Wieso hassen so viele die militante Veganerin, obwohl sie vollkommen Recht hat mit ihren Argumenten auf ethischer Basis?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tk2egEIioA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dd1cbmccQVQ
ich meine, sie hat in ihren Punkten was die ethischen Grundprinzipien betrifft absolut Recht. Ich verstehe zwar, dass sie bei manchen etwas provokativ rüberkommt, aber wenn man ihr genau zuhört und mal auf den Inhalt achtet, dann spricht sie da keine Unwahrheiten aus.
Was sieht ihr das?
(3 votes)
Loading...
I just don’t like her whole way. And even though I feed myself vegan and also use only vegan things in other areas.
But her whole way just hits my back. If I would meet her in the city (while I am glad to be between her and me some 100km) I think I would react as negatively as other people do.
With its kind it will definitely NOT reach!! Just because they are exactly the embodied, against which many (also partly other vegans) are: A Militante Tussi who believes to have eaten wisdom with spoons and that of opinion is only her opinion that would be only. It simply serves the typical prejudice against vegans and that is what many then do not change.
I am the only vegan in my family, friends and acquaintances. But I think I’ve got the fact that I’m NOT insulting all the people in my environment and finishing that they don’t live vegan, reaching more than they do. A part of my colleagues regularly invites me to eat, ask for recipes and always look forward to what to try for them. My parents (which are actually totally opposed to it) now try out a lot and also buy something vegan because it tastes them or let me cook vegan (or order things for my family dinner in vegan for all). One of my best friends is now exchanging recipes with me because it finds great how much is feasible in Vegan and brings me a lot of inspiration or buying recommendations that they will try.
You’re totally right
I have no understanding of such a bullshit. I only know those two viedeos you showed up. She said, “Let’s see a barn with a dog in front of which the wings were torn.” This is an untruth the horns are slaughtered properly and not torn alive. And mass murder isn’t because the animal is good. No one’s gonna kill the animal from boredom. It’s just to eat it and it’s not left in the barn.
I eat meat in masses and not every day. And I think this is a good means. Meat is also important to me.
So and now to the milk.
The cow is not murdered. She is also slaughtered here in an appropriate manner.
Two. They are not raped. I can understand that they don’t want the bilich milk, Dan can recommend the Demeter milk. It tastes good and it is organic and the animals are art and professional.
So and now in general:
No Lantwirt or Bauer is interested to torture or rape his animals. Only if the animals in the stable are good is the peasant good because only then the animals give off their products. And in general, her kind is disgusting. You can really talk about everything, but Dan is objective and tidy.
I hope I could help why I don’t like her. Because it spreads untruth.
And what I think I still haven’t brought it all over. A cow is not slaughtered who you want milk, but she only melted host and lives in the stable for several years.
I don’t know, and I don’t think this “militant vegan” is hated (does she call herself that?). She certainly goes to the non- vegan eggs.
What sense does it make, on a vegan cruise to go or into vegan hotel on a top menuI to fly where the jungle had to be cleared before. Just because it cooks vegan?
You know, I’m not a vegan, but don’t eat meat at least 3 days a week. I eat ecologically/sustainably (also such a doofe fashion word).
What do so radical vegans with the cattle breeds that we have and which do not grow up in mass livestock. With the sheep, for example, the heaths and dams are preserved? What about the bees that the beekeeper holds and that pollinate the apple and cherry plantations? Ask Peta what they think about bees or wearing sheep wool sweaters: Microplastics is much better! OMG
Not vegan is the solution, but more modesty and ecological thinking. We don’t have to get rid of cars, but Other drive. Not applicable Continuous fly to the south, but just less often or sometimes expose. Houses that are planted and not glass palaces. There is no food keeping, but meat and milk from animals who had lived decently.
In accordance with paragraph 263 of the Criminal Code, fraud states: “…that by pre-reflective of false or by disfiguring or suppressing true facts, he may cause or maintain an error …”
It doesn’t have to be wrong what the militant vegan claims, yet she lies to you about the facts when she conceals part of the truth.
Morally, I think it is important to call for human rights and children’s rights by combating violence against children and children’s work and by giving food to hungry people. Meat helps excellent against hunger.
But I also do not know whether a woman who feels like a cow may also be called a cow. Moral.
