fun fact: cows are carnivores. CW: baby chicken being eaten alive
Removed by modNSFW
Removed by modNSFW
fun fact: cows are carnivores. CW: baby chicken being eaten alive
Removed by modNSFWThe video is to prove a point really fast, but, cows actually do only eat proteins. They have three stomachs that they use to feed grass to bacterial colonies, which they then pull into their fourth stomach to eat, with any of the grass that's left un-eaten by the bacteria being shit straight out without being processed any further. They don't eat the grass, the grass is there to feed what they do eat, which is supplemented by eating any large animal small enough to fit in their mouth. I read a study once that almost all cows when dissected had at least 1 animal in their digestive system at a time.
The notion that cows are good peaceful harmless herbivores who eat nothing but grass is nonsense. Here's a video of a cow eating the corpse of a donkey. Of note: there's grass right next to the body. And it isn't just a result of cows being fucked up by human domestication, wild deer (who you cannot blame on humans malnourishing it or contaminating its feed or whatever) do it too.
constructing an elaborate worldview out of a kindergarten level understanding of biology and then getting extremely smug about it annoys me relentlessly. Cows would eat you if they had the chance
You must log in or register to comment.
Read some of the comments in this thread. That's exactly what it is
They're opportunistic carnivores. So are horses. Not sure what the point is. Are we doing a vegan struggle session?
theres a struggle session elsewhere, this is just a PSA to let ppl know that kindergarten biology is not sturdy enough to build an ideology off of. Edit: and, they arent oppertunitist carnivores. I cant find the study rn but nearly all cows who are dissected have an animal in their digestive system
the bar is getting set real high for "most inane take" this year.
"be like cows" swear to god, how high is this mfer?
a lion/tiger/bear might eat me, but that doesnt make eating them less morally reprehensible, let alone if there were extremely unethical industries based around the production of tiger meat that were destroying the planet and shit.
like, woaaah you got me, that carnivore might eat me, therefor the moral dilemma of unnecessarily consuming another living being is totally refuted.
:cat-confused:
so is it the unethical nature of industrial-scale meat production, or is it the physical act of eating meat?
you can't humanize/personify non-human animals using this ethical framework and then neglect applying that framework to animals themselves.
should we shame the cow or show them how much more ethical it would've been to not eat the baby chick? not sure if this is an ethical argument about the meat production industry, or just a way to focus on & self-congratulate over individual consumer tastes
i think eating raw celery is gross & probably unethical. Jains, in addition to being lacto-vegetarians, also think eating potatoes & carrots and other tubers/root vegetables is unethical because they have specific religious tenets recognizing a higher "spirit" in those plants
that carnivores & omnivores generally & mammals also need animal protein as a matter of biological necessity should not be lost in these attempts to finger-wag about and atomize the "aesthetics" of specific food group consumption. these notions alone can't be used as some essential nexus of moral worth & focus
you cant... neglect applying [ethical framework] to animals themselves
yes. you can. an animal is not capable of the ethical reasoning that a human is.
everything else you said is nonsensical drivel based out of that fundamental misrepresentation of reality.
an animal is not capable of ethical reasoning... I don't know if I agree with you, because animals definitely act & are compelled to act in specific ways that promote evolutionary preservation of germline genetic material & dictate animal social behavior. But let's go with what you've said
again, you can't turn an animal into a human or make them as important ethically as humans if the animals themselves aren't capable of being legally/conceptually ever considered human
you're hand-waving here, and trying to turn near-religious dogma& self-certitude into an actual "social cause". we can definitely make laws around ethical treatment & methods of animal agriculture & husbandry, but that doesn't mean looking down on others because they eat meat.
you're not better "ethically" or more "pure" just because you made these choices. we can spend all day talking about consumption in different forms and never arrive at a universally acceptable "moral" trajectory for anyone, because it's dogmatic & problematic to do so
if you're basing this on vague notions of "spiritual" morality rather than human material necessity, then you are fundamentally misrepresenting reality
Lmao totally, essentially saying "some animals eat meat, checkmate vegans" :thinkin-lenin:
But biology tells you what is not what should be. You can't base ethical decisions on science alone you must make judgements outside of science. You need to delve into the philosophy of science alongside science. Science alone is not the basis for a sturdy ideology either.
vegans, who famously advocate not eating only those animals which are themselves strict herbivores, but are perfectly fine with eating animals that eat other animals.
