Monday, August 19, 2013

Animals Are Friends Not Food!

Why do people think it's morally reprehensible to murder and eat other human beings, but murdering other animals and eating their flesh is fine? We find it unethical to kill and consume a certain chosen few coveted species like dogs, cats, horses and dolphins, but the murder and consumption of deer, cows, pigs, and birds is just fine. Seriously, what is up with the speciesism humanity? Are we all really this hypocritical? It has been proven again, and again, and again, and again that animal flesh is NOT a healthy or necessary requirement of human nutrition yet every year over 150 billion land animals are bred, slaughtered and eaten by us genocidal blood-thirsty hypocritical speciesist gluttons. Animals want to be our friends! Just like all humans want to be loved, to be free and happy, so do the animals. They want us to love them and feed them, not eat them! Watch these incredibly cute and inspiring animal videos and if haven't already, make the decision to help increase the peace and go vegetarian today! :)
















16 comments:

Anonymous said...

To show both sides: http://letthemeatmeat.com/post/4473227395/how-animals-eating-each-other-royally-screws-veganism Don't get me wrong, you've got some good points that I agree with.

Eric Dubay said...

Firstly, carnivores only eat the slowest of the pack animals they hunt, so it's like natural selection... this is NOTHING like the kind of torture, slavery, and slaughter during their prime that us humans do to animals! And besides, in a compassionate vegan world where all animals are loved and cared for, humans could even feed carnivores meat from animals that died naturally, like how they feed lions in a zoo. And beyond that, carnivores can survive on plant nutrition! Certain animals like dogs, traditionally thought to be a carnivore/omnivore actually thrive on a vegan diet. In fact all carnivores eat herbivores (not other carnivores) and generally attack the stomach first to get all the nutrient-rich half-digested plant foods for themselves!

Humans breed, enslave and murder 150 billion land animals per year just to appease our greedy taste buds. If we put that same effort into helping feed and loving our animal friends, that would be 150 billion less suffering souls on this planet per year. But instead we make excuses for our murderous gluttony by pointing out the few carnivores in nature (which humans are NOT) who won't be going vegan.

Just because animals that eat meat exist doesn't "royally screw veganism" as that stupid article suggests. Using that logic, then no humans should ever bother being vegan either because there still exist some humans who eat meat. Cannibals exist, so I should be a cannibal? Rapists exist, so I should rape people? Come on dude.

River said...

Thanks, Eric, for these articles. Hope it brings some light into people.

That article Anonymous linked is an extremely limited perspective based on an ego's intellectual justification for eating animals. One of the reasons for being a human is that you have the potential to use your intelligence and your heart in all situations. Just because animals eat animals doesn't mean that it's 'natural and okay' for humans to torture and murder such innocents - that's just extremely retarded, limited, and if done consciously (meaning you actually have the knowledge of what goes on in slaughterhouses), the definition of sin.

The problem is that most people are not really human; they're still somewhere between animal and human, and stuck in a very high level of survival mode so can't really expand their minds and hearts and truly think about anything(Illuminati only makes this predicament much harder to overcome).

Nas said...

Firstly let me say how much I enjoy frequenting the Atlantean Conspiracy and greatly appreciate the research that you have compiled on the site. On many topics my point view converges with your own however this is one of the few things that I do disagree with. I don't believe that killing animals is in anyway fundamentally different from killing plants. Only that perhaps our perception is different because animals seem more similar to us. The plant comparison is especially apt here as they are often grown as crops with the sole intention for harvest. So the primary purpose is for consumption, which is very similar to animals which are reared for consumption of their produce.

At the end of the day all 3 are living beings. Life is sacrosanct in all forms and taking it should never be a light decision, and should be only done when there is need.

'Need' is the operative word and for me the wastage issue is the biggest problem in this area as this means that in effect many plants and animals are killed needlessly when their produce goes bad and not consumed. In a world were hunger is still a problem this is the real crime.

Eric Dubay said...

Thanks River, totally agree. For Nas, if you "don't believe killing animals is in anyway fundamentally different than killing plants," and it's all the same, "all life is sacrosanct," then you won't mind if I come to your place, murder your family pet and a couple of your friends, make a stir-fry, and eat it in front of you? I mean I'll be starving so I NEED it (operative word), and you shouldn't have any problem with that because all life is equal, right?

Plants don't have mouths to scream, nervous systems to feel, brains to think, feet to run away or mothers to grieve. You can murder plants all day and no one will care. You can murder certain animals all day and only vegetarians will care. If you murder someone's pet animal, suddenly everyone cares and will get the police involved. And if you murder a human, you get life in prison or the death penalty. So if you think all plant, animal, and human life is equal, that's quite a fringe belief that almost no one in society will agree with. Try telling it to a judge! :) Peace

Nas said...

Hey Eric,

Thanks for your reply!

What I was trying to convey was from a biological viewpoint all 3 are living things and equal in that sense.

I definitely take your point that there are differences between animals and plants

The only real difference that I can see (I could be wrong) between our viewpoints is that
You have drawn the the line of whats not ok and what is with humans and animals above and plants below, and I have drawn it with humans above and animals and plants below.

You have highlighted the difference between plants and animals to make your case of why the line should be placed there. while my contention is that humans are more free-willed and concerned with internal questions (existence etc) whereas animals are concerned with the here and now predominantly, so I place my line between them.

Back to plants though, there have been studies that plants are more sentient than most believe, much of it classified as pseudoscience by the mainstream, but then again some of your other material may be classified the same, however unfairly, so I dont think that alone is enough to disregard it.

I hope this clarifies my viewpoint!

Eric Dubay said...

