fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #4071 ]

[ SECRET POST #4071 ]

⌈ Secret Post #4071 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 35 secrets from Secret Submission Post #583.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

DA

Is it not true that most animals we eat are slaughtered for meat long before they would otherwise die of old age?

Depending on the species, most of them would immediately starve or be killed by other natural predators like coyotes if we weren't raising, feeding, and protecting them. This is why there are no wild escaped chicken populations in the way there are feral cats. So I don't think "old age" and "natural lifespan" are 1) commensurate 2) terribly meaningful metrics in heavily domesticated food species.

This is why there are no wild escaped chicken populations in the way there are feral cats.

Someone's never been to Kauai.

But I get your point. ;)

nayrt - Yep. And people are highly unlikely to go through the trouble of raising, feeding and protecting a lot of the animal species we currently consume for food if, you know, they aren't being consumed for food.

So basically, we bred them specifically for food and they can't survive on their own at this point anyways so we might as well just keep eating them?

This is why there are no wild escaped chicken populations in the way there are feral cats.

Have you ever been to the Cayman Islands?

Uh, we breed domesticated animals into existence. They would peacefully not exist if we didn't breed them for the express purpose of being killed for food. No vegan is suggesting we set all domesticated cows and chickens free.

Though PETA suggests farm and pet animals better off dead and puts this into action. And there's been a number of instances where farmed animals (particularly fur farms) have had the animals set free. They're not domesticated animals, but they're not wild-raised animals either. My area has a problem with (non-native) feral deer because a group of animal rights activists didn't like them being farmed for meat and set them free about 20 years ago.

Yes. That's not the point, though. The point is that bringing it up AND the whole "not necessary to our survival" reeks of either a militant vegetarian or more likely, someone pretending to be a militant vegetarian for teh lulz.

Would you consider someone a militant omnivore (or a troll pretending to be one) for bringing up the fact that vegans who avoid honey but consume almonds are hypocritical or that some people don't absorb nutrients from plant sources as well as they do nutrients from animal sources?

Question, as an omnivore, what makes almonds not vegan friendly? I mean, they're a nut, do they have animal parentage that I am unaware of?

I 'kind' of understand the honey bit because bees make it, so it's made off the labour of an animal (though it's not exactly forced labour to me when it's something they do naturally...) but I know next to nothing about almond origins.

DA

As far as I know, almond trees need a lot of bees to pollinate them, and commercial hives aren't always treated well.

So if someone won't take honey, by reason of the exploited insects, but does eat almonds... Eh.

NAYRT

I assume kept bees are critical to almond pollination -- actually, domesticated bees are neecessary pollinators for a vast majority of cultivated produce

1. Has anyone in this thread actually done that? No? How is this relevant again?

2. Again, my point is that I'm not calling troll because I'm disputing facts. I'm calling troll because the inflammatory language feels very deliberate and trollish to me.

3. Your response is not a strong argument against trolls. See #2.

It's relevant because I don't feel that the "militant vegetarian" anon was any more inflammatory than the anon who brought up their inability to properly absorb nutrients from plants. Unless you consider any mention of vegetarianism inflammatory, in which case that says more about you than about the anon you're calling a troll.

Just because I actually care about animals, instead of lying to myself while I continue to take from them, doesn't mean I'm a troll

Uh huh.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ SECRET POST #4071 ]

Re: Troll alert.

dda

NAYRT

Re: dda

Re: dda

Re: dda

Re: dda

Re: dda

Re: Troll alert.

Re: Troll alert.

Re: Troll alert.

Re: Troll alert.

Re: Troll alert.

Re: Troll alert.

Re: Troll alert.

Re: Troll alert.

Re: Troll alert.