Lol you're so full of shit. If there was some study that found a number of cows having meat in their stomachs, then that was something only specific to the population they dissected, and mostly to do with the fact that cows can't fucking digest meat properly so meat just stays there for very long. This is so dumb and I don't understand why you are doing it.
You've been posting this several times in the vegan struggle session thread but I'm not sure what point you think this makes. Eating meat is wrong, period; if the moral reasons are not enough / not a justification for you, then the environmental ones alone should be enough. Not dunking on you for eating meat, mind you, it's understandable in western countries at least due to cultural reasons (I did it too before), but it's still objectively bad and I encourage people to try going vegetarian at least.
This is the same structure of China Bad, but with cows instead of China. Yeah, sure, cows eat meat when they have the opportunity, they don't run factory farms though...the comparison is framed asymmetrically.
so it's just the unethical nature of industrial meat production that's the problem? not the physical act of one individual animal eating another? I can understand that framing
I watched a squirrel eating a newly hatched baby bird one time, I still have the picture... it's unsettling
I'm not vegan, I should be, but I'm not employed and live with other people so we eat what we can.
There was am issue recently in my town though with a vegan activist that ran a no kill shelter feeding all the animals vegan food and they all started getting really sick.
I guess my idea of veganism has always been that it should exist as as a resistance to the industrialization of meat consumption when human beings are able to avoid it. Other animals can't necessarily be vegan and that's just how it is. The fact that they aren't institutionalizing their meat consumption makes it less of a problem lol.
So the primary issue is industrial meat farms, the secondary issue is introduction of invasive species to balanced eco systems (usually for the purpose of human consumption) that lead to an increase in animal deaths that didn't exist before.
These two issues are on different scales, and I don't think you can tackle the second issue without handling the first (except in cases like involving pets or plants that can be more easily controlled like how Australia does it).
Please tell me if I'm wrong about this if you know more about veganism than me. I only know a few vegans where I live and pick up bits and pieces.
sure, I don't want to finger-wag at vegans for their individual choices in the marketplace, they can do this and feel happy & probably make an impact in their own way. I applaud those who are committed & consistent & observant in what they believe, even when I disagree with them
some people are way more into recycling than others too, but we can't delude ourselves into thinking that individuals shaming one another about recycling & veganism are "superior" or "effective" challenges to the status quo & industrial production methods
The food chain is made up by humans for humans to justify our mistreatment of animals. It's anthropocentrism dressed up as science.
Herbivores sometimes eat meat, carnivores eat plants from time to time.
Humans are in the unique position to not only be aware of the suffering that killing causes but have the means to avoid it and therefore have a moral obligation to at least minimise it.
Science is at a fundamental level going to be anthropocentric.
true but the point of science is to at least try to be as objective as possible
Not really. It doesn't work like that. Of course science is gonna be anthropocentric, we're humans and we're doing human science. Why would we waste as much time thinking about the behavioral science and social structures of groundhogs as we do for humans?
Because science is the study of reality and groundhogs are a part of that reality.
A lot of amazing shit has been discovered from scientists 'wasting time' on things unlikely to centre around humans.
Because science is the study of reality and groundhogs are a part of that reality.
So? Science is not just "study of reality". Science is systematic study of interesting or useful parts of reality. If scientists spent as much time studying animal behavior, social structures and physiology as they did for humans we'd be fucked now. Studying all aspects of reality is literally impossible, shit's just too wealthy.
A lot of amazing shit has been discovered from scientists ‘wasting time’ on things unlikely to centre around humans.
You can stumble upon something amazing while fooling around but if you mainly just fool around you'll find 3 amazing things and nothing else.
Science is systematic study of interesting or useful parts of reality.
lol no it isn't.
If scientists spent as much time studying animal behaviour, social structures and physiology as they did for humans we’d be fucked now.
Are you kidding? We spend a fuck ton of time studying animal behaviour, social structures and psychology and actually found out more about our own by doing this.
I'll tell you what would really fuck us over, only studying a narrow part of our existence. We are products of a very complex environment and almost every part of it impacts us in some way.
lol no it isn’t.
Yes, it is. Scientists don't study the optimal physiological features for spitting out watermelon seeds as far as possible.
Are you kidding? We spend a fuck ton of time studying animal behaviour, social structures and psychology and actually found out more about our own by doing this.
