5 ms·

Free range means nothing. This is humane washing, and is incredibly misleading. Here’s a good rule of thumb: any animal product you use, outside of veeery rare

Free range means nothing. This is humane washing, and is incredibly misleading. Here’s a good rule of thumb: any animal product you use, outside of veeery rare cases like backyard eggs, you _know_ it is the result of needless suffering. Even things like backyard eggs can easily be rife with issues, however. https://www.surgeactivism.org/humanewashing https://www.surgeactivism.org/humanewashing

kkfx 5y ago
Did you know how in free, natural nature animals eat? grass is literally eaten alive, animals are normally torn apart by other animal teeth. What you propose? Change nature to be a false/artificial paradise? Humans are omnivores, we need to eat meat and animal proteins to live well, that's is, we can and we should treats animals we eat differently but that's not just a mere business issue, it's also a dimensional issue: we are many, too many. I doubt we can live without certain practice. I do not say, of course, that TINA, we are in the sole possible world etc, just saying that going from an extreme to another is a good way to makes disasters.
- sweetheart 5y ago
  Every major nutrition and dietetics association agrees unanimously that a vegan diet is healthy for all stages of life including pregnancy. https://youaretheirvoice.com/pages/the-clear-consensus https://youaretheirvoice.com/pages/the-clear-consensus So you’re simply not correct that we need animals to thrive.
  - kkfx 5y ago
    Every scientific associations in the recent past have said that sardines, blue fish are the proteins of the sea, we need to eat them, few years later the same say that are full of poisons. Few years earlier eggs are the best nutrient we have, few years after eggs are hard to digest, full of "cholesterol" [1]. Long story short "dietetics association" means mostly lobbyist associations on sale to the best offer. Oh, BTW just a bit more time ago most MDs agreed that radioactivity is good for health and they try to determine the best dosage of radium to be put on skin and eat for various purposes like fight baldness or fortifying the fetus in pregnant women. Years later most MDs agree that smoking tobacco is very good for many things, especially useful to fight flu and cold. Few years later we discover that that's was an Eduard Bernays advertising campaign: he created a medical journal that start publishing real studies and he distribute it between medical offices and universities, then he start injecting few false but false but credible studies that praised tobacco smoke. In little time many real researchers have follow claiming other discovering. I can't really know for sure why there is a push against meat, what I know for sure is that's not a matter of fighting climate change, nor adapting to it. Another thing I know for sure is that ultra-processed foods, like foods based on insects and grains, cost very little for their producers on scale, and can be sold with a very big margin and are complex enough to make them taste good that no small player can compete. Meanwhile I know how sales of statins climbs in the recent years and who profit for them. [1] witch is a common world and a completely true and false statement since LDL is digested thanks to all animal proteins and pushed up by starchy foods.
    - sweetheart 5y ago
      If credible sources from experts don’t matter to you, then I don’t think there is any way you’ll be convicted of anything. Doesn’t sound like you’re actually open to discussion.
      - kkfx 5y ago
