Most meat alternatives like impossible burgers are bullshit.
Ultra processed shit food.
There's a lot of good vegan food that doesn't pretend to be burgers, ribs or anything else besides what is it.
Plus who fucks an animal before you eat it?
If you're looking for context, this is a shit post about my recent interactions with a certain community of vegans
Makes sense, I saw your instance and I had questions that I did not want to ask.
Yeah, we don't associate with those sick fucks either. We just like imaginary porn.
That's fur the best.
Is this a reverse rim job Steve moment?
Someone with a wholesome username saying something utterly depraved?
Vegancirclejerk?
My comment history is not locked
Edit the moderators of the vegan community have decided that they don't want you to read what was written in the thread and have removed all of my comments
It is however Removed
It wasn't till I posted this meme lol.
Mammals need to be pregnant to produce milk, so to get cow milk you have to impregnate a cow. That's what they mean by rapist.
it's not rape, it's a veterinary procedure called artificial insemination and it's safer than letting a bull mount them.
Lmao it doesn’t matter how you sugarcoat it. It is rape nonetheless.
no, it's not
They only need to be pregnant once. The calf milk is different than normal milk and can not be sold. The stuff we drink is what happens after a calf is born but you never stop milking so the cow stays productive. I think you need to revisit mamal biology. Once the process of Milk production is started milk will be produced in most mammals till the long term cessation of mamary tisssue stimulation.
Im sorry, but what kind of mammal biology are you talking about that says that two different types of milk come from the same animal?
Also, milk production usually does go down somewhat over time and sometimes even does cease, and it's different for every individual, which makes it less predictable and less profitable to just impregnate a cow once. This is why dairy farmers almost always try to impregnate their cows yearly. Here's one source, there's plenty more coming up if you look it up on a search engine though https://www.rspca.org.uk/adviceandwelfare/farm/dairy/farming
Imagine having access to the entire repository of human knowledge at your fingertips and being this ignorant.
Nope that’s not how it works at all. They keep reimpregnanting the mother and then they take the calf away for slaughter while the mother cries for her child for months on end.
And? My point still stands, a cow that hasn't been impregnated will not produce milk. Is only doing it once supposed to make it better?
Naw, they're fine. Processed food is fine, too. Everything in moderation and a side salad.
Impossible burgers cooked right on the skillet are pretty damn good, imo. And easy. I'm no vegetarian but we keep them in our weeknight rotation.
Edit: Connect is messing up and I can no longer see some comments below. The study you cite, SMCF, uses the Nova classification system to define ultra-processed foods, meaning that category contains "soft drinks, sweet or savoury packaged snacks, confectionery; packaged breads and buns; reconstituted meat products and pre-prepared frozen or shelf-stable dishes." This gives you no information on Impossible burgers' impact on cardiovascular disease, it only gives you a trend among people who eat all of the above. I would suspect the reality is Impossible meat contributes to CVD slightly more than straight-up vegetables and significantly less than red meat.
That’s fine, just remember they’re junk food and not the health food people seem to think they are.
They have more protein, fiber, and iron than beef.
Red meat consumption has been shown to increase risks of heart disease, stroke, diabetes, and cancer, full stop.
I don't know what a "health food" would be, but I would probably classify them as foods that are healthier alternatives to foods that are proven bad for your health. Which is what "Impossible" etc. are.
Health food is anything that isn't processed to hell and back.
Impossible is just alternative junk food. Like vapes are for cigarettes. Healthier still means crap. I'd probably just use mushrooms or tofu as a patty if I wanted an alternative to beef.
Unfortunately, a lot of people are not well-informed about what "processed" food constitutes, to begin with.
According to the Department of Agriculture, processed food are any raw agricultural commodities that have been washed, cleaned, milled, cut, chopped, heated, pasteurized, blanched, cooked, canned, frozen, dried, dehydrated, mixed or packaged.
