Philosophical Vegan Forum

thebestofenergy wrote:About that 'humanely' thing, I've yet to meet an ethical vegan that thinks humanely killing someone that doesn't want to die can be done.

I did not mean killing. I meant using animals for producing milk, eggs, etc. Not all vegans—but my point was really about vegetarians—are against using animals as property as long as they're treated well. But since they most of the time aren't treated well (even in this free-range kind of things), the don't consume dairy/eggs. I've read about those kind of vegans existing. I don't know how many vegans think this way.

It's by the way not very realistic in the economical sense to let them stay alive when they stop producing milk/eggs.

Volenta wrote: It's by the way not very realistic in the economical sense to let them stay alive when they stop producing milk/eggs.

That would make the eggs/milk cost three or four times more, probably.

Though the largest cost in any humane system would be taking responsibility for the animals' health- veterinary bills, particularly into old age.

Chickens can live 15 years, apparently.
Around 700 eggs in a lifetime for commercial chickens- maybe a little more if they weren't killed as soon as production drops- so maybe double that (at reduced capacity) for the next few years.
But then double expenses, because you aren't killing all of the male chicks- and they certainly aren't making eggs.

Assume vet bills to average a little over $150 a year (higher in later years, lower in youth).

I would bet about $5 per egg, for health care, feeding, etc. for a lifetime divided by total egg output. Not accounting for spillage.

Would anybody actually pay $5 per egg, for more legitimately humane operations?

I love bacon... END OF STORY

revankatal wrote:I love bacon... END OF STORY

Hardly.

revankatal wrote:I love bacon... END OF STORY

If you're going to engage in this debate please include relevant information to topic at hand.

revankatal wrote:I love *penis*... END OF STORY

It's your right to love penis, and there's nothing wrong with eating that kind of 'meat', as long as it's consensual (protection is a good idea still).

But it doesn't have much to do with the conversation.

It has to do with semantic heads. Vegetarian is also an endocentric compound (that is misused like a loaded word or cliche), so it's really a question of vegetarian vs -vegetarian.

pizza wrote: ↑Wed May 28, 2014 9:04 am I think the title is clear enough, Why Vegan and not Vegetarian?

I think the title isn't clear enough (or is a false dichotomy), because veganism is a form of vegetarianism. Technically, if you do not qualify what kind of vegetarianism it is (such as lacto-vegetarianism), then it is strictly vegetarianism, which is synonymous with veganism... Comparison of the main vegetarian diets

Veganism is the only right way of living and treating all the non-human beings.
No other way of living will provide non-human animals with a full set of personal rights: of the rights to own their body, their life, their freedom.
All the "lacto-pesce-whatever" people should go vegan one day or another because it's not ok to use animals and treat them like they only deserve a life of an object or human property.

For me I'm either all in or not, and that's with everything in life... I decided to go vegan a year ago and have done so incrementally, slowly phasing out dairy products. I think some people see the goal of vegan being able to reduce or completely remove animal harming. I prefer the latter