Vegan Forum

Is it true that vegans can substitute free-range products to factory farmed animal products?

No. (if you are eating animal products, no matter if they had a "pillow" to lay on while they were slaughtered/raped or not, it still is not vegan)

For some reason I doubt chickens are often raped

lol @ adam... thanks for your opinion signlink

"For some reason I doubt chickens are often raped"

You must not know anything about egg production.

meign wrote:Is it true that vegans can substitute free-range products to factory farmed animal products?

I know a vegan who chooses to eat eggs from her own personal chicken. You can do whatever you like, don't let the term "vegan" define you. If you want to eat free range eggs, go for it. If you want to be compassionate, though, make sure you know exactly what those chickens go through every day. Free range doesn't mean much of anything.

Personally, I wouldn't eat eggs even if they were somehow made without using a chicken at all. I have no desire to put cholesterol into my body.

philosopher wrote:"For some reason I doubt chickens are often raped"

You must not know anything about egg production.

meign wrote:Is it true that vegans can substitute free-range products to factory farmed animal products?

I know a vegan who chooses to eat eggs from her own personal chicken. You can do whatever you like, don't let the term "vegan" define you. If you want to eat free range eggs, go for it. If you want to be compassionate, though, make sure you know exactly what those chickens go through every day. Free range doesn't mean much of anything.

Personally, I wouldn't eat eggs even if they were somehow made without using a chicken at all. I have no desire to put cholesterol into my body.

You mustn't know anything about the definition of rape. If you don't want to define yourself as a vegan then why do you eat the way you do (assuming you are a vegan).

AdamD wrote:

philosopher wrote:"For some reason I doubt chickens are often raped"

You must not know anything about egg production.

meign wrote:Is it true that vegans can substitute free-range products to factory farmed animal products?

I know a vegan who chooses to eat eggs from her own personal chicken. You can do whatever you like, don't let the term "vegan" define you. If you want to eat free range eggs, go for it. If you want to be compassionate, though, make sure you know exactly what those chickens go through every day. Free range doesn't mean much of anything.

Personally, I wouldn't eat eggs even if they were somehow made without using a chicken at all. I have no desire to put cholesterol into my body.

You mustn't know anything about the definition of rape. If you don't want to define yourself as a vegan then why do you eat the way you do (assuming you are a vegan).

Chickens are forcefully impregnated. Note; forcefully, referring to rape.

On the defining oneself as a vegan issue, I am bothered by people who ask things like "can I be a vegan and eat honey?", or "if I had a muffin that contained 1/4 of an egg am I still a vegan?". I prefer thinking about what I eat, not letting a term define me. I happen to be a vegan, but I don't define myself by it. I'm sure most people who eat meat don't walk around calling themselves omnivores.

free range is a myth.

http://www.humanemyth.org/

http://www.peacefulprairie.org/freerange1.html

http://www.cok.net/lit/freerange.php

Referring to more trivial matters as rape degrades the significance of actual rape.
As terrible as some people see the treatment of chickens to be, please show some respect to the multitude of human beings who are raped by others.


Fair enough on your point about not defining yourself as a vegan but rather simply being one philosopher, that makes sense. (Y)

adam i can assure you the inhumane, cruel, tortuous, brutal and sadistic mistreatment of non-human animals confined to factory farms, feedlots and eventually a slaughterhouse is far from trivial. your suggestions are fantastic, your speciesist spew is childish and unreasonable.

Not that I said "more trivial" this is a relative term.

Or would you say that stopping the death of a pig is more important then stopping the rape of a human being?

AdamD wrote:Or would you say that stopping the death of a pig is more important then stopping the rape of a human being?

faulty comparison, bogus analogy, false dichotomy. the mindless speciesist blather you spew here is amazing, and amazingly dull. eg., take a look at the insane slaughter rates here in the industrialized world. there is no such thing as free range it is a marketing term and nothing else.

Sure, we kill a lot of animals. So what. Society as a whole has decided that the large scale slaughter of animals isn't that big of a deal. This is made evident by the fact that little to no action has been taken against the meat industry. Or at least none that has had any effect lol. And if free range is even a step in the right direction in terms of animal welfare, why bash it so much? Why take the negative approach and spot "This is wrong!" when you could say "This is closer to right". Probably because the former is easier, meh, not my problem, I'm not a chicken.

AdamD wrote:And if free range is even a step in the right direction in terms of animal welfare, why bash it so much? Why take the negative approach and spot "This is wrong!" when you could say "This is closer to right".