As such, most of our diet is processed food, and there's nothing wrong with that. If there are particular ingredients that have been added in the processing of any consumer product that are themselves bad for your health, I would definitely encourage abstinence from that product.
While vaping is monumentally safer for one's health than cigarette smoking, both are still a needless introduction of potential harm to one's health, I agree.
But we must eat food, and the harm from that food being vaguely "processed" versus the harm from it containing ingredients certainly known to contribute to stroke, heart disease, cancer, and diabetes just isn't a worthwhile comparison.
The definition by The Global Panel on Agrigulture and Food Systems for Nutrition of "Ultra-Processed Foods" is contingient on those foods being depleted in dietary fiber, protein, various micronutrients, and other bioactive compounds.
While the oreos you're using in other examples would probably fit that definition, the alternative meats we're discussing don't, as they are "processed" to include those constituents.
Your wikipedia links don't make an assertion. The one on UPF does remind you, though, that
Some authors have criticised the concept of "ultra-processed foods" as poorly defined
The crux of this learning moment for you shouldn't be about definitions, but the relative "healthiness" of vegan food products.
It's clear you began with a preference to paint with a broad brush these meat substitute products as "junk food," and you have the opportunity to recognize they aren't as obviously unhealthy as you first thought.
Modern plant-sourced diets may incorporate a range of ultra-processed foods (UPF), such as sugar-sweetened beverages, snacks, confectionery, but also the ‘plant-sourced’ sausages, nuggets, and burgers that are produced with ingredients originating from plants and marketed as meat and dairy substitutes.
Thanks for your teaching moment, but take a second to get up to speed and we can talk after that.
Oh honey, your stealth edit shows that you don't understand.
I'll explain it to you: the study you keep linking doesn't differentiate between those foods in that "range of ultra-processed foods (UPF)," so that means data coming from "sugar-sweetened beverages, snacks, confectionery" is getting all mixed in with the data of the "‘plant-sourced’ sausages, nuggets, and burgers," which unfortunately renders the conclusions of the study rather meaningless when we're talking about the CVD outcomes of just one of the data sets.
What is a stealth edit?
I fixed some formatting issues. Does that make the study I linked invalid?
Low-effort repost of your specious use of a study with nebulous conclusions for this conversation; I'll quote the user above:
that category contains "soft drinks, sweet or savoury packaged snacks, confectionery; packaged breads and buns; reconstituted meat products and pre-prepared frozen or shelf-stable dishes." This gives you no information on Impossible burgers' impact on cardiovascular disease, it only gives you a trend among people who eat all of the above. I would suspect the reality is Impossible meat contributes to CVD slightly more than straight-up vegetables and significantly less than red meat.
Greater numbers of people are choosing plant-based meat substitutes for various reasons, including perceived health benefits.
While leaner cuts of beef can still have a place in a heart-healthy meal plan, consumers may be more willing to overeat plant-based meat substitutes, but their high sodium and saturated fat content may pose health risks.
As an alternative to over-processed vegan foods, clinicians may advise patients to consider leaner cuts of meat and incorporate wholesome vegetarian superfoods, such as nuts, greens, and vegetables, into their diets.
Based on a 100-gram comparison, the Impossible Burger has more favorable stats for protein (17.2 g compared with beef’s 16.8 g), fiber (4.4 g to beef’s 0 g), and iron (3.7 mg to beef’s 2 mg) than traditional beef. It’s also lower in calories with fewer grams of total fat (11.5 g vs beef’s 19.9 g) and saturated fat (5.3 g vs beef’s 7.3 g)
consumers may be more willing to overeat plant-based meat substitutes, but their high sodium and saturated fat content may pose health risks.
As an alternative to over-processed vegan foods, clinicians may advise patients to consider leaner cuts of meat
However, the Impossible Burger has almost five times the sodium content as a beef patty (327 mg vs beef’s 66 mg). Pair an Impossible Burger with a bun and condiments, and consumers will be on the fast track to a high-sodium meal.
Everything you're quoting is from the link I posted, saying things I've already said in other comments. I'm proud of you for reading the information.
