I mean, it’s not really bestiality if it isn’t sexual. A gynocological exam also isn’t fingering.
A gynaecologist “treats” the patient, benefitting the patient.
Forcibly impregnating someone is also called rape.
Artificial insemination is a treatment.
*Procedure, a treatment is to relieve negative symptoms
If the recipient asked for it and the donor is giving it out of free will with the explicit intention then yes it is a medical treatment.
Ah yes so when I give my dog antibiotics for an infection against his will it’s definitely not medical treatment
Making an animal pregnant isn’t solving a medical issue. How do you not see the difference?
Personally I view it the same as giving medicine to a baby. They don’t understand, sometimes you have to make decisions in their best interests.
Key point: in their best interests, not for personal gain.
Are you planning on eating said dog?
Yes.
If we’re gonna eat it then same goes for my chickens
Probably not. But if the cow doesn’t get pregnant, it will probably become dog food.
With humans yes, but in the case of non-human animals these decisions are up to the owner.
edit: clarification for the ultra-dense.
You are aware humans are animals? The differentiation “human” is artificial and made up…
non-human animals … I didn’t think it needed spelling out.
The differentiation “human” is artificial and made up…
Uh… So the differentiation between ‘cow’ and ‘chicken’ is also artificial and made up, as well as the differentiation between ‘rock’ and ‘jetplane.’
What’s your point?
The differentiation “human” is artificial and made up…
You share 25% of your DNA with a tree, is it slavery to own four apple trees?
If the recipient asked for it and the donor is giving it out of free will
…and it’s medically indicated
Not a vegan but if you think what happens to cows is a medical “treatment” then you are a dumbass
Exactly, this is basically finding excuses to justify these actions. A treatment treats a condition, yet what does this treat - an ego of an person apparently.
it is not a needed treatment for the health and well being of the cow, it is a unecessary treatment forced upon the animal
Right, but we do need more cows in the long run.
a) we don’t b) they can happily fuck on their own, it just makes it harder to exploit them for their body fluids. Nobody cares about the calves, they are just needed for the mothers to lactate
Wouldn’t it make more sense to simply induce lactation than go through the whole rigmarole of artificial insemination and then having to dispose of the unwanted calves?
If you don’t tear a postpartum cow and its calf apart the milk just ain’t that tasty
Apparently not, otherwise that’s what farmers would do. Milk production is not an on-off thing either. There is milk for newborns (colostrum) for older babies, there is less fatty and more fatty milk, milk production is a wondrous thing that is regulated by the babies saliva, the moms hormones, how much milk got eaten, how the baby looks even. You can be breastfeeding two kids, if you consistently feed breast A to kid A and breast B to kid B the milk they produce will be different!
And that’s what the farmer is taking away from the mom. Using prolactin to induce milk production is also very error prone and not reliable. At least in humans afaik but I don’t see why it should be that different for cows.
We, in fact, do not.
You can find cows that fuck, no need to insert yourself into the reproductive cycle of cows.
You can find cows that fuck,
are they in my area
we need more cows
Absolute slaver brained person
Nah, just for eating, they don’t need to work. We got tractors for that.
That’s worse. You understand that this is worse right?
Artificial insemination without consent is rape. Natural insemination without consent is rape.
Cows cannot give consent to humans. No animal can. Hell, even if we discovered another human-like species but couldn’t have meaningful communication with them, it’d still be rape.
You can get consent from the cows owner. Definitely don’t inseminate some else’s cow without asking.
Consent from the owner?
And what if chattel slavery still existed? Would you be free to rape a black woman if her “owner” said yes?
No, because owning humans is wrong.
Why is it wrong?
If owning humans were ok, nothing else would be stopping you from going into your slaves?
Artificial insemination requires consent and you can’t get consent from a cow…
It is rape!
Remember there have been at least one-doctor that did this to women, not in his offices to become pregnant (warning, SP?). A famous case was a doctor that raped/impregnanted (SP?) a lot of women looking to become mothers, with his own sperm. The obvious results/proof came after birth,
Cows are not on the same level as humans
Arguing with vegans is like arguing with antivaxxers, they are positions based on emotions and they have their own version of reality they use to reinforce their believes. They often claim they have studies to back up their claims but the most shallow dive shows them to be bullshit.
It’s literally evident as they try to reframe this as rape. Their need to lean on rhetoric shows they have a strong basis for their believes.