It is completely clear that most people hate them:
It is completely inconceivable that she has 100% right in her arguments. It’s fascism. The animals do not have to die (dog/cat, etc.), but those animals (kiah, pig, chicken) already. These animals (pets) are worth more than those animals (users). That’s absurd. Because man has distributed the title of pet and farm animals – how does he take this right out? The militant vegan then reveals the completely stable counter-arguments. Everyone has already signed any petition, whether it be on dog meat markets in China, seal fishing in Greenland or whatever. Here you have the best proof that you are confronted with your own morality about those who do exactly the same as yourself. Only with another victim.
Someone here said it wasn’t a murder because something “useful” happened to the animal. Who defines the benefits? We are?! If I kill a man now because I want to take his money away from him, that’s good for me. This motive is a murder feature according to the Criminal Code: Habgier. If I kill a person now because it excites me – it has a benefit for me. Homicide according to Criminal Code: To satisfy the sex drive. Hunger is a drive. Durst is a drive. If I kill an animal now to eat it, I’m satisfied with my drive. Well noted though I can satisfy him by 1000 (!) other things nonviolently.
I believe that many people who are confronted by it naturally go directly into the defensive defense. But you don’t see what’s going on with them. The documentary “Dominion” should open everyone’s eyes.
It’s the way she’ll get it over. Most of them will find every cliché here confirmed. And she’s scaring people off.
Besides, I’m bothered that she looks at Vegan as the only possibility and everything else from her point of view is not okay. I think that’s pretty presumptuous.
She’s not right. She dictates only the rabbit roast, but lets the field rabbit poison with pestizde and mercifully frighten on the field. She dictates the honey but kills bees with pestilence.
She’s doing specialism.
What does pesticide have to do with veganism? What does this have to do with speciesism?
There are enough bio fields that grow without pesticides. Your argument is absolute nonsens.
95% of all plants for human consumption are produced with chemical pesticides. In organic, 170 A4 pages of pesticides are allowed. Whether chemical weapons or bioweapons does not make any difference.
Why is the harebread more right to life than the field bunny?
You make even 10 YEARs long animal experiments
https://www.tierversuche.bayer.de/de/tierversuche-fuer- Pflanzenschutzmittel.aspx
https://ethikguide.org/infothek/tierversuche-das-tun-wir-ihnen-an/
http://www.aerztefuertierschutz.ch/index.html?id=40
In Germany statutory requirements. You torture with full ABSIGHT animals for 10 years and lock them in cages. Why don’t you tell me about plant production?
The plants do not grow in the supermarket shelves…
Right by spraying pestizde on it and the animals no longer call animals but “pearlings”.
Pestizde have a goal “made to kill”
What does plant consumption have to do with animal suffering? You compare A with B.
These are completely different things. In one, by direct intervention, an animal is deliberately and killed in masses.
On the other hand, only individual cases that are killed indirectly and UNGEWOLLT. The second is to be prevented by sealing. The first is NOT:
Plant consumption has something to do with veganism.
The joke is good
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KsK-TWrR8Xg
This has nothing to do with veganism. It is possible to separate such areas from animals. In addition, the animals are not killed by direct intervention by human beings, especially not in the quantity and intensity and suffering, but these are rather individual cases which are passively dying of this by an insecure existence of the plants.
You’re moving covers that don’t make any sense.
The same story.
People are egoists and do not want to dispense with their consumption, so they hate everything that could endanger their consumption.
These include the climate adhesives, the militant vegan, the party “The Greens” and much more.
Not my thing.
As long as you leave me alone and don’t want to “convert” veganism, everyone can do what he wants.
It’s because I’m just gonna have to shoot the Reh for the garbage.
Another one that just wants to make itself important.
Why important? Where is she wrong?
Man reacts to everything he does not know skeptical. This is a kind of natural defense that we take people to guarantee our survival, as everything unknown could be potentially dangerous.
So if someone like the militant vegan at once speaks to you and tries to convince you in a very provocative way of their principles and accuses you of being an animal bull or something, it is clear that you are more inclined to follow your own principles and what you know and what they tell you.
In addition, many people feel degraded to poorer people when they are in the presence of vegetarians or vegans, as the sole existence of this implicit accusation for them is that they are poorer people in terms of morality. If then someone like the militant vegan arrives and this accusation also speaks out loudly, it is clear that it meets a lot of criticism and dislike.