Yeah! Most of the girls I've dated prefer it the other way around
Another frustrating thing about alternative meat burgers is they are often still using animal products...
Yea, but they also hate the lab grown stuff that's being worked on which is so close to the real thing without all the killing and cruelty and stuff
Beyond burgers are literally right there lmao. You don't need lab grown meat to stop supporting animal abuse, it's a thinly veiled excuse to avoid having to change and grow as a person
2 things, 1) I can't afford it as a regular item 2) Id say they're maybe 70% there, there's still a taste and texture issue. I personally don't mind it and would happily switch over if it weren't for #1
Vegans/Vegetarians will never get the vast majority of people out there to give up meat, best shot is that lab meat if they can get the cost equivalent to real meat.
Lab grown meat is gonna be even more expensive, and 70% is way more than enough there that it's no excuse to support animal abuse
Lab grown meat is gonna be even more expensive
Sounds like the perfect thing to advocate that the government subsidizes while the tech matures and comes down in cost on its own.
70% is way more than enough there that it's no excuse to support animal abuse
Like I said, if I could afford it I would have switched already long ago, I personally am fine with the taste and texture. But for many others, that 30% is gonna be a deal breaker.
Cows are mammals. They produce milk for their calves, its not something that cows just naturally produce. So the dairy industry only exists from repeated forcible impregnation.
I'll just throw a piece of bacon on my cheeseburger tonight in honour of that commenter.
Found the 10 year old
I guess I’ll wash down the meal with some ice cream now.
Healthy choices
Why go for a cheeseburger when you could do a veal Parmesan with prosciutto garnish.
I don’t eat veal, that shit is cruel.
You realise that veal is often just the calves taken from dairy cows, right? If you drink milk you are already supporting veal. They're killed anyway, it's just the difference between them being discarded or being sold.
Pancakes already made that point, if you keep reading you’ll see it.
Oh like you care, go get you some. We won't think any less of you.
I’m sorry I don’t share the same beliefs as you but you don’t have to treat me like I’m less of a person just because you disagree with me.
Oh, we're upset about your treatment now? My mistake. I meant
Good sir, you can have the veal. No need to abstain, it's fully in line with your character and your beliefs. Please enjoy your meal, my lord.
You sure assume a lot about me.
What’s my name?
My age?
Where do I live?
Since you know my character and my beliefs, right?
Or are you just projecting everything that frustrates you on me because I’m an easy target that you disagree with?
You don't care about milk, you don't care about veal. I don't know why you'd pretend otherwise.
It's like if you pay a hitman to do some murders for you. Are you a murderer? I guess not technically, but 'conspirator to commit murder' doesn't have the same ring to it. Thus we just opt for rapist, since you support an industry that annually rapes cows and kills their calves so that you can enjoy a tall glass of cow juice.
It's ok if that's what you want to do. No judgement here.
I pay taxes so am I responsible for the murders and wars my government commits?
You can't really compare the two things. You have limited control over how your taxes are spent, you can vote on how you want them spent and protest the actions of your government, but outside of that it's not up to you.
With milk, though, you are directly financing it by buying the product, and the product wouldn't exist without those things happening. So you are in effect a 'conspirator to cow rape' since your demand incites the act.
Dairy production is heavy subsidized so even if you don’t buy it you are still supporting the industry.
So yes it can be compared.
Ok, so because you're being needlessly pedantic here is the comparison.
I am not directly responsible for the wars and murders my government commits because of the reasons I stated above. But if they had a big bucket that said 'put money in this big bucket to directly support the wars and murders of your government' and I were to put money in of my own free will - then yes I would be directly responsible for those wars and murders.
If I do not put money in I am not directly responsible.
That's the difference between paying taxes and buying a bottle of cow milk.
buying a product from a shelf is nothing like hiring a hitman.