What do we call a sexual act with a being that did not consent?
Does it matter if the being is human? And what if the being is a neanderthal?
Or say we find a lady on the street and DNA test her, find out she’s technically not human. What would we call sexually acting upon her without her consent?
If defining this action triggers you emotionally this much, that’s a reflection of your ability to have level-headed conversations. It’s not your interlocutor as much as you’d like to claim.
My criticism here isn’t about any specific group or topic. It’s about this aggravating debate pattern where rhetoric is used to paint the opponent’s argument into a morally charged form rather than addressing the actual claim being made.
That style of engagement is not something that ever leads to meaningful discussions.
A similar dynamic occurs in other highly polarized subjects where participants are more focused on signaling moral positions than resolving the underlying question.
This sort of shit has been going on since at least the times of Artistole who championed logic over emotion.
Neanderthals don’t exist anymore so your argumentation already falls apart. And also you’re moving the goalpost
Forcibly impregnating someone is also called rape.
someone
Key word.
It’s not rape if it’s your dog
I would really like to see you try to get your dog pregnant.
There’s websites for that.
Why do you want to watch that?
A human can try to impregnate a dog, they just can’t succeed
Oh gods I forgot about the humsters. Someone bring me a rum bucket and a new liver please
I’m the dog.
I think I need to mute this thread before I dig this hole too deep.
we can mute threads?
Thank you! I knew I heard it somewhere before
That’s correct, yes.
However, my dog is my property, and someone can only artificially inseminate my property with my permission.
What in the fuck
Anti-vegans will go to any depths of depravity in order to deal with their cognitive dissonance. Once, on Reddit, I got a commenter to agree that he would be fine if someone had a dog in a cage they tortured for entertainment, rather than agree that it’s kinda fucked up that we slaughter animals because their flesh tastes nice.
Real question, what if there is no cognitive dissonance.
Like someone who knows exactly what’s going on and says “fuck it, it’s delicious” ?
“I lead someone who disagrees with me into saying something stupid once, therefore everyone who disagrees with me must have cognitive dissonance.”
Lol
So let me get this straight, you were arguing with someone, tried to lead them to a contradiction, but they actually had a consistent view on it that you didn’t like, and your conclusion is that they have cognitive dissonance?
My friend, I do not think that means what you think it means.
So you’re aware, that’s a really fucked up thing to think. Let alone say.
But maybe we disagree only on terminology?
What would you call the act of nonconsensually sticking your dick into your dog, and do you think it’s horrible?
What would you call the act of nonconsensually sticking your dick into your dog, and do you think it’s horrible?
Raping a dog is bad, yes.
Raping a dog is bad, yes.
So a dog is someone and that’s what makes it rape? Where do you draw the line for someone? Is it the act of rape itself that’s bad, or is it the perpetrator getting sexual satisfaction from it? What if they don’t do it for that purpose, but some other more abstract reason? Is it okay then?
Ah the tried and tested “it’s ok if it’s my property” which historically(and currently) is a universal guideline for what is and isn’t ok.
Idk there’s two schools of thought on this. One is that you can own another creature with a mind. I find this attitude leads to a lot of very unsettling situations and possibly weird shit.
The other is that you treat them like a child that is in your custody where you can order them what to do and where to go and what to eat but society expects you to follow certain rules while they’re in your custody.
Ah yes, that’s the take I want to side with!
If I own a human slave, me artificially inseminating them without consent isn’t rape?
If I DNA test the slave from earlier and discover they aren’t human, inseminating them without consent wouldn’t be rape?
If I own a human slave
…
If I DNA test the slave from earlier and discover they aren’t human
Uh… what are they, then?
I don’t think these absurd hypotheticals are helping your argument.
They are a nonhuman animal that has sentience, property of mine. Let’s call them hooman.
You know hypotheticals are used to test consistency in someone’s logic and answering these will end up in you admitting absurdities. If I wasn’t interested in the truth, I would avoid answering them as well.
If it applies to one animal it should apply to all, but go ahead and be a special snowflake instead
no. different things are different.
Like, what a fucking stupid answer that can apply to anything and nothing at the same time.
Animals are animals, and humans are animals. Kangaroos are not cows, but both are also animals - different things ARE different, but at the same time, in some aspects, they are not.
Why doesn’t my dog have a right to vote? Why can a snake eat eggs but I can’t? Why is it OK for ants to farm aphids but not for humans to farm cows?
