*promote

Self promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Monday, December 21st, 2015 7:18am PST - promote requested by original submitter enoch.

Not sure if this is a parody, as it is an actual PETA video.

Also https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDirubjWFk4 for the uncensored version.

Personally, I'll keep enjoying my animal carcass stuffed with bread. Funny stuff though.

Yeah, that's about the mentality I expect from PETA. Fucking idiots.
Not all birds are raised in factory farms.
Her weak ass motherfucking 'meal' would probably make me hurl. Tofu wrapped in homemade what? Could it be, perhaps, maybe, SATAN!? (Time to do my superior dance) Disgusting.
I'll also stick to dead birds and butthole bread.

@Mordhaus
used your link to replace,so NSFW now.
thanks man.

i am not a vegan and i think PETA are a bunch of self serving twats,but i was literally laughing out loud to this video.

come on guys!!
this is hilarious!
*promote

Self promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Tuesday, December 22nd, 2015 8:52am PST - promote requested by original submitter enoch.

Ugh. That tofucken looks disgusting. If they're going to try to sell veganism, they should try to not make the alternative look like a vomit box.

And they totally, totally overdid it with the cursing. After the 18th fuck, it's not funny anymore. It just makes you sound like a 15-year old who just learned how to cuss.

And, I'm sorry @newtboy, but even animals raised in 'humane' conditions are still treated horrendously by any human standard for any other sentient being. If we treated our mentally handicapped like even the best animals in the best farms, it'd be considered an atrocity.

Keep on cognitive dissonancing the shit out of that. Just admit to yourself that your enjoyment is more important than another being's suffering. Just admit it! And say, "I'm an asshole because my hunger is more important than suffering." proudly. Stop dancing around with that "humane slaughter" nonsense.

I'm sorry, you're wrong.
Not all farms treat their animals badly. Our Turkeys, for instance, had the run of 300 acres, as did our cattle, goats, and sheep. The chickens had a pen for their own protection, but one larger than an average house with a large roost house they had free access to and from. The all had proper veterinary treatments. All in all, they had a much better life than many humans with the exception of the freedom to leave the property.
Most children in the world live in worse conditions than the animals at OUR farm, and have a MUCH more painful, lingering death. The only atrocity about the situation to me is that there are so damn many human children.
And mentally handicapped people aren't animals. It may be true, forcing naked, mentally handicapped (or non-mentally handicapped) children to be outside 24/7 might be considered abuse...doing so with an animal is not.
Beyond that, you are making HUGE mistaken assumptions to make your point, mistaken assumptions about 1) how 100% of farmers treat their animals and 2) how 100% of parents treat their children.

Ahh...and my sustenance is more important to me than another being's minimal suffering....that's how a food web works, and it doesn't make me an asshole, it makes me an omnivore.

@newtboy: Just to be clear, I really appreciate your comments. It's nice to talk to an omnivore who doesn't just respond with "I'LL EAT TWICE AS MUCH MEAT AS YOU DO TO MAKE UP FOR YOUR VEGANISM!" I'm trying to be objective, and I appreciate your attempt as well.

That being said...

I respect the genuine care you give to your animals. I didn't know you or your family (or both) owned such a farm. It does sound like you do, truly, meet their needs as animals. However, (and I hate to bring out the really controversial stuff), I'm sure plenty of slave-owners treated their slaves with genuine humanity. But that doesn't excuse the categorical enslavement of other beings. Despite all care given to those animals, they are still not able to live their natural lives as animals on earth. I don't see why our subjugation, no matter how "humane", can be considered anything less than "inhumane".

Now, the comparison to "most children in the world" is a moot one. Yes, of course everywhere there are going to be worse things happening. But the point is that we are rational, (hopefully) decent, higher-order-understanding-of-the-universe beings. Humans seem to like to cherry-pick when their huge brain is an excuse for greatness, or ignored and "we're just animals after all". So, just because there is suffering outside the scope of our influence, we do all have the ability to stop eating meat. Pretty easily, in fact, since there are tons and tons and tons of other means to get all the nutrition we need (not to mention way, way healthier means).

The point is that we are completely and totally (especially as upper-middle class 1st-world citizens) capable of not eating meat this very moment. You can't, however, change the living conditions in the slums of India by yourself right now.