Yeah, I used a metaphor to help explain how you can be found responsible for something even if you didn't do the thing yourself.
but your analogy doesn't reflect the reality of the situation
I guess I don't agree with you. If I buy a product that specifically requires the death of an animal I would feel like I am responsible for the death of that animal and monetarily incentivising the death of other animals.
If I pay a hitman to kill someone I am not innocent of murder.
You don't get to support an industry that kills animals and then say you're not responsible for the death of animals.
the animal is dead long before I walk into a store or restaurant, and the people who did the killing have already been paid. I have no responsibility for that.
no one is raping cows
Without getting into a semantics debate on what rape is. The reason the word is used is because dairy cows are impregnated by fisting the cows asshole and stimulating their cervix before squirting a semen gun into their vagina. The cows cannot consent to this so the word rape is used. Some people might not consider it rape for whatever reason and yes, the word was probably chosen to be provocative. But that's the explanation.
it's not rape. it's a veterinary procedure. animals don't consent to any veterinary procedures. it's not rape.
Who are you trying to convince?
anyone who is willing to think about it for longer than it takes to repeat a slogan.
Everyone who drinks milk is funding the repeated rape of cows, to be more specific.
Everyone who drinks milk is funding the repeated rape of cows
False. I drink goat milk!
Isn't the dairy industry heavily subsidized so would anyone paying taxes be doing that too?
Do you pay taxes?
You see part of the problem with the system then. This is why vegans go as far as possible and practicable, because animal abuse is built into everything and is not optional. We're trying to minimize it where we can, and use that momentum to eventually get rid of some of the malevolent built in nonsense we all have to deal with. Nobody should be subsidizing cow rapists and murders, and it shouldn't be a requirement to live here to.
Your language makes you sound like an anti-abortion nutcase.
Cow rapist!
Baby killer!
It's all the same to someone that doesn't feel as strongly about your beliefs as you.
Sorry, do you have another term for the non consensual penetration of someone's ass and vagina? I'm listening.
Turns out the answer was "no". Color me surprised.
See?
It's the exact same language.
'So what else do you call baby killing?'
It's a question designed with no answer.
Abortion, a medical procedure to remove a fetus, not the same thing.
What's another term for the unwanted penetration of someone's ass and vagina? You didn't like the term I gave you, stage is yours.
You're obviously not listening to what I'm saying.
I understand you have strong feelings about your beliefs but not everyone does.
When you attack someone for not sharing your feelings you are as bad as the anti-abortion people or the republicans who want to take away the rights of the LGBTs.
How the fuck did you think milk was produced? This is literally grade school biology. Farmers rape cows for their milk, and you pay them for the privilege.
I think you seriously underestimate how much non-human raping goes on in the animal world. Many species have dicks that have evolved specifically to facilitate rape.
And...?
What does that have to do with humans choosing to rape cows for profit? Total non-sequitur. Bears shit in the woods, does that mean you do too? Animals rape, therefore you should too?
Sometimes I shit in the woods 🖐️ not cause bears do it, just cause there's no toilets out there and it is kinda nice tbh
I would never buy animal products tho, that shit is fucked up 😬
You make it sound like the farmers are all about the cow 'tang.
They probably get off on fisting the cow's asshole before they even shove the insemination gun in tbh
They literally made cow tang their job.
no one is raping cows
It's literally penetrating a genitals to impregnate them against their will for our own benefit, the definition of rape. Saying you don't care about the rape of cows and will keep eating dairy is your opinion, but denying that it is rape is just straight up cognitive dissonance.
it's not rape. it's a veterinary procedure.
you claim it's against their will but how can you prove that?
Vegans need to downvote anyone that disagrees when them is proof their ideas cannot stand scrutiny. They do not relish in a debate of in any capacity. They don't even have original ideas, it's the same couple talking points because it's ideology base. They call themselves converts but won't accept it's a religion.
Most meat alternatives like impossible burgers are bullshit.
Ultra processed shit food.
There's a lot of good vegan food that doesn't pretend to be burgers, ribs or anything else besides what is it.
Plus who fucks an animal before you eat it?