Different things are, in fact, different. There are lots of dead simple and airtight arguments for veganism without counterproductive emotional appeals. Talk about economics or ecology or health and not about sad puppy dog eyes.
Hell yeah! Morals are just a suggestion, lions eat their young, but I can’t? That’s bullshit and we all know it. If you wanna argue against eating our young (just the disabled ones, of course), please keep that melodramatic stuff out of here.
The attitude of someone who mistreats animals ☝️
I don’t mistreat animals. this is libelous.
deleted by creator
That’s what somebody who mistreats animals says
paying someone to kill an animal so that you can consume its corpse is how you treat animals nicely, is it?
Do bulls obtain consent? Nature is rapey as hell
Pretty fucked up to try to equate animal husbandry with rape.
If you believe that animals should have rights like humans do, then animals can be raped. If slavery was still legal, would you write “it’s pretty fucked up to equate slave husbandry with rape”? Just because we have historically done something, that doesn’t mean that what we’re doing is in any way moral.
Animals can have rights and be protected from unnecessary cruelty without anthropomophizing them and granting full human rights. You’re equating full, sapient humans with a species specifically bred for a base purpose without higher levels of thought and expression.
I don’t even think that statement is anthropocentric hubris. If ultra-advanced aliens showed up tomorrow and started domesticating humans for food or some other purpose, I would have the default expectation of them having the same or similar morals. Maybe we’d get access to decent healthcare and good libraries before we went to the slaughterhouse.
Cows get more rights than trees or crops because they have an ability to express pain and convey emotion. They don’t have the same rights as humans because they could never give a passionate argument for suffrage to a jury.
And to be clear: there are plenty of real, tangible reasons to end animal husbandry and make everyone vegan without even touching philosophy.
If ultra-advanced aliens showed up tomorrow and started domesticating humans for food or some other purpose, I would have the default expectation of them having the same or similar morals. Maybe we’d get access to decent healthcare and good libraries before we went to the slaughterhouse
I can’t believe you said this with a straight face. This is the depths of depravity and mental gymnastics that a non vegan philosophical position leads to. I’m also sure that if this actually happened, you would throw your logic in the trash, where it belongs, and you would fight for the liberation of the slaughtered race.
Do you want to extend the argument to a person who is in a permanent comatose state? By your definition, they are without “higher levels of thought and expression”. Is it cool to eat them?
If the advanced aliens had the control over us that we exert over animals then I wouldn’t have a choice. And whether I fight or not isn’t relevant to their choice to farm me. If anything it’s in their best interest to keep me healthy and content until I’m harvested.
Your coma example is laughable. They’re a human. A medical procedure (even if we don’t have the technology to perform it) could return them to normal function. Turning a cow into a human-like creature is a different discussion altogether, it would be a transformation at such a fundamental level that we might as well be discussing artificial personhood instead of the ethics of diet.
If we invented a procedure that could make corn moo would it no longer be vegan?
If the advanced aliens had the control over us that we exert over animals then I wouldn’t have a choice. And whether I fight or not isn’t relevant to their choice to farm me. If anything it’s in their best interest to keep me healthy and content until I’m harvested.
You keep avoiding the moral implications here because you know the argument is bs. If some groups of people mass bred and slaughtered monkeys or dogs on an industrial scale would you not care, because they don’t have a choice? It would be the same as your example, without the alien hypotheticals.
A medical procedure could return them to normal function
The disconnect between the logical, robotical analysis in the first case and the childish, optimistic look here really just highlights the compartmentalization you have to go through for a “coherent” position.
Slaves can have rights and be protected from unnecessary cruelty without anthropomophizing them and granting full human rights. You’re equating full, sapient humans with a species specifically bred for a base purpose without higher levels of thought and expression.
Your ancestors, probably
Kind of racist to suggest that slaves were a different species
That’s the point
That’s exactly how people justified slavery in the past, and it is how the person I replied to justified their argument. That’s my entire point. It’s the same argument.
This is a ludicrous argument. If you truly believe that all animals have the same rights then the only internally consistent conclusion is the virtual extermination of the human species.
Life is a zero sum game. Something lives by consuming something else or displacing it for access to limited resources. Optimizing for the minimum harm to earth’s ecosystem is always going to be the end of agriculture, housing, hunting, industry and basically everything other human institution. We’re the most insidious invasive species ever and the world would be healthier without us mucking around.