And explain to me how mentally handicapped humans are not animals. What is the distinction? They are both objectively less intelligent. If anything, animals are more capable of surviving on their own. What makes mentally handicapped people any more special than animals? Just because they're human? That seems arbitrary. True, they should be treated differently because they are different animals, but I mean why should one be treated to our moral consideration and one should not? What makes humans so damn special?

And that "sustenance" argument is really, really misguided. As said above, you can eat an entire vegan diet and be probably even more healthy than an omnivore. And animals are not minimally suffering. Yes, a very cherished, rare group, as your animals are, are "minimally suffering", but many, many, many, many more are being horribly abused for that sustenance that can be gained elsewhere (with suffering of its own, truly. I always hear the "well, there are people given slave wages to pick vegetables in California". But, you'll be eating those vegetables and fruits anyway. That's an entirely other battle that needs to be waged in other ways, not through lack of consumption).

My assumption was not that 100% of farmers treat their animals inhumanely. My assumption was that billions of animals are being treated inhumanely. And the way parents treat their children is a red herring. That's not my argument at all. And again, it's outside the realm of my influence.

And to counter your last argument... my same argument above follows for the "food chain/web" argument. Once and for all:

We are rational, amazing, smart, complex and powerful beings on this planet. We have it within our power (each of us) to not eat meat. This is "against nature". But so is basically OUR ENTIRE CIVILIZATION. What makes us truly different from animals is that exact ability. To step back and choose our actions. Are you saying humans not capable of choosing their actions -- those with so much in the 1st world countries? That we're all forced to, by nature, to eat meat? That is the cognitive dissonance I speak of. That we're so special because we are rational beings, but at the same time we must eat meat because we are not rational human beings.

This entire argument was not endorsed by PETA, because they're a bunch of assholes -- but despite being assholes one can't argue that they have brought about change. Change comes from all angles. Grassroots, insane radicals, scientists, humanitarians. They all try to bring change in different ways and succeed influencing different groups. PETA's brazenness is its power. Large corporations, like McDonald's, must respond to such a power. Despite being assholes. Both of them.

--

I want to end on a note of humility -- that I admit to having that same cognitive dissonance when it comes to animals. As a cat owner, I often visualize the mound of turkey carcasses that both of my lovable kittens live on top of. And they truly are carnivores in that they cannot find sustenance outside of meat. How do I rationalize all the turkey deaths (my cats only exclusively eat turkey for some goddamn reason) just so I can have my lovable pets? I can't. And it kills me. Not sure if I'll get cats after they die.

--

Thanks for reading. That was a lot.

It's not inhumane ('humane' being another oxymoron, because it's meaning, and acting like a normal human, are opposites) because 1)they have a life at all, which they would not if not given the opportunity by my family 2) they have a place to live that life, which they would not if not given the use of the land and 3) nature also creates barriers to movement, so it's not unnatural for an animal to live it's entire lifespan in one place...perhaps for cattle, but not the rest. Farm animals are not humans, and those that have an aversion to being stationary have no place on a farm. You could say that not being nomadic is 'inhumane', as our natural state is not sedentary, but few would argue it's 'cruel'.
'Animals' are not humans, so are not slaves. That idea makes you sound ridiculous. See the South Park episode for a good example.
Stopping suffering is not within our scope.
There are many reasons why stopping meat eating is not reasonable, but the one you should be the most interested in is, if humans didn't eat cattle, they might be extinct. The same goes for many animals we eat, and if we didn't eat things like pork, the ecological disaster feral pigs create would be almost as bad as what humans do.
It would be easier and cheaper to change the conditions in the slums of India and elsewhere than it would be to eradicate the meat production (edit:and consumption) of the entire planet. What do the people do now that no longer have jobs? What do you do with all the animals that no longer have a 'use' and don't own property to move onto? How do you control their numbers so they don't destroy what's left of the planet?
Technically, yes, all humans are animals. Mentally handicapped humans are not TREATED 'like animals', by which you MEAN treated poorly and without thought for their comfort and well being, which in fact is NOT how most animals are treated in our first world society, no matter how much you think so. Factory farms are a different matter.
When dolphins take control, they can treat mentally handicapped dolphins better than average humans. It's not arbitrary to treat your own species as the most important, it's an evolutionary trait almost all species likely possess.
No, I can't eat an entire vegan diet. I've tried many vegan foods, and found them ALL inedible, some made me sick.

You made blanket statements about how ALL animals are treated, and how ALL meat is produced and then defended that blanket statement. I'm glad you now admit your mistake, I hope you can see it through and stop blanket blaming ALL meat eaters.