If you're looking for context, this is a shit post about my recent interactions with a certain community of vegans
Makes sense, I saw your instance and I had questions that I did not want to ask.
Yeah, we don't associate with those sick fucks either. We just like imaginary porn.
That's fur the best.
Is this a reverse rim job Steve moment?
Someone with a wholesome username saying something utterly depraved?
Vegancirclejerk?
My comment history is not locked
Edit the moderators of the vegan community have decided that they don't want you to read what was written in the thread and have removed all of my comments
It is however Removed
It wasn't till I posted this meme lol.
Mammals need to be pregnant to produce milk, so to get cow milk you have to impregnate a cow. That's what they mean by rapist.
it's not rape, it's a veterinary procedure called artificial insemination and it's safer than letting a bull mount them.
Lmao it doesn’t matter how you sugarcoat it. It is rape nonetheless.
no, it's not
They only need to be pregnant once. The calf milk is different than normal milk and can not be sold. The stuff we drink is what happens after a calf is born but you never stop milking so the cow stays productive. I think you need to revisit mamal biology. Once the process of Milk production is started milk will be produced in most mammals till the long term cessation of mamary tisssue stimulation.
Im sorry, but what kind of mammal biology are you talking about that says that two different types of milk come from the same animal?
Also, milk production usually does go down somewhat over time and sometimes even does cease, and it's different for every individual, which makes it less predictable and less profitable to just impregnate a cow once. This is why dairy farmers almost always try to impregnate their cows yearly. Here's one source, there's plenty more coming up if you look it up on a search engine though https://www.rspca.org.uk/adviceandwelfare/farm/dairy/farming
Imagine having access to the entire repository of human knowledge at your fingertips and being this ignorant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colostrum
Nope that’s not how it works at all. They keep reimpregnanting the mother and then they take the calf away for slaughter while the mother cries for her child for months on end.
And? My point still stands, a cow that hasn't been impregnated will not produce milk. Is only doing it once supposed to make it better?
I've never had to impregnate a cow.
Think about dairy what you will, but 'I didn't do it, I paid someone else to do it' is never a very solid argument in a debate on ethics.
only farmers pay for artificial insemination.
Naw, they're fine. Processed food is fine, too. Everything in moderation and a side salad.
Impossible burgers cooked right on the skillet are pretty damn good, imo. And easy. I'm no vegetarian but we keep them in our weeknight rotation.
Edit: Connect is messing up and I can no longer see some comments below. The study you cite, SMCF, uses the Nova classification system to define ultra-processed foods, meaning that category contains "soft drinks, sweet or savoury packaged snacks, confectionery; packaged breads and buns; reconstituted meat products and pre-prepared frozen or shelf-stable dishes." This gives you no information on Impossible burgers' impact on cardiovascular disease, it only gives you a trend among people who eat all of the above. I would suspect the reality is Impossible meat contributes to CVD slightly more than straight-up vegetables and significantly less than red meat.
That’s fine, just remember they’re junk food and not the health food people seem to think they are.
They have more protein, fiber, and iron than beef.
Red meat consumption has been shown to increase risks of heart disease, stroke, diabetes, and cancer, full stop.
I don't know what a "health food" would be, but I would probably classify them as foods that are healthier alternatives to foods that are proven bad for your health. Which is what "Impossible" etc. are.
Health food is anything that isn't processed to hell and back.
Impossible is just alternative junk food. Like vapes are for cigarettes. Healthier still means crap. I'd probably just use mushrooms or tofu as a patty if I wanted an alternative to beef.
Unfortunately, a lot of people are not well-informed about what "processed" food constitutes, to begin with.
According to the Department of Agriculture, processed food are any raw agricultural commodities that have been washed, cleaned, milled, cut, chopped, heated, pasteurized, blanched, cooked, canned, frozen, dried, dehydrated, mixed or packaged.
As such, most of our diet is processed food, and there's nothing wrong with that. If there are particular ingredients that have been added in the processing of any consumer product that are themselves bad for your health, I would definitely encourage abstinence from that product.
