and being transgender are completely different places on the spectrum. A tomboy doesn't feel pain over their appearance the way a transgender would. I remember first finding out that boys and girls actually had different parts. I wished every night that it would fix itself, until finally, at age 11, I resolved to remove it myself. I didn't succeed, but the scars still exist.

Additionally, the "he" and "she" parts are painful. It's the same as if someone picked a mean nickname for you and refused to ever acknowledge your real name, but insisted on calling you by the offending one instead. It's our identity. It's part of the core of who we are, and by ignoring that, you ignore us. You ignore one of the most fundamental things that makes us who we are.

You'd be surprised just how much kids ages 3-4 understand gender identity and roles. I mean, most of our childhood is learning societal roles we play, and kids really pick up on that. So when a transgender kid sees other girls being treated one way, and they're being treated like the boys, or vice versa in this boys case, it's demoralizing beyond understanding as a 4 year old.



I don't mean to rant at you, but I hope that helps you understand why it's different for us. Oh, and I also didn't go into the science of it. But strictly speaking, our brains are different. Chemically, and even physically, we exhibit the sex characteristics of the gender we identify with. Even the hormones our body produces naturally due to our natal sex causes great discomfort and pain until they are eliminated. Even minor doses can go a long way to eliminating the physical pain we feel.