The Truth About Animal Farming

[vibv]

On the topic of hard to swallow truths about ourselves, I want to share this video with all of you.

In it are discussed, amongst other things, the 6 signs of a moral catastrophe:

1. It's not a surprise—it has been known about for a long time
2. It's framed as inevitable—it's said to be the 3 N's: Normal, Natural & Necessary
3. We look away
4. Dissent is ridiculed
5. It's hard to explain to children
6. It's pretty clear, that it will be seen as barbaric in hindsight

What's your views on this topic? Do you eat meat? Do you investigate where your meat comes from?

And most importantly: Do you think this way of treating animals is sustainable and if not, what can be done to change this?

[Lila9]

14 minutes ago, vibv said:

What's your views on this topic? Do you eat meat? Do you investigate where your meat comes from?

And most importantly: Do you think this way of treating animals is sustainable and if not, what can be done to change this?

This is low-conscious, unloving, and untruthful behavior. We share the planet with other species, and we should treat them with dignity and respect. I don’t eat meat and never will.

This way of treating animals is unsustainable.

 

[carterfelder]

There is no right way to exploit and kill nonhuman animals for a diet that no human needs to eat.

Veganism is the solution, not vegetarianism, which is arguably even worse than nonveganism.

[vibv]

2 minutes ago, carterfelder said:

which is arguably even worse than nonveganism.

How so?

[Wilhelm44]

Some body types need meat to maintain health. 

[carterfelder]

8 minutes ago, vibv said:

How so?

Vegetarians consume more eggs and dairy than nonvegans. While meat is the end product of animal farming, eggs involve killing half the chicks (males) because they can't lay eggs, and dairy involves killing young male calves because they don't produce milk. The meat and dairy industries are inextricably linked, but there is far more death and suffering involved in dairy and eggs than meat alone.

https://www.peacefulprairie.org/humane-myth02.html

[vibv]

6 minutes ago, Wilhelm44 said:

Some body types need meat to maintain health. 

May be, but does it have to be produced under those circumstances?

On the other hand there's certainly an issue of overconsumption.

Edited Tuesday at 04:50 PM by vibv

[carterfelder]

No one needs meat to maintain health, that's nonsense. There's nothing in animal products we cannot get from plants and man-made ingredients (which nonvegans consume all the time).

[Wilhelm44]

3 minutes ago, vibv said:

May be, but does it have to be produced under those circumstances?

On the other hand there's certainly an issue of overconsumption.

Of course those ways of farming are disgusting, and yes there is overconsumption. But we need to let go of this vegan myth that no one needs to eat meat, because some people actually do. Ayurvedic medicine states this clearly.

[carterfelder]

"Ayurveda tho," pseudoscience bro. Of course there's certain truth to Ayurveda, but there is nothing in meat all humans cannot get from plants.

[Wilhelm44]

1 hour ago, carterfelder said:

"Ayurveda tho," pseudoscience bro. Of course there's certain truth to Ayurveda, but there is nothing in meat all humans cannot get from plants.

Pseudoscience is calling something pseudoscience when you probably have very little first hand experience. 

I just asked Google: Can you get all the nutrients in beef liver from plants ?

"While you can obtain many similar nutrients from a well planned plant based diet, you cannot get the same concentration, form, and bioavailability of all nutrients found in beef liver from plants alone. Beef liver is considered a superfood because it is an exceptionally dense source of vitamins and minerals that are rare or poorly absorbed in the plant kingdom."

[carterfelder]

This is the appeal to consequences (or pragmatic fallacy / appeal to necessity) fallacy, sometimes phrased as "argument from necessity" in nutritional debates.

The presence of advantageous nutrients in one food source does not logically prove that source is required for health or survival.

It sidesteps the actual question of whether those same nutrients can be obtained adequately through other means (plants + fortification + supplements), which mainstream nutrition bodies (e.g., Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, WHO-aligned positions) state is possible with proper planning.

It conflates "better/more efficient in one food" with "impossible or inadequate without that food."

The core error is treating superior nutrient delivery in one category of food (without taking into account the long-term harm involved in consuming animal products) as proof of dietary necessity, rather than evaluating whether the overall nutritional requirement can be met through alternative, ethically/environmentally preferable routes.

[Scholar]

I think the topic is approached in a bit of a ineffective manner. Veganism as a moral philosophy often tries to focus on consequentialist sort of reasoning "Animal agriculture causes so much harm, therefore it is immoral to contribute to it!".

But consequentialist frameworks are profoundly ineffective in motivating behavior change in individuals, because people don't feel responsible for down-the-line consequences. They are just consuming a product, they don't want the animals to get harmed, so they view it, at most, as a sort of character flaw.

It becomes similar to buying cheap products from the third world, where some people on the other side of the planet work in terrible conditions to produce them. People recognize those conditions are bad, but they don't feel personally responsible for them.

 

The way animals are treated, with the degree of torment we inflict on them, is fundamentally rooted in human supremacist ideology. Treating it from the point of view of a consumerist paradigm has been, in my view, a profound mishap on counts of the original activists who laid out the groundwork for veganism.