So unless you’re stumping for that, don’t pretend to have the moral high ground. If you are, stop wasting your time shaming people and skip right to culling them.
Bro would rather exterminate all humans than admit that he should just go vegan
I advocate for humanity to live in harmony and balance with our environment, that is why I am anti-imperialist and anti-capitalist as well as vegan. Our history is plagued with exploitation, that can’t be denied, but I am trying to change it and you are arguing that it cannot be changed and that we shouldn’t even try.
Humanity’s relationship with animals and nature has historically been exploitative but it doesn’t need to be that way.
We have vastly increased our ability to produce food. There are ample resources available on the planet for all of us to share and live in abundance. Human greed and selfishness is rewarded by our society. That means our society needs to change.
I reject your argument that life is a zero-sum game. My happiness does not need to come at the expense of another’s unhappiness. We can all work together to create a better future for all living things on our planet.
Something lives by consuming something else or displacing it for access to limited resources.
True, but no one gives a shit when the consumed life is a plant.
People say the “plants feel pain” thing rhetorically, but it isn’t a serious argument. And if they were somehow actually being serious, then this would actually strengthen the case to only consume plants due the efficiency of doing so vs consuming animal products.
If you believe that animals should have rights like humans do
no one believes that. not even vegans
Wow, comparing actual human slavery to cattle production. That’s certainly a take
Fucking hell, now you’re comparing slaves to animals? Seek help
I am, the comparison is extremely apt. An entire group of thinking, feeling, sentient, living creatures, exploited for profit. We look down on them as being beneath us, and a culture that normalizes beating, raping and killing them. Living beings, treated as property. They are slaves. Lots of people like to believe that if they had lived during slavery, they would have been against it. This is the modern equivelent.
Dude we did not eat slaves the fuck. That’s quite possibly the second most disingenuous comparison I’ve read in a while. Bravo.
deleted by creator
How is impregnating a treatment?
Dude, forcing semen into a vagina is not a fucking treatment. Disgusting rape apologia.
Aka the nudist defense.
Is your gynecologist jerking you off?
Eww, no. Gross.
My gyno jerks off my cows like a civilized person.
No, but I’ve seen some video evidence …
I mean with some of the prostate exams I’ve had I’d almost assume as much.
It is sexual, it sounds like they jack them off to acquire genetic material to impregnate the female livestock with
Trying to be “facts forward” so make of this what you will. Source: I was in FFA in highschool in a beef intense-ish area.
The method of collecting semen I’m most familiar with is when they take a female cow in heat and tie her up, then bring a male bull they want to collect semen from into the same pen. The male will smell the female is in heat, gets erect, and will attempt to mount her.
As the male is trying to mount the female, people in the pen with the cattle will have a large rubbery “sleeve” on a pole (imagine a cow sized condom on a stick) that they will maneuver around the bull’s penis as it mounts the cow. He does his thing in the condom thinking he’s inside the female (usually less than 30 seconds) dismounts and then the ranchers have their semen for artificial insemination.
I’ve been out of that area for over a decade now so a new method may have emerged since then, but in my Animal Sciences class, that’s how we were taught semen is harvested for most livestock.
Edit: I distinctly recall the “artificial vagina” being on a stick (and laughing about it in class), but best video I can find on the quick: https://youtu.be/-4ma3WeOxbo
TBF that one sounds like no lines are crossed
Eh, I feel like the female cow is still getting a raw deal. Less raw than the classic “breed this bull with this cow” arrangement, but still somewhat not good.
there is a new method of eletrical rectal stimulation that stimulates the prostate through the anus, afaik only used on bovines
Ew.
So that is to say, as far as you know, the method I describe above more or less still applies for pigs, sheep, etc?
yes those methods are pretty universal
ew? heh, thats not even the worst stuff, look up how artificial semination is done in goats, it is really bad, efectively a surgery has to be done
You left out the rest, where the calf is seperated from its mother, tortured and killed for veal, while the mother mourns the loss of her child that the milk she produces is actually for, so the milk can be stolen from her for profit.
Found the vegan
Did you know that one of the common methods of turning pigs into pork is to lower them into a chamber filled with carbon dioxide so that the pigs suffocate to death? They scream out in agony while dying. Pigs are as intelligent as dogs, if not moreso.
almost no calves end up as veal at all. the vast majority are brought to full weight before slaughter
hahahahahahahaha I know that style of “arguing” from somewhere…
edit: don’t worry I’ll never tell
I’ll get banned otherwise, make a yptb post about it which somehow results in feddit.org getting defedded and all the zionist crybabies coming out in force
stating facts to correct misinformation is a style, i guess.
