Who can deny Moz was right?

Uncleskinny

It's all good
Subscriber
That's nasty, but it's fuck all compared to what happens in every slaughterhouse, everywhere in the world, every second of the day. At the risk of repeating myself (again), the reversal of a trend of disregard for animals is what's needed - you will never, ever, ever, stop people killing and eating animals - all we can do is urge knowledge sharing and transparency, and help organisations that aim to give animals a peaceful life and as stress-free and painless a death as possible - such as Compassion In World Farming.

And by the way, in relation to China, Morrissey called the Chinese people a subspecies. By his own logic, everyone everywhere is the same.
 

rifke

team bougatsa
That's nasty, but it's fuck all compared to what happens in every slaughterhouse, everywhere in the world, every second of the day. At the risk of repeating myself (again), the reversal of a trend of disregard for animals is what's needed - you will never, ever, ever, stop people killing and eating animals - all we can do is urge knowledge sharing and transparency, and help organisations that aim to give animals a peaceful life and as stress-free and painless a death as possible - such as Compassion In World Farming.

And by the way, in relation to China, Morrissey called the Chinese people a subspecies. By his own logic, everyone everywhere is the same.
i dont agree that chinese are a subspecies, because all the chinese canadians i have met have been perfectly lovely people, just like anyway else. it's just the chinese culture that is really abhorrent, not the race. they have absolutely no knowledge or concern for, not only animals, but the environment as well. have you seen those oranges that come individually wrapped in plastic? those really make me mad, because what the fuck is with that? do we really need oranges individually wrapped in plastic. i remember in germany sitting on a train next to a chinese gentleman, and he was very nice, but he kept looking out the window at all the fields, and remarking in disgust "what a waste! they should have factories here!" they seem to have absolutely no qualms about destroying the earth, and for what? their culture can be likened to oscar wildes characterization of the philistine as one who "knows the price of everything and the value of nothing".
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
i dont agree that chinese are a subspecies, because all the chinese canadians i have met have been perfectly lovely people, just like anyway else. it's just the chinese culture that is really abhorrent, not the race. they have absolutely no knowledge or concern for, not only animals, but the environment as well. have you seen those oranges that come individually wrapped in plastic? those really make me mad, because what the fuck is with that? do we really need oranges individually wrapped in plastic. i remember in germany sitting on a train next to a chinese gentleman, and he was very nice, but he kept looking out the window at all the fields, and remarking in disgust "what a waste! they should have factories here!" they seem to have absolutely no qualms about destroying the earth, and for what? their culture can be likened to oscar wildes characterization of the philistine as one who "knows the price of everything and the value of nothing".
They'd have no problem skinning you alive and turning your wee paws into keychains either, pet.
 

Vegan

Well-Known Member
He is 100% right. I watched 20 seconds of the that video and I swear to God I would kill every one of those evil fuckers beating on those dogs. Not hyperbole. All humans suck but some cultures, like the Chinese, are especially barbaric and cruel. No different tho' from your typical slaughterhouse. Humans are a tragic mistake and hopefully an evolutionary cul-de-sac. I used to try to convert people with gentleness but so many people are just too selfish and petulant to listen. So basically, either go Vegan or fook off.
 

Derek17

Well-Known Member
Of course the "sub-species" comment is hyperbole and implies that Chinese folk are bound to their biology and cannot adopt new cultural values, which has been shown to be untrue if we look at Chinese assimilation into Western cultures.

The Chinese culture is certainly flawed. That is not an indictment on any Chinese who wish to leave that culture, however (which is a process and does not happen immediately).

Just look at Muslim culture. Even some Muslims who were born in Western countries and are apparently assimilated may still be tied to their cultural and religious roots and may become radicalized again.

Certainly some beliefs and practices are deeply ingrained and take generations to be eliminated.

Some cultures are better than others.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Perhaps right.

But also a tad hypocritical?

Meat free is perfectly laudable, yes. But do some vegans and vegetarians (including Morrissey) take any medication (even mild medicines like painkillers, cough mixtures, asprins etc etc)? Or have had any medical procedures? If so, there is a double standard here. Because most, if not all, such medication and proecedures have been tried and tested on animals. Likewise, cleaning products, make up and the like. Fact is, vivisection is as abhorent and painful as any slaughterhouse. Yet we all partake in it. And the old argument that you can survive without one (meat) but not without the other (vivisection/animal testing) is a get out clause, used by some vegans and vegetarians for justifying their own use of products and medicines that have been used on animals to make them safe for the consumer. So whilst I agree with strict regulations in regard to animal welfare, I also acknowledge that either meateaters like myself or vegetarians both play their respective roles in the pain and exploitation of animals. Including Morrissey. Let's not kid ourselves.
 

rifke

team bougatsa
Perhaps right.