What other people eat is farther outside your influence than how they treat their children.

Without the calorie dense food that is 'meat', we would still be nomadic gatherers, if we could exist at all. Eating meat is one of the things that gave us the energy to evolve those 'higher brains' that can choose our actions and determine what's 'rational'.
You will never see a vegan Olympic athlete. (Edit: well, maybe in Olympic curling...)

Daesh has brought about change...a change that THEY see as positive. That's not a good argument.

Yes, you are a monster for supporting such unabashed, unproductive carnivores ;-)...and I would hazard a guess that you don't feed them only free range, gmo free turkey carcasses, so you sound worse than me, the unashamed meat eater that pays the extra money for proper animal treatment....not just for them but because it's healthier meat too.

I did my part for the animals and the planet by not having children. ;-) Too bad I'm such a minority that it won't make a whit of difference.

I think we've just about reached the "agree to disagree" point. Perhaps the best we can hope for is that the other person keeps any of the truth the other said in their mind and mull it over. Thanks for the chat.

I agree that inhumane is a silly word. "Inhumane" acts are often acts only perpetrated by humans.

I dislike the argument about the fact that farm animals would go extinct if we didn't keep systematically breeding and killing them. So what? Then let them go extinct. I personally think it's morally accetable to let an animal go extinct naturally -- especially if the alternative is to perpetually keep them un-extinct just to, essentially, torture them for our pleasure. I do, however, agree with your later comment that it would be a clusterfuck to figure out what to do with the ones that do currently exist. Easiest solution: keep eating them but don't breed them. Unfortunate human consequence: meat would become expensive. Also, during the time that we eat off the rest of them, those workers could train for another (hopefully) less miserable job. I can't believe many, regardless of how they rationalize it, can enjoy killing something before its time.

I'm fully aware of how the slave comparison is a bit off the edge (I even said so), but it's a hyperbole for the purpose of making a point: it is immoral to treat any animal to pain and suffering -- regardless of how you treat any other one of them. One mercy killing does not absolve you of another horrific one.

I am not saying that animals are not always treated poorly and without thought for their comfort. I am just saying that they are not allowed into the safe moral haven that handicapped humans are let into. If we mercy killed even one handicapped person, there would be an uproar that deafened the world. A mercy killing. Imagine if they did any of the (even "humane") things they do to animals to a handicapped person. It would be morally disallowed to an extreme degree. I don't know why animals don't get the same treatment.

Again, when you bring anything up about "evolution", I roll my eyes. We're humans with supposed free will. We're supposed to be above that, right?

If every vegan food you ate was inedible and made you sick than either your cook does not know how to cook, it was gluten-free, or there was something horribly wrong with the food. Fresh fruit? Beans? Peanut butter? Nuts? Berries? Greens? Carrots? B12 supplements? They made you sick? Something you ate was horribly wrong.

Your Olympic athlete statement is just factually incorrect. I would think you'd google that before stating something as fact.

And agaiun. "Evolution". Yeah, that happened already. Let's move on.

Stop making me feel bad about my cats! I already confessed guilt! :-P I actually do spend a ridiculous amount of money so that the food is better than just crap. I'm lucky enough to be wealthy enough to do it and I am extremely thankful for that. And! The amount of wealth that cat videos have garnered for advertisers is hardly unproductive.

And my partner and I are also on board about not having kids. She and I both think they're the worst thing you could ever do to the planet, animals, or people. Utopia got it right.

The do kill mentally challenged humans in Texas! ;-)

I don't want to be 'above' evolution (although I'm out of the loop, with no kids)...I would hope that the current model is not the pinnacle of human evolution, but it may be the way things are going.

nice chat

There isn't anything wrong with vegan food, I love me some samosas and pani puri. I also fully respect anyone's choice to devote themselves fully to vegan-ism.

My only complaint is that vegans tend to go out of their way to make other people, who don't choose to follow the same lifestyle, feel bad for not following the same beliefs. Not all vegans do, but many take it to the same level as religious people, telling people who don't agree with their form of religion that they are going to hell.

That is what I will fight against, as I hate people telling me that if I don't do things the way they think they should be done, arbitrarily. Now making sure you eat animals that were treated humanely before slaughter, I can see that. But cutting them out entirely, based on the idea that someone else believes, not a chance in hell.