        I simply call "credible sources from experts" other things. In the recent past we read that blue fish are "the protein of the sea, eat much" then "blue fish collect all sort of pollutants, avoid it". We see "eggs are a godsend for health, eat them at minimum one per day" and then again "eggs are 'cholesterol' avoid them, limiting them as possible" etc. In an a bit far past (not that far) doctors recommend smoking as a cure-all for common winter disease, "it kills all the germs of the season", years after we discover that was just the result of an Eduard Bernays campaign for the American Tobacco Company: he create a new scientific journal, collecting real studies and sending it for free "to advertise the new journal", it became popular thanks to easy access and low entry barrier for publishing, then he inject some credible studies that prize smoking. MANY OTHERS researchers have followed them, taking them as true, and amplifying the echo. Long story short, I have enough basic scientific knowledge to discern and to remember that Science is not based on blind trusting some "expert" but always demand why. Take meat for instance, common voices, dressed as scientific truth say that's bad for climate change because demand much water and produce much methane. Now try to see how much methane we estimate released into the atmosphere due to arctic heating and how much CO₂ is annually release by world fires. Clearly methane from cows does not change the climate. Now water: yes, livestock drink, clean water, and release urine, witch is not clean water. BUT it's still water. If treated to produce natural (ammonia-based) fertilizers we desperately need, the outcome is clean water, because we do not "consume" it, it's just a cycle. So again that statement is true if we just see a small part of the picture, false otherwise. That's is, I have collect many examples of false beliefs considered established Science that aren't science at all. Of course I do know the ancient pro-smoking campaign was an advertisement campaign because that's history, we have documents, what's up today is "present" documents are not public, at least not much and not yet, but while we can't know "the real truth" we can still try to discern what's probably true from what's probably false, choosing not to trust any guru or formal association, privately founded just to note, but using actual Scientific method, demanding evidence, elaborating it.
- AnonC 5y ago
  > Change nature to be a false/artificial paradise? Who’s asking to change other animals? It’s about humans changing their behavior. In nature, forced sex is very common among many animals. But in human societies we have deemed it a criminal activity. That’s just one example to show that humans, especially in our times, have improved ethics and the agency to commit to better ethics compared to our ancestors in the distant past.
  - kkfx 5y ago
    Oh we made criminal many things, just look around in the world how common they are... Just look how ethical are our most well known citizens from governments to big enterprises...
- brimble 5y ago
  Nature: living every day like you're in a slasher horror movie. Really, really bad. It only seems fun and wholesome to us because we're on top and almost none of us spend much time genuinely engaging with nature in even the way that an apex predator has to, let alone prey animals. And jeez, why would we? It's terrible. Factory farm: living every day (and probably not very many of them) like you're in Saw or Cube or something. Far worse than even the pretty bad situation that is life in nature. Like, a lot worse. And that was already pretty bad. Ethical farms, keeping backyard chickens, et c: Like living in a relatively good dystopia. Brave New World, maybe, in the best case. Logan's Run, in the worst.
  - kkfx 5y ago
    Are we different then all other animals in natural terms? We need to eat like any other living being, we need to eat well, to reproduce to keep our species alive, we need to rest, ... whats the difference? It's because living in an network of intensive farms, named cities, detached from our natural environment, seeing the foods popping up regularly in certain place, already prepared, no need to hunt/source it, we thing that food arrive here by nature, that our intensive farm is actually nature? Is that really different? Oh, yes we are not slaughtered at a certain point of our life, except in case of wars etc, but we are equally "used" for doing various jobs by some of us who think they are puppet-masters and we are the puppets (cfr. famous JP Morgan leaked phrase, various neoliberal books etc). Oh, yes, in our case the shepherd is not from another species (witch made things even worse), but we equally born in such intensive farms not free in nature. It's just a matter about how much bad farming is bad, how much ethical farming is ethical.