But also a tad hypocritical?

Meat free is perfectly laudable, yes. But do some vegans and vegetarians (including Morrissey) take any medication (even mild medicines like painkillers, cough mixtures, asprins etc etc)? Or have had any medical procedures? If so, there is a double standard here. Because most, if not all, such medication and proecedures have been tried and tested on animals. Likewise, cleaning products, make up and the like. Fact is, vivisection is as abhorent and painful as any slaughterhouse. Yet we all partake in it. And the old argument that you can survive without one (meat) but not without the other (vivisection/animal testing) is a get out clause, used by some vegans and vegetarians for justifying their own use of products and medicines that have been used on animals to make them safe for the consumer. So whilst I agree with strict regulations in regard to animal welfare, I also acknowledge that either meateaters like myself or vegetarians both play their respective roles in the pain and exploitation of animals. Including Morrissey. Let's not kid ourselves.
this is a silly argument, because whatever harm was done to animals in the name of testing for already established drugs and treatments has already been done. taking an aspirin or not taking one wont make any difference now to any animals it may have been tested on. i mean, that doesnt make it okay, perhaps, but an aspirin i take today is not a direct contribution to the pain and suffering and death of animals, the way eating a steak at any point in time would be. it's not the same thing at all.
 

Derek17

Well-Known Member
Perhaps right.

But also a tad hypocritical?

Meat free is perfectly laudable, yes. But do some vegans and vegetarians (including Morrissey) take any medication (even mild medicines like painkillers, cough mixtures, asprins etc etc)? Or have had any medical procedures? If so, there is a double standard here. Because most, if not all, such medication and proecedures have been tried and tested on animals. Likewise, cleaning products, make up and the like. Fact is, vivisection is as abhorent and painful as any slaughterhouse. Yet we all partake in it. And the old argument that you can survive without one (meat) but not without the other (vivisection/animal testing) is a get out clause, used by some vegans and vegetarians for justifying their own use of products and medicines that have been used on animals to make them safe for the consumer. So whilst I agree with strict regulations in regard to animal welfare, I also acknowledge that either meateaters like myself or vegetarians both play their respective roles in the pain and exploitation of animals. Including Morrissey. Let's not kid ourselves.
That is an interesting point. It would make sense that strict vegans would on principle boycott drugs and many medical treatments that were only able to be legitimized by way of animal testing.

Got cancer? Got AIDS? Well if you got vegan, you got death.

I'm not sure how vegans themselves rationalize this and I would certainly be interested to know.
 

Derek17

Well-Known Member
this is a silly argument, because whatever harm was done to animals in the name of testing for already established drugs and treatments has already been done. taking an aspirin or not taking one wont make any difference now to any animals it may have been tested on. i mean, that doesnt make it okay, perhaps, but an aspirin i take today is not a direct contribution to the pain and suffering and death of animals, the way eating a steak at any point in time would be. it's not the same thing at all.
I see your point but one could argue that if a leather belt is on a rack, the cow is long dead. Certainly there are, shall we say, different degrees of separation, but what does it matter to a vegan if she wears the leather belt? There is nothing that can be done to save an animal that is already dead in either case.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
this is a silly argument, because whatever harm was done to animals in the name of testing for already established drugs and treatments has already been done. taking an aspirin or not taking one wont make any difference now to any animals it may have been tested on. i mean, that doesnt make it okay, perhaps, but an aspirin i take today is not a direct contribution to the pain and suffering and death of animals, the way eating a steak at any point in time would be. it's not the same thing at all.
What about future tests for drugs and treatment that are yet to be established/proven and put out there for public use? Does one agree or not that they should be tested on animals first? Would you use them? How about consumer goods like household cleaning fluids, dyes, hairspray, makeup etc etc. Do you use any of them, knowing that many of them have been used on animals in the first place to check for allergic/negative reactions? And what about consumer goods that in the future will come on the market that will have undergone the same due process? Will vegans and vegetarians use them. too?