Unless they are jacking off themselves at the same time, it’s not sexual.
I get what you’re saying but it’s sexual assault, no?
No.
If I were to artificially inseminate a woman with sperm from a spermbank without her consent, would that be sexual assault?
Unless that women is a literal cow, yes.
right mate, I am sure you can draw any equivalences with bestiality and such yourself, so I won’t explicate on them. I just want to say, you don’t have to defend the man-made horrors within our comprehension of animal product industries if you don’t want to be a vegan. I am not a vegan, because I can’t afford to. You can just say “that shit’s fucked up”.
Others Beings have rights!!! If you believe in god(s), then you are in real trouble after death, let alone those that do this.
Are they inseminating a cows with non-steers’ sperm from a sperm bank without their consent? I do not think so, as a regular practice, but sometimes greater abuse, I would never be surprised.
Is artificial insemination of livestock sexual assault?
…
If non-human animals cannot consent, isn’t all sex between any two non-human animals rape?
If that’s the case, isn’t this preferable to just letting the animals just rape each other indiscriminately?
isn’t all sex between any two non-human animals rape?
Non-human animals aren’t moral agents and can’t be subjected to the same moral outcomes that humans have. The same way we can’t say a hurricane has done something immoral.
Non-human animals are moral patients. When moral agents act immorally upon moral patients, the agents are responsible.
Compare: it’s rape to have sex with someone underage, but two underage people can have sex with each other without it being rape.
isn’t this preferable to just letting the animals just rape each other indiscriminately?
That’s not why people do it though. It is wrong to make up new justifications for actions after the fact. It exists as an industrial process to get animals pregnant more often than they’d naturally choose to.
isn’t all sex between any two non-human animals rape?
And no, not all sex between 2 animals is rape. Animals can consent to sex with other members of their species, animals can’t consent to sex with other species because of communication differences (the big one being any animal with a human).
If that’s the case, isn’t this preferable to just letting the animals just rape each other indiscriminately?
The same way that hunting is more moral than farming, letting animals go at it in a natural way is way better than 1. tricking bulls into ejaculating into tubes and 2. forcibly inseminating cows with that genetic material.
You need to quantify the rate at which animal rape is occuring to justify using this method on the basis of “preventing rape.”
Also if you sought to prevent any animal rape, you’d have to seperate them all by sex. As far as I know this doesn’t generally happen except for their specific breeding season, and it would be cruel to seperate male and female livestock for their entire existence, just as it’s cruel to deny them their natural sexual intercourse. Humans aren’t supposed to play God with every facet of an animal’s life.
Yes, it is.
It is sexual abuse on Living Beings, let alone sexual.
it’s a veterinary procedure
Veterinary in the sense that “it’s a duty a veterinarian might perform do,” but in this context it’s done to create more animals for us to harvest food from. Because letting them do it at their own rate wasn’t fast enough for this industrialised society’s appetite.
It’s disingenous to call it a veterinary procedure; we’re under no illusions about why this is being done. The cow didn’t ask for a bloody sperm donor, lol.
I’m not sure on the specific definition of “bestiality” and whether “sexual pleasure of the executing party” or whatever you want to call it is a necessity, but consent should certainly be a part of it.
Animals are, similar to children, students etc, fundamentally incapable of giving consent. If your gynecologist sticks a finger up your vagina without your consent, then it’s rape.
Animals are, similar to children, students etc, fundamentally incapable of giving consent
Well … I agree with most of your points. But animals are not humans, so consent works fundamentally different. Domestic animals are owned, so humans act as the legal guardian. Yes, there should be regulation regarding general animal welfare.
But I don’t think artificial insemination of livestock falls into the category of bestiality. It’s a fun meme and shitpost, though.
I don’t think artificial insemination of livestock falls into the category of bestiality.
If the perpetrator of the act (or the beneficiaries from the act) derives pleasure from it, isn’t it bestiality?
I think I know where you’re going with this … mh. Depends of what kind of pleasure. If it’s sexual, that would be bestiality, I guess.
If someone likes doing it because their arm feels good inside the cow’s anus, fisting a cow wouldn’t be bestiality?