kkfx 5y ago

Did you know how in free, natural nature animals eat? grass is literally eaten alive, animals are normally torn apart by other animal teeth. What you propose? Change nature to be a false/artificial paradise? Humans are omnivores, we need to eat meat and animal proteins to live well, that's is, we can and we should treats animals we eat differently but that's not just a mere business issue, it's also a dimensional issue: we are many, too many. I doubt we can live without certain practice. I do not say, of course, that TINA, we are in the sole possible world etc, just saying that going from an extreme to another is a good way to makes disasters.

sweetheart 5y ago
Every major nutrition and dietetics association agrees unanimously that a vegan diet is healthy for all stages of life including pregnancy. https://youaretheirvoice.com/pages/the-clear-consensus https://youaretheirvoice.com/pages/the-clear-consensus So you’re simply not correct that we need animals to thrive.
- kkfx 5y ago
  Every scientific associations in the recent past have said that sardines, blue fish are the proteins of the sea, we need to eat them, few years later the same say that are full of poisons. Few years earlier eggs are the best nutrient we have, few years after eggs are hard to digest, full of "cholesterol" [1]. Long story short "dietetics association" means mostly lobbyist associations on sale to the best offer. Oh, BTW just a bit more time ago most MDs agreed that radioactivity is good for health and they try to determine the best dosage of radium to be put on skin and eat for various purposes like fight baldness or fortifying the fetus in pregnant women. Years later most MDs agree that smoking tobacco is very good for many things, especially useful to fight flu and cold. Few years later we discover that that's was an Eduard Bernays advertising campaign: he created a medical journal that start publishing real studies and he distribute it between medical offices and universities, then he start injecting few false but false but credible studies that praised tobacco smoke. In little time many real researchers have follow claiming other discovering. I can't really know for sure why there is a push against meat, what I know for sure is that's not a matter of fighting climate change, nor adapting to it. Another thing I know for sure is that ultra-processed foods, like foods based on insects and grains, cost very little for their producers on scale, and can be sold with a very big margin and are complex enough to make them taste good that no small player can compete. Meanwhile I know how sales of statins climbs in the recent years and who profit for them. [1] witch is a common world and a completely true and false statement since LDL is digested thanks to all animal proteins and pushed up by starchy foods.
  - sweetheart 5y ago
    If credible sources from experts don’t matter to you, then I don’t think there is any way you’ll be convicted of anything. Doesn’t sound like you’re actually open to discussion.
    - kkfx 5y ago
      I simply call "credible sources from experts" other things. In the recent past we read that blue fish are "the protein of the sea, eat much" then "blue fish collect all sort of pollutants, avoid it". We see "eggs are a godsend for health, eat them at minimum one per day" and then again "eggs are 'cholesterol' avoid them, limiting them as possible" etc. In an a bit far past (not that far) doctors recommend smoking as a cure-all for common winter disease, "it kills all the germs of the season", years after we discover that was just the result of an Eduard Bernays campaign for the American Tobacco Company: he create a new scientific journal, collecting real studies and sending it for free "to advertise the new journal", it became popular thanks to easy access and low entry barrier for publishing, then he inject some credible studies that prize smoking. MANY OTHERS researchers have followed them, taking them as true, and amplifying the echo. Long story short, I have enough basic scientific knowledge to discern and to remember that Science is not based on blind trusting some "expert" but always demand why. Take meat for instance, common voices, dressed as scientific truth say that's bad for climate change because demand much water and produce much methane. Now try to see how much methane we estimate released into the atmosphere due to arctic heating and how much CO₂ is annually release by world fires. Clearly methane from cows does not change the climate. Now water: yes, livestock drink, clean water, and release urine, witch is not clean water. BUT it's still water. If treated to produce natural (ammonia-based) fertilizers we desperately need, the outcome is clean water, because we do not "consume" it, it's just a cycle. So again that statement is true if we just see a small part of the picture, false otherwise. That's is, I have collect many examples of false beliefs considered established Science that aren't science at all. Of course I do know the ancient pro-smoking campaign was an advertisement campaign because that's history, we have documents, what's up today is "present" documents are not public, at least not much and not yet, but while we can't know "the real truth" we can still try to discern what's probably true from what's probably false, choosing not to trust any guru or formal association, privately founded just to note, but using actual Scientific method, demanding evidence, elaborating it.
AnonC 5y ago
> Change nature to be a false/artificial paradise? Who’s asking to change other animals? It’s about humans changing their behavior. In nature, forced sex is very common among many animals. But in human societies we have deemed it a criminal activity. That’s just one example to show that humans, especially in our times, have improved ethics and the agency to commit to better ethics compared to our ancestors in the distant past.
- kkfx 5y ago
  Oh we made criminal many things, just look around in the world how common they are... Just look how ethical are our most well known citizens from governments to big enterprises...
brimble 5y ago
Nature: living every day like you're in a slasher horror movie. Really, really bad. It only seems fun and wholesome to us because we're on top and almost none of us spend much time genuinely engaging with nature in even the way that an apex predator has to, let alone prey animals. And jeez, why would we? It's terrible. Factory farm: living every day (and probably not very many of them) like you're in Saw or Cube or something. Far worse than even the pretty bad situation that is life in nature. Like, a lot worse. And that was already pretty bad. Ethical farms, keeping backyard chickens, et c: Like living in a relatively good dystopia. Brave New World, maybe, in the best case. Logan's Run, in the worst.
- kkfx 5y ago
  Are we different then all other animals in natural terms? We need to eat like any other living being, we need to eat well, to reproduce to keep our species alive, we need to rest, ... whats the difference? It's because living in an network of intensive farms, named cities, detached from our natural environment, seeing the foods popping up regularly in certain place, already prepared, no need to hunt/source it, we thing that food arrive here by nature, that our intensive farm is actually nature? Is that really different? Oh, yes we are not slaughtered at a certain point of our life, except in case of wars etc, but we are equally "used" for doing various jobs by some of us who think they are puppet-masters and we are the puppets (cfr. famous JP Morgan leaked phrase, various neoliberal books etc). Oh, yes, in our case the shepherd is not from another species (witch made things even worse), but we equally born in such intensive farms not free in nature. It's just a matter about how much bad farming is bad, how much ethical farming is ethical.