I do not agree that this is a "silly argument". Rather, IMHO it shows the selective discrimination that many animal rights activists show when it comes to this contentious issue. Do not get me wrong; I sympathise with some of what they have to say (Morrisssey included). However...and it's a BIG however....there is an fatal flaw in the argument. Which comes down to this: if you use any product or procedures that has OR WILL BE IN THE FUTURE tested on animals, then you are culpable in the suffering of that animal. Vegan or not, vegetarian or not or meateater or not. Like I say, one cannot differentiate between vivisection and the slaughterhouse, no matter how one would like to. Both are as bad as one another. But we all partake in it in some form or other, like it or not.
 

Uncleskinny

It's all good
Subscriber
I see your point but one could argue that if a leather belt is on a rack, the cow is long dead. Certainly there are, shall we say, different degrees of separation, but what does it matter to a vegan if she wears the leather belt? There is nothing that can be done to save an animal that is already dead in either case.
I agree. If you're going to kill an animal to eat it, you should at least do it the courtesy of using as much of it as possible, otherwise it's wasted.
 

rifke

team bougatsa
I see your point but one could argue that if a leather belt is on a rack, the cow is long dead. Certainly there are, shall we say, different degrees of separation, but what does it matter to a vegan if she wears the leather belt? There is nothing that can be done to save an animal that is already dead in either case.
well i feel less compunction about wearing leather than eating meat, because buying leather belts isnt something one is continually doing, the way people continually eat meat. every time you wear that leather belt a cow isnt dying. it only died once and you get multiple use out of it. im not saying the amount of use you get out of it is any kind of retroactive justification but at least it's not multiple cows dying for an experience that is the same every time (as in the experience of eating meat).
i dont think the decision to wear leather is even the same thing as the decision to use medication that was tested on animals though. because, as far as i know (and i could easily be wrong), any animal testing that is done on drugs, isnt ongoing. i mean, once a drug is established and on the market wouldnt the company have stopped testing this drug on animals? (what would be the point to continue?) so my reasoning is that if they are not still testing, say, aspirin on animals, you might as well use it. whereas if you buy a leather product, the company that made it then might make more leather products, so the suffering WOULD be ongoing. its more like if you found a leather jacket at a used clothing store. the leather jacket is around, whether you like it or not, and your purchasing it or not as this point in the game isnt going to make any difference, so the logic stands: might as well. (although this 'might as well' attitude probably wouldnt square with you if you were a vegan for spiritual reasons, as im sure a lot of vegans are).
although i suppose it's possible that if you buy medicine than the money from it could go toward more animal testing for other drugs, or improved versions of that drug (like i said i dont know the pharmaceutical companies work), in which case my argument would be invalid, because then you would be actively contributing to suffering. but then wouldnt people who donate to organizations to find cures for cancer or aids or whatever also be contributing to animal testing? and im not sure i would want to argue against that.
 
Last edited:

rifke

team bougatsa
What about future tests for drugs and treatment that are yet to be established/proven and put out there for public use? Does one agree or not that they should be tested on animals first? Would you use them? How about consumer goods like household cleaning fluids, dyes, hairspray, makeup etc etc. Do you use any of them, knowing that many of them have been used on animals in the first place to check for allergic/negative reactions? And what about consumer goods that in the future will come on the market that will have undergone the same due process? Will vegans and vegetarians use them. too?

I do not agree that this is a "silly argument". Rather, IMHO it shows the selective discrimination that many animal rights activists show when it comes to this contentious issue. Do not get me wrong; I sympathise with some of what they have to say (Morrisssey included). However...and it's a BIG however....there is an fatal flaw in the argument. Which comes down to this: if you use any product or procedures that has OR WILL BE IN THE FUTURE tested on animals, then you are culpable in the suffering of that animal. Vegan or not, vegetarian or not or meateater or not. Like I say, one cannot differentiate between vivisection and the slaughterhouse, no matter how one would like to. Both are as bad as one another. But we all partake in it in some form or other, like it or not.
you know, i think, really, that vegans do enough. i think all that really should be required is that you abstain from animal products when it is unnecessary. eating meat is unnecessary. wearing fur is unnecessary. using cosmetics that were tested on animals (does anyone actually still do that in this day and age when there are so many alternatives?) is unnecessary. but everyone has a right to a survival instinct. i would say that if you were lost in the woods and didnt have any food and you needed calories for energy and to keep warm, then you have every right to trap that squirrel or whatever. to deny yourself that on the grounds that you are a vegan, would be absurd and would go against instinct, which incidentally you have because you are meant to live and to fight for your life, not because nature wanted you to die a martyrs death. and so similarly, to deny yourself life saving treatment or drugs because animals were harmed in the development of the treatment or drugs is also absurd and goes against instinct. really, i dont think there's any need to press for the bar to be set any higher, by saying "you're either a vegan or you're a hypocrite". creating standards that are so strict as to be overwhelming probably would only have the effect of turning people off from attempting a vegan lifestyle.