Sure, but I think there is only a very small number of people that are in this business for that reason. Most of them just want to get their job done.
Say Alice fists a dog and films it, let’s say she derived no pleasure from fisting the dog, just wanted to get her job done. But she then posts the video online for many others to derive pleasure from it. Did she commit bestiality?
If your gynecologist sticks a finger up your vagina without your consent, then it’s rape.
So they’re supposed to ask every fucking time you’re spread at the table May i please insert my finger in your vagina to do my fucking job, pretty please?
And are you sure students can’t consent?Yes to both. Nonconsentual digital penetration isn’t suddenly ok just because the perpetrator works in a specific field. Teachers hold power over students’ lives to such an extent that students might not be able to reasonably refuse consent, ergo, they cannot freely give it. What the actual fuck is wrong with you, you creep???
I forgot not to feed the trolls.
I’m a little disappointed that everybody is appealing to ethics and professionalism.
According to biblical law its fine as long as they’re married.
And the law of Nature: many plants use “pollinators”. These here are human pollinators for cows. They pull out the bull honey (pollinators) and insert it into cows (flowers). The only part thats weird is unlike bees, the humans aren’t taking a nibble of the honey.
Edit: I adjusted the language to be more combatible to australian english speakers.
I think this post might be too powerful for lemmy shitpost.
“This is the police! Hands up you FREAK!”
“…im a farmer”
“omg thats so cool, can i bring my kids to watch and maybe they can try?”
Fruit is perfectly wholesome and natural though. Except they aren’t…
Corn is basically a bulge of semen because of how humans have bred it.
Bananas are incapable of reproducing. All bananans you find in the supermarket are clones. If men were to die out, so would the common (cavendish) banana.
Cows are bred for milk production. If it wasn’t for men, their milk production would be very different. It’s just as natural as a banana.
Cows are just as unnatural as bananas, but the farming of animals is much more cruel, unnecessary, and destructive to the environment
True, but the monoculture of banans is also destructive to the environments and biodiversity.
That’s why I used the phrasing “much more”
We’re also the only reason cows still exist.
Extinction would be a kindness for domesticated livestock species (or subspecies…whatever they are classified as). It would break the endless nightmare of factory farming.
It’s factory farming because at this point if it weren’t for raising animals for slaughter, we would have hunted pretty much everything to extinction. Vegan might be less harmful (aside that we evolved to eat meat and a vegan diet is hard to get right) but it isn’t without death. All those plants kill loads of insects and field mice and birds and rabbits. Everyone still gets a bit of blood on their hands.
All those plants kill loads of insects and field mice and birds and rabbits
Eating plants directly significantly reduces the deaths of insects and other wildlife caused by agriculture. It takes a lot of plants to produce meat.
A vegan diet is not hard to get right. Not at all. The only hard part is that most people are not vegan.
Are they overdue to go extinct somehow?
The cows we have that we get milk and beef from never lived in the wild. They’re domesticated from wild aurochs that started up around 10,000 years ago. Cows are domesticated food sources that wouldn’t exist without us, just like dogs wouldn’t exist without us.
Ah, yeah, I thought it was if we go extinct, not if we never existed
I JUST RECENTLY found out I enjoy corn now. Dont take this away from me.
Wait which part of the man is the banana reliant upon
the part where we use pesticides, fertilizer and other techniques to make sure these plants don’t die. they’re bred for usefuleness, not for surviving in the wild. this is basically true for all crops we farm
the part we eat.
If people are willing to mastrubate bulls for money, then just imagine what else they are willing to do to earn a buck.
ITT: Animal abuse apologia
You guys are doing it for the meat and that’s weak. I don’t need a reason.
This fuckin comment section.
reads some comments
makes a couple comments
reads more comments
…
…
Veganism is unnatural because we’re all omnivores, and evolved eating both plants and animals.
Impregnating cows this way is also unnatural.
Both can be true.
Fun fact, we evolved to eat raw meat, that’s why we have an appendix. Then, when we stopped eating raw meat, we started to evolve away from the appendix.
Evolutionary arguments don’t support the naturalist fallacy, because evolution doesn’t work like that. It responds to environmental pressures. It’s not some guiding light for what we’re “meant” to be doing, it’s the tools we’ve got to support what we already did.