While vaping is monumentally safer for one's health than cigarette smoking, both are still a needless introduction of potential harm to one's health, I agree.
But we must eat food, and the harm from that food being vaguely "processed" versus the harm from it containing ingredients certainly known to contribute to stroke, heart disease, cancer, and diabetes just isn't a worthwhile comparison.
Impossible belongs to the ultra-processed food category.
No, it does not.
The definition by The Global Panel on Agrigulture and Food Systems for Nutrition of "Ultra-Processed Foods" is contingient on those foods being depleted in dietary fiber, protein, various micronutrients, and other bioactive compounds.
While the oreos you're using in other examples would probably fit that definition, the alternative meats we're discussing don't, as they are "processed" to include those constituents.
The Nova classification is the most widely used definition.
And?
Your wikipedia links don't make an assertion. The one on UPF does remind you, though, that
The crux of this learning moment for you shouldn't be about definitions, but the relative "healthiness" of vegan food products.
It's clear you began with a preference to paint with a broad brush these meat substitute products as "junk food," and you have the opportunity to recognize they aren't as obviously unhealthy as you first thought.
Every 10 percentage points increase in plant-sourced non-UPF consumption was associated with a 7% lower risk of CVD (95% CI 0.91–0.95) and a 13% lower risk of CVD mortality (0.80–0.94). Conversely, plant-sourced UPF consumption was associated with a 5% increased risk (1.03–1.07) and a 12% higher mortality (1.05–1.20). The contribution of all UPF was linked to higher CVD risk and mortality, and no evidence for an association between contribution of all plant-sourced foods and CVD incidence and mortality was observed
Thanks for your teaching moment, but take a second to get up to speed and we can talk after that.
Oh honey, your stealth edit shows that you don't understand. I'll explain it to you: the study you keep linking doesn't differentiate between those foods in that "range of ultra-processed foods (UPF)," so that means data coming from "sugar-sweetened beverages, snacks, confectionery" is getting all mixed in with the data of the "‘plant-sourced’ sausages, nuggets, and burgers," which unfortunately renders the conclusions of the study rather meaningless when we're talking about the CVD outcomes of just one of the data sets.
What is a stealth edit?
I fixed some formatting issues. Does that make the study I linked invalid?
Low-effort repost of your specious use of a study with nebulous conclusions for this conversation; I'll quote the user above:
So?
Link a study showing that, it should be easy.
Who literally thinks they’re a health food? I’ve never met someone in real life that’s told me that.
You’ve never heard people say they’re made from plants so they are healthy?
It’s usually the same people who talk about their nerds or potato chips being gluten free or their Oreos vegan.
They're not really a junk food. They're not as healthy as eating straight-up vegetables, but they're definitely not junk food.
They're nearly as salty as potato chips and loaded with saturated fat.
Impossible has more salt than beef, but less saturated fat.
You sure?
https://www.cnet.com/health/nutrition/is-the-impossible-burger-healthier-than-beef/
Yep!
https://www.mdlinx.com/article/is-the-impossible-burger-really-healthier-than-beef/2t0XAvk0YsRsEaLbSfdZKc
Everything you're quoting is from the link I posted, saying things I've already said in other comments. I'm proud of you for reading the information.
Oh I can’t read.
I’m illiterate.
Edit: Stealth edit.
Every 10 percentage points increase in plant-sourced non-UPF consumption was associated with a 7% lower risk of CVD (95% CI 0.91–0.95) and a 13% lower risk of CVD mortality (0.80–0.94). Conversely, plant-sourced UPF consumption was associated with a 5% increased risk (1.03–1.07) and a 12% higher mortality (1.05–1.20). The contribution of all UPF was linked to higher CVD risk and mortality, and no evidence for an association between contribution of all plant-sourced foods and CVD incidence and mortality was observed.
Yeah! Most of the girls I've dated prefer it the other way around
Another frustrating thing about alternative meat burgers is they are often still using animal products...