plus, you're assuming that every vegan is a vegan because they're against animal cruelty. im sure a lot of people are vegans also because of the environmental damage of factory farming. for these people, vivisection and slaughterhouse would not be the same, since i dont think using drugs tested on animals has any negative impact on the environment.

on a side note, i really hate the word vegan. it's just a terrible sounding word. it makes me think of skinny guys with man buns.
 
Last edited:

Calamine Lotion

Well-Known Member
I agree. If you're going to kill an animal to eat it, you should at least do it the courtesy of using as much of it as possible, otherwise it's wasted.
It doesn't work that way. That is a nice "noble savage" point of view for people that fetishize indigenous peoples, but the truth is, if you buy the leather belt you help support the torture for profit of the industry. It wasn't an "extra" leftover piece.
Yes, if you are going to kill an animal to eat it you ought to use every part. No, belts and shoes are not extra parts.
Technically you are correct IF you are a hunter you ought to use every part, but that doesn't carry over to, "I'll buy these new Nikes to show respect for the animal."
 

Uncleskinny

It's all good
Subscriber
It doesn't work that way. That is a nice "noble savage" point of view for people that fetishize indigenous peoples, but the truth is, if you buy the leather belt you help support the torture for profit of the industry. It wasn't an "extra" leftover piece.
Yes, if you are going to kill an animal to eat it you ought to use every part. No, belts and shoes are not extra parts.
Technically you are correct IF you are a hunter you ought to use every part, but that doesn't carry over to, "I'll buy these new Nikes to show respect for the animal."
You are confused.
 

Derek17

Well-Known Member
well i feel less compunction about wearing leather than eating meat, because buying leather belts isnt something one is continually doing, the way people continually eat meat. every time you wear that leather belt a cow isnt dying. it only died once and you get multiple use out of it. im not saying the amount of use you get out of it is any kind of retroactive justification but at least it's not multiple cows dying for an experience that is the same every time (as in the experience of eating meat).
i dont think the decision to wear leather is even the same thing as the decision to use medication that was tested on animals though. because, as far as i know (and i could easily be wrong), any animal testing that is done on drugs, isnt ongoing. i mean, once a drug is established and on the market wouldnt the company have stopped testing this drug on animals? (what would be the point to continue?) so my reasoning is that if they are not still testing, say, aspirin on animals, you might as well use it. whereas if you buy a leather product, the company that made it then might make more leather products, so the suffering WOULD be ongoing. its more like if you found a leather jacket at a used clothing store. the leather jacket is around, whether you like it or not, and your purchasing it or not as this point in the game isnt going to make any difference, so the logic stands: might as well. (although this 'might as well' attitude probably wouldnt square with you if you were a vegan for spiritual reasons, as im sure a lot of vegans are).
although i suppose it's possible that if you buy medicine than the money from it could go toward more animal testing for other drugs, or improved versions of that drug (like i said i dont know the pharmaceutical companies work), in which case my argument would be invalid, because then you would be actively contributing to suffering. but then wouldnt people who donate to organizations to find cures for cancer or aids or whatever also be contributing to animal testing? and im not sure i would want to argue against that.
I see that perspective and I suppose there is a distinction to be made. Eating meat on a daily basis (essentially taking pleasure in the taste of animal death) certainly resonates as worse in an immediate sense. And I eat meat (moderately, not a huge fan) but I can certainly appreciate that point of view.

Apropos animal testing, different drugs or variations of the same drug are being tested all the time, so it can be tricky. It depends on the drug. I suppose taking a standard Tylenol today does not reflect current extensive animal testing but taking some new anti-depressant quite likely would.

Being a vegan in the truest sense of the word would definitely be very difficult. It almost seems that a vegan could not exist in an urban environment and must embrace a natural lifestyle in a more rural area where self-sustainability is actually possible.

But that leads me to think: if I was raising animals on my own small family farm, I wouldn't see the detriment in consuming dairy. It doesn't do any harm. I get that factory farms are horrific and the hormones and shit etc. in the milk at those places is all nasty. But using drugs tested on animals is worse than consuming dairy in my books.
 
Top Bottom