I think the tide of militant veganism is changing. Not that there are fewer of them, but I think vegans are more self-aware now (some proof being in a lot of vegan videos about vegans). Every time I hear people complain about mouthy vegans, I hear many chime in to say that they aren't that way. But then again, hipsters claim they're not hipsters so that may not be a good gauge.

I, personally, don't even mention I'm vegan unless it comes up directly -- and even then I don't continue the conversation unless prodded. I also hope I keep a relatively cool head about it.

As for the religious aspect of it, can you blame them? Just like being indoctrinated with religion from birth, you're indoctrinated from birth to eat meat. And you are constantly socially pressured for your whole life to eat meat. It becomes one of the many pieces that you use to build your sense of self with. And when it's threatened, well, people do what they do with religion, food, politics, etc. They go fucking batshit.

Also, when you first become vegan, you almost always go through a period of ~1 - 3 years feeling like Neo coming out the the matrix and the rage is hard to hide. "How could they do this?!?! They're killing them all!!!" It takes a while to let that cool off and think of more productive ways to spread your views, the best way, I find, is just living the lifestyle peacefully. I like teaching by example.

i always love the vegan argument,especially when they attempt to trot out the morality tropes.

because when they pull that shit...i GOT em.

i just point to their shirt,or pants,shoes..or even their iphone and remind them the high percentage chance that the human who made those garments/phone was an 8 yr old.forced to work 14 hr shifts with no breaks,7 days a week..all so he could buy a bowl of rice,live in a 500 sq ft space with 25 other people and crap in a hole.(or on the beach..hmmm..lets go swimming).

so lets cut the crap with the moral absolutes.
thats just myopic,single minded pandering to give us the "feel goods"...because in reality we are all assholes in one aspect or another,sometimes knowingly,othertimes not,but still assholes.

which then brings the argument to the distinctive qualities and grade of asshole and thats just fucking boring.

my boy here has it right:

Still not as hilarious as the Tofu Bay Jesus a friend I've heard some people make for Christmas. Vegan _and_ insensitive to mainstream religious mythology.

All right, I'm probably feeding a troll, but since I'm starting an advocacy group I'm inevitably going to have to deal with a lot of them so here goes. Wish me luck.

I've heard this argument so many times. So many times. Almost as many times as I hear "how do vegans get enough protein"? (I'll stop asking you about your fiber intake and cholesterol if you stop asking me about my protein levels). So, in retort, I thought I'd appeal to logic. I went to ol' wikipedia to find all the fallacies that you are using. I thought I'd find 1, 2, or maybe 3. Instead I found 8. And I crossed off the ones that were true, but not necessarily in this specific argument:

1. Straw Man - I don't believe any vegan is proposing to save the whole world. We are trying to make a difference in the lives of animals. Your straw man is that our goal is to save the world. It is not.



2. Tu Quoque/Appeal to Hypocrisy - Regardless of whether we're supposedly hypocritical or not, you have refused to address the moral question at hand. Not the morality of saving the world, but of the moral importance of animals.



3. False Dilemma - Your proposition is that either we save the world or we do nothing. It is not a problem with only 2 solutions.



4. Ignoratio Elenchi/Irrelevant Conclusion - Again, we are not discussing the saving of the world. We are talking about the moral treatment of animals.



5. Nirvana Fallacy - You'll never have heaven on earth. That's not the argument.



6. Red Herring - A favourite argument for many. We are not talking about human suffering.



7. Vacuous Truth - Surprise! There will always be suffering in the world! I know that. We're not talking about that.



8. Moral High Ground Fallacy - I think this one speaks for itself.

Let me just chime in and tell you that you only came up with 1 retort, said in 8 different ways, and not one of them is an answer, it's all just saying 'what you said doesn't matter, because you don't get it', which I believe is not only wrong
(I think he does 'get it', he just disagrees) it also follows nearly all 8 of your 'fallacies'.
Animals are totally a moral beings, so have no 'moral importance'. I think you mean the immorality of treating animals poorly, but we will NEVER end the suffering of animals without eradicating all animals. Life is suffering.

EDIT: I'll leave you with one final thought...if we aren't supposed to eat animals, why are they all made out of meat?