This article says it was for raw vegetables:
For our ancestors, the appendix most likely evolved to help them digest a diet rich in raw vegetables and cellulose, as it still does in many herbivorous mammals. Thousands of years ago it would have functioned as an extension of the cecum, involved in the bacterial digestion of fibrous plant materials.
That is not proven though, the appendix part, that’s the explanation I like the best as well. Other explanations, I forget, the aliens had it for some shit we don’t even know about, oh yeah, the more likely non joke one, and it could be what you say and this both many organs do multiple things, is to provide a reservoir of gut bacteria, to repopulate the gut after the system is flushed. That would go right along with digesting raw meat, as using independent bacteria is large part of the human body we’ve come to learn.
I forget what the other theories are, but there are others for the appendix, I believe the raw meat and reservoir of bacteria both though is most likely.
While still technically a theory, the appendix acting as a reservoir for healthy gut bacteria has largely been proven. That function could very well have helped with digestion of raw meat as well, especially if eating raw meats caused issues with diarrhea.
To quote Meatloaf: 🎵🎶 IIIIIIIIIIII WANT MY
MONEYAPPENDIX BACK!🎶🎵Look. If you want it to scan, it’s got to be "‘ppendix’, otherwise there’s an extra syllable there. :)
I want my money back
That wasn’t fun
The bricks and the gravel and the mud and the blood
Another wild teenager in search of success, welcome to the jewel of the modified west
It’s probably got more to do with eating less rotten meat than eating less raw meat. It has functions for the immune system it is like the surveillance system for what is being introduced to the body.
we’re all omnivores
Except, you know, the vegans.
They are still omnivores who choose to limit their diet. Acknowledging that is a choice gives it meaning, which would be lost if it was treated as something similar to being an herbivore.
I am not personally a vegan or vegetarian, but respect the choice to limit one’s diet for the purpose of limiting animal suffering.
being an herbivore.
That’s in Japan.
Given that I’m typing this in a climate-controlled room on a computer that is connected to the internet, I would say that natural/unnatural has lost relevancy to modern lifestyles.
Our monkey, or rather ape, ancestors were more vegan than meat eater.
Today, most people are “more vegan” than meat eater, too, as in they eat more grains and vegetables than meat. If that’s what you meant.
Not if rfk and the beef lobby have anything to say about that
Don’t worry, they don’t
More vegan.
What a curious phrase. Not just for the substitution of vegetarian for vegan, but for the use of “more”. More vegan. I thought it was binary. Are there partial vegans? I thought that wasn’t allowed.
Because my diet includes more calories and nutrition from plant matter than meat most days, am I more vegan now?
You may already be a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexitarianism
"International research explains that flexitarianism is used as a broader term to describe partial reductions in meat consumption without fixed requirements.[7]"
Sorry, you’re too late. I now identify as More Vegan. ;)
Its more fun to highlight that veganism is about ethics so its not dietary its about ethical consumption of animal products. Which humans are animals.
And you could be a carnivore vegan - all you’d have to do is find volunteer meat to eat, so you’d need to be a cannibal or find that talking cow from the Douglas Adams books.
And I’m sorry but why add the fucking picture I don’t get how that is applicable to anything
I was going to add a picture of Epstein and his super pals from a mural in sydney but I don’t even see how to do that.
The picture is of “the vegan police” from Scott pilgrim vs the world (2010)
In prehistory the are not eating dairy, but may eat dead animals, insects, shellfish, etc.
So not all vegan, but moreso than not.
Humans evolved to proccess dairy, not once, not twice, but 3 times. Some studies even suggest up to 5 times.
Seems like it was definitely advantageous to consume dairy
Outside of mother’s milk our ape ancestors weren’t getting any dairy though. Maybe the last 10k, even longer, years. Not the last 100k, to say nothing of the last 10 million.
You are right it is a newer adaptation, but one that was clearly advantageous to our species. There are not many evolutionary changes that occurred independently in 3-5 different populations.
Crabs have entered the chat
That’s literally not in any way shape or form veganism. That’s omnivorous, no ifs ands or buts about it.
There’s no evidence to support that. Best evidence is that our ancestors for the longest time were likely opportunistic omnivores. Plants of course were a large part of the diet, but looking back to about 3.9 mya meat was on the menu.
They overwhelmingly ate more plants than meat we can safely presume. Meat they could get would be mostly insects, and an already dead or sick animals. Later when they came out of the trees shellfish.