The problem with consuming animals is not merely that, as a result, we inflict suffering on animals. The fundamental issue is that, to consume animals, you had to "dehumanize", to objective, them to such a degree that you feel no qualms about consuming their tortured body parts or their excretions.

 

We don't judge people who buy Iphones, at best they are morally flawed. We would judge, however, individuals who would eat the flesh of another person, or who would wear the hair of a special breed of humans, who are considered subhuman.

Even if both of them caused the same exact harm, the second person would horrify us. We would rightfully be repulsed by them, and recognize that something was deeply wrong with them.

This is because human beings are not consequentialists, in practice we mostly care about virtues. To us, if a human being is capable of buying the milk of another human being, who was kept enslaved their whole life, forcibly impregnated, that person demonstrates a lack of recognition of the common humanity we all share. Drinking that glass of milk and taking joy in it would be a repulsive act of objectification, no matter the consequences, even if there was no consumer-consequence effect.

A healthy human mind should feel horrified at the idea of drinking that glass of milk, because a healthy human mind does not view other human beings as objects.

 

Slavery was not a consumerist problem, it was a problem of supremacist thinking, of the objectification of an entire other class of individuals. We resolved slavery through the recognition that all humanity is equal, that it is inappropriate to ever view another human soul as an object. That we always ought to view a human being as a means in and of themselves, not merely a means to an end.

The same has to happen with animals. The appropriate reaction to seeing pieces of body parts of individuals who have been enslaved and tortured their whole life is horror and disgust. The focus of activism has to be to instill in others a recognition of the "humanity" in animals. Once the self is recognized in the other, the battle between self-indulgence and consumer-responsibility is no longer meaningful.

Edited Tuesday at 11:56 PM by Scholar

[Wilhelm44]

13 hours ago, carterfelder said:

This is the appeal to consequences (or pragmatic fallacy / appeal to necessity) fallacy, sometimes phrased as "argument from necessity" in nutritional debates.

The presence of advantageous nutrients in one food source does not logically prove that source is required for health or survival.

It sidesteps the actual question of whether those same nutrients can be obtained adequately through other means (plants + fortification + supplements), which mainstream nutrition bodies (e.g., Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, WHO-aligned positions) state is possible with proper planning.

It conflates "better/more efficient in one food" with "impossible or inadequate without that food."

The core error is treating superior nutrient delivery in one category of food (without taking into account the long-term harm involved in consuming animal products) as proof of dietary necessity, rather than evaluating whether the overall nutritional requirement can be met through alternative, ethically/environmentally preferable routes.

I guess the only way to know is to test it out. Force everyone to go vegan, and then find out for yourself that certain body types actually require some meat to maintain health. Ideally we'd like to be aiming for optimal health based on individual needs. I think there are some Ayurvedic online quizzes that help you determine your specific body type, and whether you need some meat or not.

15 hours ago, carterfelder said:

 

 

[Wilhelm44]

 

[Basman]

Maybe factory farming will be scaled back over time and improved as a practice due to ethical considerations, but animal husbandry is unlikely to ever end in my opinion. It's not realistic to think it will. 

It doesn't help that a vegan diet is nutritionally more difficult than omnivore one (less options and bioavailability).

I think it is though, perhaps even impossible, for most humans to have solidarity for other animals like we have for people. How can you convince people that don't care? 

Edited 10 hours ago by Basman

[Basman]

You can show all the gore porn you want. People are still going to eat that burger.

[Ramasta9]

On 3/11/2026 at 3:43 AM, Wilhelm44 said:

Some body types need meat to maintain health. 

No human body types do, its all false programming / information. We are frugivores by nature, our anatomy and biology is almost identical to apes, chimps, bonobos who eat predominantly fruit, leafy greens, nuts, seeds ect... This is why humans who eat this way without cooking, processed foods, grains, wheat, sugar, salts and all modern foods, heal from nearly all disease, because its the optimal / natural human diet.

 The only reason we ate meat was because we were forced out of our natural environments due to earth changes over millennias and forced out of the natural environments we initially thrived in for millions of years. This version of history was deliberately hidden from humanity and meat and toxic foods to the human body were later introduced that gave rose to the beginning of the "dark age" and "low consciousness", gradually we became more and more like cannibals and zombies full of fear, anger and aggression and lost most of our psychic and higher spiritual abilities.

The very fact that no human enjoys or can easily the process of killing by hand, and eating furry, bloody raw meat and bone of an animal and can digest it without dying of parasites and illness reveals the very fact that meat is not for us. We have to cook it and denature it and trick our bodies and brains with salts, flavors, marinate with oils and herbs to make it enjoyable.

No human baby will ever eat a piece of stake unless trained to do so, it will be repulsed by it, or grab a rabbit and start ripping into it, no it will play with the rabbit, avoid the steak entirely and naturally enjoy the bowl of fruit like its heaven on earth. Even the modern vegetable the baby usually avoids.

The issue is often one needs to fast for 7 - 21 days without food to rid the parasites that control the human gut / brain complex that control the humans to crave more and more meat and wrong foods, that were initially created by consuming the wrong foods in the first place and going against nature and thus gods original way and design. Its our karma, now we have to purify and deal with it to free ourselves from our parasitical enslavement.