Yea, but they also hate the lab grown stuff that's being worked on which is so close to the real thing without all the killing and cruelty and stuff
Beyond burgers are literally right there lmao. You don't need lab grown meat to stop supporting animal abuse, it's a thinly veiled excuse to avoid having to change and grow as a person
2 things, 1) I can't afford it as a regular item 2) Id say they're maybe 70% there, there's still a taste and texture issue. I personally don't mind it and would happily switch over if it weren't for #1
Vegans/Vegetarians will never get the vast majority of people out there to give up meat, best shot is that lab meat if they can get the cost equivalent to real meat.
Lab grown meat is gonna be even more expensive, and 70% is way more than enough there that it's no excuse to support animal abuse
Sounds like the perfect thing to advocate that the government subsidizes while the tech matures and comes down in cost on its own.
Like I said, if I could afford it I would have switched already long ago, I personally am fine with the taste and texture. But for many others, that 30% is gonna be a deal breaker.
That's why I support the https://www.agriculturefairnessalliance.org/
Everyone eating dairy.
Cows are mammals. They produce milk for their calves, its not something that cows just naturally produce. So the dairy industry only exists from repeated forcible impregnation.
Edit:
Y'all mad but this is simply biology.
Everyone who drinks milk fucks cows?
Am I supposed to take you seriously right now?
Now you see what I've been dealing with
I'll just throw a piece of bacon on my cheeseburger tonight in honour of that commenter.
Found the 10 year old
I guess I’ll wash down the meal with some ice cream now.
Healthy choices
Why go for a cheeseburger when you could do a veal Parmesan with prosciutto garnish.
I don’t eat veal, that shit is cruel.
You realise that veal is often just the calves taken from dairy cows, right? If you drink milk you are already supporting veal. They're killed anyway, it's just the difference between them being discarded or being sold.
Pancakes already made that point, if you keep reading you’ll see it.
Oh like you care, go get you some. We won't think any less of you.
I’m sorry I don’t share the same beliefs as you but you don’t have to treat me like I’m less of a person just because you disagree with me.
Oh, we're upset about your treatment now? My mistake. I meant
Good sir, you can have the veal. No need to abstain, it's fully in line with your character and your beliefs. Please enjoy your meal, my lord.
You sure assume a lot about me.
What’s my name?
My age?
Where do I live?
Since you know my character and my beliefs, right?
Or are you just projecting everything that frustrates you on me because I’m an easy target that you disagree with?
You don't care about milk, you don't care about veal. I don't know why you'd pretend otherwise.
You don’t know what you’re talking about.
You are projecting your prejudices on me.
It's like if you pay a hitman to do some murders for you. Are you a murderer? I guess not technically, but 'conspirator to commit murder' doesn't have the same ring to it. Thus we just opt for rapist, since you support an industry that annually rapes cows and kills their calves so that you can enjoy a tall glass of cow juice.
It's ok if that's what you want to do. No judgement here.
I pay taxes so am I responsible for the murders and wars my government commits?
You can't really compare the two things. You have limited control over how your taxes are spent, you can vote on how you want them spent and protest the actions of your government, but outside of that it's not up to you.
With milk, though, you are directly financing it by buying the product, and the product wouldn't exist without those things happening. So you are in effect a 'conspirator to cow rape' since your demand incites the act.
Dairy production is heavy subsidized so even if you don’t buy it you are still supporting the industry.
So yes it can be compared.
Ok, so because you're being needlessly pedantic here is the comparison.
I am not directly responsible for the wars and murders my government commits because of the reasons I stated above. But if they had a big bucket that said 'put money in this big bucket to directly support the wars and murders of your government' and I were to put money in of my own free will - then yes I would be directly responsible for those wars and murders.
If I do not put money in I am not directly responsible.
That's the difference between paying taxes and buying a bottle of cow milk.
buying a product from a shelf is nothing like hiring a hitman.