I agree with you, in the sense that we shouldn't always take a negative approach to something that is BETTER, even if its not GOOD. Depending on your stance on animal rights, IE: You think that killing and eating animals is okay, but the way they are treated is not, Free Range is good. However, if you think that none of it is okay (as most Vegans think) then yes, for the sake of argument, Free Range is better, and 'closer to right' but it's still not okay to take an innocent life of one being for the unnecassary pleasure of another, regardless of its intelligence, emotional ability, or social status.

I'll play the overused Holocaust card. Nazi's obviously didn't like the Jews. They treated them terribly while they were alive, and then they killed them. If they skipped the treating them terribly step, treated them decent but then killed them... Well yeah, they weren't treated badly, but they were still being killed. So yes one could argue that it's improvment, but it's definately still not good.

AdamD wrote:Probably because the former is easier, meh, not my problem, I'm not a chicken.

Do you not care when women are raped and killed, or when children are abused, or when homeless people go hungry, or when people suffer and die from fatal diseases? Of course, not, you would be a psychopath. But your argument is that you could brush these people off by saying "Meh, not my problem, I'm not them." But you don't, because somewhere deep down in your mean trolling shell, you have a heart, a conscious, are compassionate, and you do care about things other than yourself.

Can we agree on that, Adam? Give us something to give us hope that you aren't just a meanie.

Is the meanie here the one who sees that the treatment of chickens is largely irrelevant for society as a whole or is it the one who compares the plight of chickens with that off 6 million (arguably) Jews, Gypsies and disabled people. Please don't try and compare chickens to the holocaust, there is a reason that people don't do that.

And of course I care about child abuse etc etc, my heart may have shriveled and died long ago ( ) but I understand that for a society to remain stable, acts like these just can't be allowed to occur. Whereas acts like the wholesale slaughter of chickens CAN be allowed to occur, this is evident by the fact that society s going just fine right now.

The wholesale slaughter of chickens is happening because society is blissfully ignorant to the truth. And, call me crazy, but I don't believe that any one beings life is more important than anothers, therefore I can compare the meat industry to the Holocaust. Lucky us, we have the right to our opinion and also freedom of speech, so I can 'try' to compare whatever I would like.

You're crazy.

Really though, although you're entitled to an opinion and all you should be prepared to justify it. If every beings' life is just as important as the next that means that you would be just as upset about the death of an unknown insect as you would about an unknown person. This brings me back to my original statement: You're crazy.

Life HAS to be prioritized, that's why you go to jail for a very long time for killing a person, but not if you kill a cat. Societies, as well as people, cannot function if every bacteria they breath in holds as much inherent importance as their mother.

I think it's a matter of potential, a human being as an individual has the potential to create such excellent things.

The Mona Lisa, The Statue of Liberty, Sewers.

People have such potential for greatness whereas other life forms sadly, do not. This is reason enough to place human life above other life, pure functionality.

Sure people have potential for evil as well, but at least they understand why they are evil, they can comprehend what they are doing which in itself is another reason: We are high level thinkers.

Sure a monkey can solve a puzzle and a parrot can mimic words, but I challenge you to find one animal that can do everything a person can do as well as we can. We are, without a doubt, a better species than the others. We adapt to our environment or make it adapt to us.

We are a better species, we have the potential for much more than anything else and society can't function without prioritizing human life above that of others. These are some of the reasons why I believe that people hold more inherent value than other animals and as such our life should be valued more.

As for the holocaust thing, you 'can' compare anything to anything else, whether or not it is a valid or accurate comparison is an entirely different matter.

First video is just dramatic music and pictures stuff that society has deemed to be acceptable. It's icky, but not 'wrong'.

Second video is just a bunch of pseudo-facts presented by an exceedingly arrogant pig. The part about the jaw cracked me up as did the part about being able to catch prey with bare hands. Ignoring the fact that humans are a special case (made evident by the fact that we kicked every other animals arse) is ignorant and naive as well as misleading if you try and present your views to others.

Thanks for providing the information.

disney in orlando

According to me Free range is a term which outside of the United States denotes a method of farming husbandry where the animals are allowed to roam freely instead of being contained in any manner. In the United States, USDA regulations apply only to poultry and indicate that the animal has been allowed access to the outside.[1] The USDA regulations do not specify the quality or size of the outside range nor the duration of time an animal must have access to the outside.[2]

The term is used in two senses that do not overlap completely: as a farmer-centric description of husbandry methods, and as a consumer-centric description of them. Farmers practice free range to achieve free-range or humane certification, to reduce feed costs, to produce a higher-quality product, and as a method of raising multiple crops on the same land


disney in orlando