Yes scavenging for meat is generally considered a very important part of human evolution. Our stomachs are particularly acidic when compared to other great apes. This is believed to have evolved due to a high consumption of scavenged meats.
You are right though plants generally did form a large portion of our and our ancestors diets.
Important to note that as our brain size increased it did correlate with increased meat consumption as well. This all goes into calorie densities, available nutrients, and evolutionary pressures.
Impregnating cows this way is also unnatural.
Definitely. Aren’t their hands in the anus?
A guy reading a Bible on one hand with his hand a foot deep into a cow’s behind…they let you do it if you’re famous said the lord.
Vegans will NEVER have the political clout to force their way of life on everyone, and they’re mad AF about it.
It’s not just political clout. Attempting to politically force veganism on the world would result in a war, not just votes against it.
Vegans don’t want to force anything on anyone. What we want to do is to persuade people to change their minds. I believe wholeheartedly that veganism as a majority position is inevitable. In the past, the idea that black women would be allowed to vote was more unthinkable than majority veganism is now. History trends towards progressivism.
to force their way of life on everyone
So fascism?
People won’t willingly give up meat, so barring the issue being forced due to economics, the way to a vegan society is via cultured meat.
Not only that, but also vegan diet is literally making people crazy (or crazy people are more often on vegan diet, dealer’s choice).
Source: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10408398.2020.1741505#abstract
The majority of studies, and especially the higher quality studies, showed that those who avoided meat consumption had significantly higher rates or risk of depression, anxiety, and/or self-harm behaviors. There was mixed evidence for temporal relations, but study designs and a lack of rigor precluded inferences of causal relations. Our study does not support meat avoidance as a strategy to benefit psychological health.
Interesting that someone could look at a normal (albeit unpleasant) veterinary procedure and immediately think of beasiality.
The posters here are the same types of men who used to argue that enslaved human beings weren’t ‘people,’ merely property to do with as they pleased.
Yes, there are savagely callous, rather unintelligent and spiritually devoid humans who claim that cows - and by implication all other non-human beings - are not ‘people,’ but it doesn’t make it true. It just betrays their own barbaric stupidity.
The argument that non-human animals do not possess some vague set of traits that make humans the only species worthy of being classified as ‘people,’ is small-minded and ignorant, and based on outdated, biased and anthropocentric beliefs.
Cows, like all mammals, are beings who share the same kind of social bonds, care and love for family and community that humans share. They live complex emotional lives. They ARE ‘people,’ just as whales (who have been legally recognized as having personhood), dolphins, elephants and primates, are ‘people.’
Unfortunately we live in a society that more readily ascribes personhood to a sociopathic corporation than it does to living, empathetic beings who nurture their young, suffer and grieve, and deserve to live lives of dignity as much as any human does.
https://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/opinion/sunday/dogs-are-people-too.html
https://www.earthlawcenter.org/blog-entries/2024/7/whale-personhood-in-polynesia
I came across a vidya on the interwebs many hears ago where a monkey grabbed a frog and used it as a fleshlight… Ever since then Ive had a different relationship with the word “unnatural”. The truth is that shoving your arm up a cows ass and eating vegan fervantly and being a hater ass bitch are all perfect examples of natural human behaviour…and im well past thinking theyre not.
“Farmers are weird therefore vegans aren’t”
🤦♂️
“this image clearly shows weirder things than any vegan does”
I’ve dated vegan girls that were into some weird stuff. Granted, it was weird stuff between consenting sapient adults…
By shifting the metaphor from “Earth as mother” to “Earth as lover” we aim to entice people to develop a more mutual, pleasurable, sustainable, and less destructive relationship with the environment.
While quirky, this is definitively less weird than OP’s disgusting image
They literally fuck plants.
So there exists some group using a weird metaphor, and somehow that is just as representative of vegans as a video of how farming works is of farmers…?
Way to shift that goalpost. You very clearly said “any vegan”, if you meant something else you should have said something else.
I guess I have to caveat my phrasing even when it’s super obvious what was meant. Everyone knows you could’ve found a single example of a vegan doing something bizarre, yet it wouldn’t be remotely relevant unless it were at least a semi-popular trend.
Hint: “everyone” in this comment doesn’t literally mean every human in existence.
In the presence of corpsemunchers who will use any excuse and every technicality to sooth their cognitive dissonance, yeah. But fuck them cheesebreaths so do whatever.
We need Obama back to the White House