@eoe, I have a question for you.
What do you do about insects like ants in your home, or on your body? Do you kill them, or live and let live?
If you kill them, poison them, or toss them outside in the freezing weather, you can stop pretending you care about all animals and realize you only care about the one's you think are worth caring about, and only to the level you think is proper....just like all those meat eaters.
If you live and let live, good for you for living your convictions, but stay away from me with your bugs. ;-)

@eoe
jesus christ dude..
could you be any more presumptuous?

first off,i didnt call you out specifically.
i rather enjoyed you and newts exchange,but my commentary was not addressing nor interjecting in that conversation.

second,the only argument (if you even want to call it that) that i proposed was to cut the moral absolutes out,because they are bullshit.

now maybe you do not engage in the morality argument that many ..MANY ...vegans DO attempt to utilize to better make their point,and hats off to you if you see the hypocrisy of such a tactic.

now please understand i am not ignoring that there is a morality factor in being a vegan and i totally respect that.what i am stating is to not become burdened with absolutes and attempting to use morality to further a position..or you will be called out on it and rightly so.

thirdly,
your comment is actually a straw man,not mine.
you posit a position i didnt take in order to refute that imaginary position.

which you took a step further by accusing me of not addressing certain aspects of an argument that i only tacitly referred to and in no specific or detailed way.

in fact almost your entire comment towards me is a fabricated argument that i never had with you.

so who are you arguing/debating with?
because i can say with some authority that it is not me.

maybe you took my tone or words as a direct assault on you or what you have written,but as anybody here will attest,i have no problem calling someone out directly.conversely,i have no problem being called out (if my fly is open,please let me know).

so if that is the case,allow me to offer an olive branch:
my girlfriend of many years is a devout vegan.
so i am full aware of the reasons why she became a vegan (at the tender age of seven,no shit) and for her the decision was mostly a moral one i.e:cruelty,abuse etc etc.

when we first started dating she attempted to use every tactic in the book to get me to see the barbarity in my callous and cruel meat eating ways.she would send me videos of the most horrific abuse of animals,slaughterhouse horror stories..i am sure you may be familiar with many of her tactics in attempting to reveal the moral imperative to stop this torture and abuse.

which i responded (much like alluded to in my original comment) by showing her videos of the horrific abuses perpetrated upon human beings just so she could have cheap clothing and those electronic gadgets she loves so much.

which of course made her feel absolute,crushing guilt.almost to the point where it paralyzed her.because she is an adorable sweetheart who genuinely cares for not only people but animals.

which leads me to the main point i was making:
you cannot make a vegan argument based solely on moral absolutes,because it will fall apart within seconds and you come across as a pretentious twat.

so YOU can make the decision to be a vegan based on moral grounds and that is totally acceptable,but you cannot take the moral high ground when debating veganism to further a point,because we ALL bear responsibility in the suffering of others.be they animal or human.

do you see what i am saying?

if you choose to indulge moral absolutes,then you will be exposed as a hypocrite,because when we use absolutes,that metric has to be applied equally to all factors of living.

which leaves us with the "distinctions" and the reason i say those are boring is because it becomes a narcissistic exercise of self-righteous twattery.

i recycle.
i refuse to shop at walmart.
i do not eat fast food.
i only buy organic.
i try to shop local.

all these things i do,not because they actually make a difference,but rather they make me feel better about myself.it gives me the "feel goods".even though i am full aware that in the larger picture,what i am doing means next to nothing.

but it means something to me.
and i think that is really the only real argument a vegan has to rely on to express their viewpoint.

i have seen the videos.
i am aware how awful,cruel and barbaric farming animals can be,but i like bacon.

i am an asshole.

You're right, I assumed (bad newt), but I must say that now that I have googled it, I'm 100% correct, there WAS only ONE vegan Olympian listed, Murray Rose, a swimmer from the 50's. (I must say that's the earliest I've ever heard of a vegan existing and calling themselves 'vegan', apparently the word began in 44).
All the others mentioned are not vegan, they are vegetarian....and I was talking about TODAY's Olympians, who are head and shoulders above 1950's athletes. Today's swimmers eat over 7000 calories a day, almost impossible as a vegetarian, and even harder as a vegan. Vegetarians aren't the same as vegans.

The only recent top notch (but still not Olympic) athlete listed was Rhonda Rousey, who had to give up on veganism to train for fights.

So my statement stands you WILL never see a vegan Olympic athlete (not you HAVE never seen one), because the level of training and competition in today's Olympics makes it near impossible, at least in active sports as I indicated originally (and in fact, vegans don't seem to be represented in the less active sports either).