This is why such fasting and purification methods have been hidden from almost all modern religious texts. Because the demons / parasites who have controlled humans so to speak, have edited and twisted and manipulated the texts and discarded / destroyed the original words of the great prophets.

Hence our corrupt governments, imagine if everyone was vegan and purified, there would be eden living and world peace and Christs and Buddhas amongst us all. And as Christ said, you cannot be fully human if you eat meat.

Only when you stop meat and animal products altogether, then you gradually return to true human nature and be totally upright and aligned with your fullest / truest expression. Because the human was never meant to be animal, its an entirely different thing altogether. We've been taught we are animals, but truly we are not. We are the one step further evolution from animals.

Edited 7 hours ago by Ramasta9

[Wilhelm44]

2 hours ago, Ramasta9 said:

No human body types do, its all false programming / information. We are frugivores by nature, our anatomy and biology is almost identical to apes, chimps, bonobos who eat predominantly fruit, leafy greens, nuts, seeds ect... This is why humans who eat this way without cooking, processed foods, grains, wheat, sugar, salts and all modern foods, heal from nearly all disease, because its the optimal / natural human diet.

 The only reason we ate meat was because we were forced out of our natural environments due to earth changes over millennias and forced out of the natural environments we initially thrived in for millions of years. This version of history was deliberately hidden from humanity and meat and toxic foods to the human body were later introduced that gave rose to the beginning of the "dark age" and "low consciousness", gradually we became more and more like cannibals and zombies full of fear, anger and aggression and lost most of our psychic and higher spiritual abilities.

The very fact that no human enjoys or can easily the process of killing by hand, and eating furry, bloody raw meat and bone of an animal and can digest it without dying of parasites and illness reveals the very fact that meat is not for us. We have to cook it and denature it and trick our bodies and brains with salts, flavors, marinate with oils and herbs to make it enjoyable.

No human baby will ever eat a piece of stake unless trained to do so, it will be repulsed by it, or grab a rabbit and start ripping into it, no it will play with the rabbit, avoid the steak entirely and naturally enjoy the bowl of fruit like its heaven on earth. Even the modern vegetable the baby usually avoids.

The issue is often one needs to fast for 7 - 21 days without food to rid the parasites that control the human gut / brain complex that control the humans to crave more and more meat and wrong foods, that were initially created by consuming the wrong foods in the first place and going against nature and thus gods original way and design. Its our karma, now we have to purify and deal with it to free ourselves from our parasitical enslavement.

This is why such fasting and purification methods have been hidden from almost all modern religious texts. Because the demons / parasites who have controlled humans so to speak, have edited and twisted and manipulated the texts and discarded / destroyed the original words of the great prophets.

Hence our corrupt governments, imagine if everyone was vegan and purified, there would be eden living and world peace and Christs and Buddhas amongst us all. And as Christ said, you cannot be fully human if you eat meat.

Only when you stop meat and animal products altogether, then you gradually return to true human nature and be totally upright and aligned with your fullest / truest expression. Because the human was never meant to be animal, its an entirely different thing altogether. We've been taught we are animals, but truly we are not. We are the one step further evolution from animals.

"In Ayurvedic medicine, the Vata body type is the one that most often requires some meat to maintain health, particularly when experiencing symptoms of depletion, weakness, or excessive dryness.

Why Vata Needs Meat: Vata is characterized by air and ether elements, which are light, cold, and dry. When Vata becomes imbalanced, it can lead to anxiety, muscle wasting, weakness, and joint issues. Meat is considered "heavy" and nourishing, which acts as a grounding, strengthening agent to counterbalance the light and dry nature of Vata."

You arguing with 3000 - 5000 year old ancient healing wisdom, still used by many today, often with miraculous results.

[Ramasta9]

3 hours ago, Wilhelm44 said:

"In Ayurvedic medicine, the Vata body type is the one that most often requires some meat to maintain health, particularly when experiencing symptoms of depletion, weakness, or excessive dryness.

Why Vata Needs Meat: Vata is characterized by air and ether elements, which are light, cold, and dry. When Vata becomes imbalanced, it can lead to anxiety, muscle wasting, weakness, and joint issues. Meat is considered "heavy" and nourishing, which acts as a grounding, strengthening agent to counterbalance the light and dry nature of Vata."

You arguing with 3000 - 5000 year old ancient healing wisdom, still used by many today, often with miraculous results.

Modern Ayurveda is like Modern religions. Original teachings were passed down by Yogis and Hermits living in the mountains living of fruits, herbs, honey and berries but the village or city man couldn't digest or adopt such extreme diets and lifestyles because it required a higher vibration of living so they gradually changed the teachings to suit their own needs and thus became distorted overtime.  There is of course still some truth to Ayurveda, but like Chinese Whispers, the more years go by, the more distorted the original messages and teachings become.

I can argue with it because I am the truth is far older and far deeper. 3000 - 5000 years is nothing, new his-story.

 

Edited 19 minutes ago by Ramasta9