Maybe it’s a band where cicada makes music with their sound?
Breakfast is the most important meal of the day.
1 Like
Are we still answering the OP’s question? Really not sure anymore. 
1 Like
Fucking love breakfast
Circadian! Ffs…
2 Likes
Your argument about vegan massacres was in direct response to the claim that veganism-is-morally-superior-because-it-means-not-killing-animals. So if killing animals is morally irrelevant, it’s morally irrelevant, ergo the claim of moral-superiority-due-to-not-killing-animals is irrelevant and needs no response, or if it does, it should be on other grounds than whether or not or how many animals are killed.
I brought up Jainism because it’s an easy reference point for a moral argument that killing A vs. B vs. C is not the same. This concept is of course not unique to Jainism, but it’s more prominent there than in other religions, at least when it comes to food. (Note the reasoning about insects and microorganisms – and even plants.)
Walking down the street, arguably, kills animals. But. That. Happens. Anyway. It’s (usually) not intentional, and while the risk can be mitigated in various ways, reducing it to zero is not really feasible.
Using the logic you have here, if there were no earthworms etc. involved in cultivating plants as food, but there were still ants on sidewalks, you would still call vegans hypocrites for murdering ants by walking. And it would still be a basically pointless argument. 
Why factory farmed? Because in modern times most humans eat factory farmed food? Yes, but that’s also true of omnivores, so again it’s disingenuous to blame vegans for it.
You can’t eliminate factory farms by eliminating veganism. You can’t eliminate veganism by eliminating factory farms.
Because the math is easy. Why not? A family of four would take 2.5 years to finish one cow, if you insist. Are your animal weights whole animals or just the parts the average human actually consumes, btw?
The party started a long time ago, man. Almost any random plant deemed fit for human consumption by the relevant authorities can fetch a profit with the right marketing. Probably random insects too, but the easiest stuff to market is anything with 10,000 years of aboriginal wisdom allegedly endorsing it… even if the aboriginals in question don’t really care for it. 
So your argument is twofold:
- We can’t afford not to have animals on farms.
- We can’t afford to have animals on farms.
You’re still equating one thing with another thing that isn’t equal to it.
What are the functions animals perform on farms, besides (traditionally) pulling things, guarding things, keeping humans company, and occasionally even being tourist attractions?
- Eating stuff.
- Producing fertilizer.
- Producing meat.
- For some of them, producing other things – wool, milk, eggs, etc.
Anything missing from that list? (And no, don’t post that video again! 
)
Some humans – not necessarily vegans – keep cows and other farm animals as pets. They feed them plant matter (duh). Or they feed them plant matter and human trash in general, including plastic (not what I would do)… but mostly plant matter, the stuff the humans don’t want to consume or sell. Depending on how many animals of what kinds they have, they may need to grow things just for the animals to eat, but pigs and chickens are not known to be especially picky.
And of course these pets produce fertilizer, whether the humans make use of it or not. So those are the first two functions on the list. Even function #4 is acceptable to some vegans (not that they would go lacto-ovo themselves, but the reasons people have for going full vegan don’t always include the belief that lacto-ovo products are inherently immoral, i.e. they might happily sell them without also consuming them).
By skipping #3, do they have a surplus of animals wreaking havoc? Perhaps, if they keep them protected from non-human predators and neglect to use human-led population control. But once again, it’s not specifically a vegan problem.
Btw what do you think of soil-less cultivation of plants? Of course there are still microorganisms involved, but probably not that many earthworms.
3 Likes
Circle of life Simba
Vegans are huge supporters of soil-less cultivation (and synthetic meat). Their general rationale seems to be: if the earth (or farms, at least) is devoid of all life except humans, then we don’t have to worry about the possibility of killing things.
In a narrow sense they’re right, but the underlying philosophy scares the crap out of me. Somewhere in there is the view that humans have the right to mould the planet to meet all their whims and fancies, regardless of the wider consequences. It is the exact same mindset that drives the factory farms - which is why I call them hypocrites.
To answer your question: I don’t have a problem with soil-less cultivation as such, but I’ve experimented with it and found it to be completely pointless (and prone to a lot of technical issues). I can get much better productivity, and a more robust system, by just making compost and using it for climate-controlled growbeds. Yes, you can grow fish food (insects and plants), build a fishtank, circulate the wastewater through inert media, and put plants in it … but what an almighty amount of effort. Just let the bugs do their thing, and collect the compost. So much easier.
I’ll answer your other points when I have time.
3 Likes
“Overall, when your total calorie intake falls within your daily needs, weight gain does not appear to happen merely as a result of eating at night.”
The article doesn’t seem to land firmly on one side or the other. It neither affirms nor debunks one side in contrast to the other. I’m going with the cicadas man.
…that Gilligan’s Island is a work of fiction.
1 Like
Those poor people…
1 Like
That’s not how any of the vegans I know see the issue. I am beginning to notice a pattern here: we seem to know radically different kinds of old people, poor people, and now vegans. I wonder what’s next?
1 Like
Personal anecdotes are evidence of sound arguments
Because they’re ignorant of the way their food is produced, ignorant of the basics of ecology, and lack adequate self-awareness to realise that they are ignorant.
I’ve met any number of very nice Communists. They still have heads full of the most dangerous drivel ever invented.
2 Likes
Communism is simply a response to the old days where the rich capitalists believed they worked hard to earn their wealth, and therefore had the right to oppress or exploit the people they hire. It’s called Social Darwinism. It was a very popular belief system for the ultra rich. It may not be the right way to go about things but they did have a point. In an ideal world the rich should have a social obligation to take care of those less fortunate. But Social Darwinism flies in the face of that. It basically says the rich has a duty to oppress the poor because they deserved their lack of fortune.