Yeah, I used a metaphor to help explain how you can be found responsible for something even if you didn't do the thing yourself.
but your analogy doesn't reflect the reality of the situation
I guess I don't agree with you. If I buy a product that specifically requires the death of an animal I would feel like I am responsible for the death of that animal and monetarily incentivising the death of other animals.
If I pay a hitman to kill someone I am not innocent of murder.
You don't get to support an industry that kills animals and then say you're not responsible for the death of animals.
the animal is dead long before I walk into a store or restaurant, and the people who did the killing have already been paid. I have no responsibility for that.
no one is raping cows
Without getting into a semantics debate on what rape is. The reason the word is used is because dairy cows are impregnated by fisting the cows asshole and stimulating their cervix before squirting a semen gun into their vagina. The cows cannot consent to this so the word rape is used. Some people might not consider it rape for whatever reason and yes, the word was probably chosen to be provocative. But that's the explanation.
it's not rape. it's a veterinary procedure. animals don't consent to any veterinary procedures. it's not rape.
Who are you trying to convince?
anyone who is willing to think about it for longer than it takes to repeat a slogan.
Everyone who drinks milk is funding the repeated rape of cows, to be more specific.
False. I drink goat milk!
Isn't the dairy industry heavily subsidized so would anyone paying taxes be doing that too?
Do you pay taxes?
You see part of the problem with the system then. This is why vegans go as far as possible and practicable, because animal abuse is built into everything and is not optional. We're trying to minimize it where we can, and use that momentum to eventually get rid of some of the malevolent built in nonsense we all have to deal with. Nobody should be subsidizing cow rapists and murders, and it shouldn't be a requirement to live here to.
Your language makes you sound like an anti-abortion nutcase.
Cow rapist!
Baby killer!
It's all the same to someone that doesn't feel as strongly about your beliefs as you.
Sorry, do you have another term for the non consensual penetration of someone's ass and vagina? I'm listening.
Turns out the answer was "no". Color me surprised.
See?
It's the exact same language.
'So what else do you call baby killing?'
It's a question designed with no answer.
Abortion, a medical procedure to remove a fetus, not the same thing.
What's another term for the unwanted penetration of someone's ass and vagina? You didn't like the term I gave you, stage is yours.
You're obviously not listening to what I'm saying.
I understand you have strong feelings about your beliefs but not everyone does.
When you attack someone for not sharing your feelings you are as bad as the anti-abortion people or the republicans who want to take away the rights of the LGBTs.
it's a veterinary procedure called artificial insemination.
it's not someone, it's livestock.
no one is raping cows
lol
How the fuck did you think milk was produced? This is literally grade school biology. Farmers rape cows for their milk, and you pay them for the privilege.
I think you seriously underestimate how much non-human raping goes on in the animal world. Many species have dicks that have evolved specifically to facilitate rape.
And...?
What does that have to do with humans choosing to rape cows for profit? Total non-sequitur. Bears shit in the woods, does that mean you do too? Animals rape, therefore you should too?
Sometimes I shit in the woods 🖐️ not cause bears do it, just cause there's no toilets out there and it is kinda nice tbh
I would never buy animal products tho, that shit is fucked up 😬
You make it sound like the farmers are all about the cow 'tang.
They probably get off on fisting the cow's asshole before they even shove the insemination gun in tbh
They literally made cow tang their job.
no one is raping cows
It's literally penetrating a genitals to impregnate them against their will for our own benefit, the definition of rape. Saying you don't care about the rape of cows and will keep eating dairy is your opinion, but denying that it is rape is just straight up cognitive dissonance.
it's not rape. it's a veterinary procedure.
you claim it's against their will but how can you prove that?
Rape. You meant rape.
no one is raping cows
Vegans need to downvote anyone that disagrees when them is proof their ideas cannot stand scrutiny. They do not relish in a debate of in any capacity. They don't even have original ideas, it's the same couple talking points because it's ideology base. They call themselves converts but won't accept it's a religion.
Amen