Replies

• 

  Roaring Lovely November 20, 2021 at 6:58am

  

  That 'right to leave' is a privilege for 'those with eyes' is an arbitrary line drawn only to justify the vegetarian judgement! They don't want to say 'every living thing has a right to leave' because then they will not use what you eat to condemn you for infringement of the right of something else! So they opt to hammer a nail in vacuum and call it 'right to leave'. Everything that has eyes has a right to leave. Nothing else has.This takes the hook off the vegetarian and the vegan but not off the meat eater! But it still even doesn't do that so well! Insects do have compound eyes, and these 'vegetarians' cares much less about them.
  
  But does this make sense? A 'right', by definition is just 'morally justified'. When we say 'you have a right to own the shoes', we mean your ownership of the shoes is just. It means you did not steal it or borrow it from someone. But we normally use 'right' in the context of tendency to, perhaps unconsciously, think that someone/something etc by its nature lacks the justification. But we should always understand it in a simple way. When we say 'women have a right to vote', we mean 'when they vote, it is as just as when men do it'. Their votes, for instance, are not 'double' or 'from foreign citizens'. In short, unless one shows that women cheat when they vote, we cannot say 'they have no right to vote'. Same applies to men.
  
  So we see that we cannot day that 'plants have no right to leave' because they did not 'steal their lives' from animals etc.But we can even say that animals don't have any right to leave because they are parasites in plant kingdoms. Without plants, animals cannot leave, but plants don't need animals to leave. So plants have more right to leave than animals! the lifes of animals are effectively borrowed from plants!
  • 

    Roaring Lovely > Roaring Lovely November 20, 2021 at 7:20am

    

    So instead of talking of 'rights', it is more meaningful to talk of 'harm', from the point of view of the 'victim'. If you steal my shoes, it may not bother me at all, especially if I have tonnes of shoes in my rack! Another person claiming 'don't steal the shoes, he have a right to own shoes' don't mean alot because such a theft did not harm me, and me, the 'victim', have not tabled any complain! In a similar way, if plants are not conscious, we can say 'infringing on their rights to leave' is trivial because such an infringment doesn't harm them. When we try to apply this to animals, vegeterian's argument self destruct in several ways. One is that they have to argue that 'animals are less conscious' for the purposes of justifying the omnivore diet amongst animals. Then they turn around and say 'animals are as conscious as humans' for the purposes of claiming that killing them harms them as much as killing human does! So humans are 100% similar to animals when it comes to his predators but 100 different when it comes to his preys!! make sense?
    
    Another way the vegetarian case crumbles is that we realy don't know whether killing harms the animals from the animal's point of view, and we have plenty reason to think otherwise! Animals show a sign of caring for say 'immediate hunger' than 'tomorrow's life'. Do fish, for instance, get more harmed by human predators than by dolphines or whales? If this difference is immaterial from the point of view of the fish, then the vegetarian's argument is pointless!!
    • 

      Roaring Lovely > Roaring Lovely November 20, 2021 at 8:18am

      

      I don't know for fishes but I know for chickens. Chicken, if they so wish, can escape from humans. But they choose to leave near humans! So either they don't know that human is a predator or they prefer a human predator than snakes etc.If they are not aware that human is a predator, then they are just like plants in this case! The vegetarian case is moot in whichever the choice. The fact that livestock choose humans demolishes the argument that 'it is ok for animals to kill other animals but bad for humans to do that'. This argument fails to consider the choices of the animals themselves. It only takes care of the feelings of the human vegeterians. It doesn't care that it is too terifying for say chickens to be constantly threatened by snakes and wild cats etc. Vegetarian want someone to blame and judge, not to care for chicken! They cannot blame snakes so 'it is ok for them to kill chicken' regardless how miserable this is from the point of view of the chicken themselves! Their approach turns to be patronizing the animals!
      
      But the reason why livestock prefer human is very easy to understand. To them, a constant threat harm them more than some killings they are unaware of that cannot be seen comming. A human is the predator they prefer! It is not so to all animals. An hare, of course don't prefer humans. It prefers the wild hunters so it may dodge them easily.
• 

  Drekx Omega November 19, 2021 at 7:56pm

  And now that you drink cow's milk, do you still consider yourself "vegan...??"
  • 

    Krishna Kalki > Drekx Omega November 20, 2021 at 10:40pm

    

    I don't drink cows milk ..mostly oat milk.
    Ahimsa Milk is for those who want good milk with good vibes by cows who are looked after loveling... why don't you visit the farm and then talk ..go and visit the farm ..you will come out a changed person and give up other cows milk with low vibes
    https://www.ahimsamilk.org/

    

    Home
    • 

      Drekx Omega > Krishna Kalki November 20, 2021 at 10:48pm

      

      So it is "good milk" but you chose not to drink it, even though you approve it and advertise it, on behalf of a friend...?? A farm is a farm.....Most farms in England that have cows, allow them fresh air, sunshine, lush grass, safety from straying into danger, etc....Most farms may not play music, although some farmers may try. To judge "low vibes" without visiting those other farms, strikes me as jumping to conclusions...