I love how meat-eaters are always the first one's to point out that "plants are alive toooooo!" They don't give a shit about all the poor suffering animals they eat, but every article someone has to comment, "hey, what about the poor plants!?"

I've seen/heard/felt what happens to animals in factory farms and slaughterhouses - disgusting and tragic. I've also seen/heard/felt what happens to plants in gardens - absolutely nothing. The plants don't scream, they don't try to run away, they don't cry tears out their panic stricken eyes, they don't feel the searing pain, they don't have brains, lungs, ears, eyes, mouths, feet or a heartbeat.

If there were a human factory farm with humans being slaughtered it would be exactly like the animals, the humans would try to run away, screaming, crying, terrified in agony. Now imagine a "plant slaughterhouse" ... pretty peaceful isn't it? No plants screaming, crying or running away. They don't even have nervous systems to feel pain.

Humans ARE animals. Plants are neither. The distinction is clear.

Eric Dubay said...

You have highlighted the difference between plants and animals to make your case of why the line should be placed there. while my contention is that humans are more free-willed and concerned with internal questions (existence etc) whereas animals are concerned with the here and now predominantly, so I place my line between them.

Also, being "more free-willed and concerned with internal questions" is a silly and random requisite for not being wholesale slaughtered and eaten by selfish hypocrites. I know plenty of humans who live their lives like robot zombies and are not very "free-willed or concerned with internal questions," like you described animals, they are "predominantly concerned with the here and now," only. So by your standards, these people are edible? Since they aren't concerned with internal questions and are predominantly concerned with the here and now, they deserve to die, right? I mean, these are the (double) standards you've set.

My standard is simple. If it runs, crawls, slithers, swims or flies away when you try to eat it, then you shouldn't eat it. If it has a face, don't eat it. If it has parents, don't eat it. If it has feet, eyes, ears, mouth, lungs, brain, nervous system or a heartbeat, don't eat it. If it has the ability to express to you that it does not want to be eaten, then don't eat it! It's called compassion.

Nas said...

Hey Eric,

When people talk about plants its because they are trying to point out the fallacy of the argument of saying animals are living and plants are not. If plants are not living then you cant kill them obviously.
If you think about it emotionally then animals are alot closer to resembling us then plants, agreed
But the truth is when it comes to what each has achieved then humans are far above both animals and plants because intrinsically they have something that plants and animals dont have. I tried to explain what is was they have in the last post but without much success.

Id be interested to know your views on both pest infestation/diseased animal epidemics. obviously you wouldnt be able to kill them because your belief doesnt allow you to so I assume you would allow them to spread uncontrollably and if they carried some kind of disease well then the humans just have to deal with it.

Of course it goes without saying that I will be biased to my point of view, just as you will be biased towards yours thats true of any discussion.

Eric Dubay said...

My article is about ethical eating and the animal holocaust not about emergency management of disease epidemics or insect problems. You're grasping at straws trying to keep this issue in your head and out of your heart. My advice is to stop thinking so much and start feeling some more. Have you never loved an animal? Have you never had a pet? How would you feel if someone murdered and ate your pet, and had no justification other than they like the taste? World peace starts at home on your plate. A vegetarian world is a much more peaceful planet than we currently inhabit.

"As long as there are slaughterhouses, there will be battlefields." -Leo Tolstoy

Anonymous said...

The veg world order!!! Lol I am messing around. Check out my food system presentation.- Every American or person living in an industrial nation should watch this! This is a drafted video presentation on how our food system works and how the local food system works. We need local food and here is why.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54Q3CqsjWuk&feature=share&list=FLuF1xOS0bvl840wdj-3YbQw

Anonymous said...


Interesting arguments. I wonder if everybody went vegan cows would become instinct, I'm pretty sure the animal it was domesticated from already is.

Also anyone ever hear the Terence Mckenna wrap about mushrooms being aliens that custom change their DNA so they would tread the lightest on planets they live on.

I dont think I have problem with people eating meat if the animal are treated well and if there deaths would be painless.

But really, if I had to kill my own animals for food I don't think I could do it. But then again I wouldn't have a issue hunting wild animals or fishing.

I have much bigger issue eating GMO plants, Lab Created Meat, and the crap load corn syrup that is found in almost all processed foods.

The only time I felt truly healthy is when I went on a low carb diet, but I actually ate more veggies then and less bread, pasta, and chips. I think our bodies are still adjusted to eating wooly mammoths and the like, it's going to take awhile for our bodies to catch up with our moral ethics.

Anonymous said...

I don't think humans should eat grains unless starving. Our bodies are not evolved to eat that stuff. Better off going with nuts and berries. The massive amounts of sugar and processed grains are way worse for you than eating meat. I think the best diet would be a strange balance of eating less meat more veggies and never touch processed grains and sugars.

Anonymous said...

My vegan friend has a leather belt, leather jacket, and leather shoes. He kills flies and steps on ants. Damn hypocrite even plays baseball with a cowhide ball and buffalo skin mitt. And his Bible is goatskin. The horrors of abuse and slaughter that guy has caused makes me shudder.

Eric Dubay said...

The issue is whether the animal was murdered simply for the leather or died of natural causes. I'm not against organ donating when the host dies of natural causes, I am however very much against organ harvesting from unwilling hosts. If people just waited for animals to die naturally then ate them and turned them into jackets, it would be fine, but that's not what's happening.

Anonymous said...

Your promotion of the FACT of our true physiological nature and your whole sentiment on this topic really echo's my own views. Thanks so much for continuing to speak out for the animals. One of the most compelling things though is as you very well point out the fact that the wests gluttonous consumption of murdered enslaved and tortured animals literally is the primary cause of third world starvation. WTF!