Do we spend as much time studying that as we do studying animal behavior, social structures and physiology? Do I have to show you the budgets for the respective fields???
The food chain is made up by humans for humans to justify our mistreatment of animals. It’s anthropocentrism dressed up as science.
The purpose of a food chain is to understand how energy circulates between animals. That some cat ate a plant once and some cow ate part of a corpse doesn't change what it is. I don't understand denying the food chain, it's weird.
Because it doesn't accurately describe what's happening and overly simplifies things.
It causes the same kind of misinterpretations that 'survival of the fittest' does.
It doesn't "overly" simplify things, but it does simplify things because that's the point of pretty much any model. Maybe somehow it made you think that herbivores will never ever eat meat for any reason or carnivores will never ever eat plant matter for any reason, but that is your misinterpretation, it's not the fault of the model which accurately demonstrates the main relations.
which accurately demonstrates the main relations.
That's the problem, it isn't accurate.
How is it not accurate lmao do you agree with the weirdo op who seems to think meat is a significant component of a cow's diet?
Do you think 'herbivore eats nothing but plants' is accurate and a useful tool when herbivores don't, in fact, eat only plants?
"Herbivore eats nothing but plants" is not something the food chain model says about herbivores. The food chain model is about how energy is macroscopically transferred from one level to the other.
Herbivores are called herbivores because they are adapted to eating plants and by far the bulk of their diet is, well, plants. If a cow opportunistically eats a dead bird or something or if a dog eats a plant, that's not "haha food chain OWNED" because it's not important macroscopically. This the "men experience reverse sexism" of biology.
thats why vegan cringe theorycrafting bothers me so much. There is a fucking good & indisputable reason not to eat meat, but they can't advocate it bc they're so far stuck up their own asses, which is that capitalism is incapable of doing humane animal-farming, but instead of just saying that they start engaging in measuring the skulls of animals bc they don't talk to anyone else but other vegans
instead of just saying that they start engaging in measuring the skulls of animals bc they don’t talk to anyone else but other vegans
Except it's you who is doing that. Veganism simply says avoidall animal exploitation as much as is possible; this applies to everything from cows to mice to bees. There is no "skull measuring"or hierarchy of life in veganism.
You're the one whose worldview relies on using a pair of calipers to justify why you'll torture Bessie the Cow to death to sate your lardass lusts, while simultaneously seeing murdering Rover the Dog or Free Willy as evil, murderous acts.
i dont understand what u mean by this. Cows eat meat, whats the word for that?
Lmao "carnivore", words have no meaning. Animals eat other animals, veganism has been debunked
Vegan American: "Eating meat is immoral; let me tell you all about how this and this is your fault because what you put on your damn mouth. "
Omnivore American: "here's a picture of a deer sucking cock, so putting meat in my mouth is not immoral , mother nature text messaged me and said it was ok."
American on a Keto diet: "Is it normal if half my large intestine hangs out of my ass while taking a shit?"
People from third world countries: " some of your table scraps please"
cows eat meat so you should too
cows also eat live animals so you should too
reject fire embrace monke
cows actually do only eat proteins
You have a fascinating and confusing definition of “eat” comrade
if a bird carries food to its chicks, is it eating that food? If a gardener carries water to his plants is he drinking the water? No. A plant might look at a gardener's watering can & misunderstand the relationship
If I put something in my mouth, chew, and swallow it, and do not throw it up and portions of that substance, inside my body, becomes absorbed and turns by some mechanism into energy and nutrients to my cells, I have eaten that thing, by my definition. Just because it’s acted on by some kind of microorganism in the process doesn’t mean I didn’t eat it.
You seem like you really need to win this for reasons I sincerely don’t understand so I concede that you are completely right, cows are bloodthirsty carnivores.
Yes and then they eat it again you microbrain. They don't throw it up and then walk away and find some meat to eat instead.
Well, the more you know. I'm not vegan, but this isn't an argument against veganism. The way cows behave has nothing to do with how humans should behave, an ethical question.
Is this in reference to something or are you just sharing cool animal facts?
If it is the latter: There are 1 million ants for every human in the world.
It's hard at first but it gets easier. Congrats on taking the first step! o7
Where did all the vegan struggle sessions come from. In any case, it does go a long way to getting the old sub feel back. That's always nice.
My only fear here is that the mods might not be so smugly dismissive of both sides like they were there.