From an ethical point of view, it is only right that people openly appeal to them, since (most) consumers of animal products actively contribute to animal welfare through their consumption, but it is pre-programmed based on human psychology that their unscrupulous nature is at odds with other people, and that they are more likely to combine the opposite with their certainly well-meaning actions, namely that, in particular, they are not concerned with the subject of veganism in the future. That should not have been the case, they would not have met the militant vegan, but a direct (and rude) behavior has rarely a positive effect.
And in addition, I think it’s really bad that she’s punching every non-Vegan as evil. I mean, I don’t know it’s safe, but since most people grow up omnivorously and only in teenagers or adulthood decide to feed themselves vegan or vegetarian, they will have eaten a large part of their lives meat.
If she had addressed someone like that (before she was enlightened about the effects of meat consumption) and insulted them as animal molluscs, etc., she would probably have used longer to live vegans or would never have started it.
How do you like this Truths:
Every loudly protesting vegan who is too fine to work even in animal breeding promotes infinite animal suffering because he leaves this responsible activity to people who march the animals by the ass. They therefore have no right to impose the conditions in animal husbandry as long as they do not actively what they do. And active is not the meaningless insult of passersby in pedestrian areas. This helps the animals actually garnix. On the contrary, a so insulted animal factory employee will leave his frustration exactly what? It’s just something to remember…
If all the loudly protesting vegans were to breed animals themselves, no single farm animal would have to live in “mass farming” and would have had a worthy life before it landed on the plate of non-vegans.
And if these loudly protesting vegans work in animal breeding, they will be freed of their own guilt, which the animal suffering in the production of their favorite foods.
And last but not least:
This in more detail questionable animal welfare law Is it not inconsiderable that it should be Useful Of which so bad. Because: since Pets like cats and hamsters must no longer be slaughtered, the other livestock must cover the meat needs alone. This means, of course, the often well-pronounced breeding and even bad conditions of posture. Because not everything that vegans and other animal enthusiasts manages to manage business. Cats, hamsters and rabbits can be kept in any apartment. And such an adult rabbit is enough for a person all month as meat needs… I speak of experience.
In terms of reproduction, these little viechers are also much more practical because they rarely have only one baby as young children in a litter… And the eating things that people cannot eat…
And instead of shreddering chicks, you could also simply raise the male chicks as a soup cock. For a soup, the chicken doesn’t have to have much meat…
If you have read and understood my arguments by the last point, you hopefully see this vegan with a more realistic eye. And this will see:
The woman only robs around, but effectively makes nix against animal suffering.
Stock 14
Because vegans are “too fine to work in animal breeding?” You do not actively oppose it?! How irrational are these these theses? I’m sorry, but the statements are so bad that I don’t remember anything. Thus, during apartness, one would have held a slave for protest and given him something good to eat after the blows – instead of simply not holding a slave. Sure. If you are against violence against children, you don’t just leave it, but you just hit a little less.
You didn’t understand the core of the statements. But what? It’s a mess, right? 🙄
Where should I say that vegans will make the same mistakes? Why should vegan animals beat? They always boast that they love animals. So I assume that they will better care for them.
But since they refuse to do so they leave those job people who don’t care about the Viechers.
It’s a hypocritical animal love. PUNKT.
Although they may be right in some aspects, I do not allow myself to be converted. She’s supposed to do her thing, all right, but don’t blame the people who don’t. If any vegan or vegetarian were, there would be only milk farmers.
So in principle, I also find it right, I also feed myself vegan. Until a short time ago, I thought the same thing as you. Why is she so skinned, she’s completely right? Yes, she has said, but she has already said other things that I find absolutely impossible. For example, she didn’t understand how to find Catcalling doof, because it’s just compliments. (here I don’t know their exact word choice, sorry if I say something wrong) She said more things, but I just didn’t have them in my head. I think she has spoken about transfeindluch. But these things are already making me extremely unhappy.
I also don’t think many of them because if you give your right, you have to admit yourself that you were “wrong” with your own views. Of course you don’t want to, I mean everyone has their own pride. That’s why I think she’s getting a lot of hate. Some also simply have a completely different view of the world and cannot understand it…And there are still more reasons
Hello,
does that mean, if you have a right in the matter (I don’t know if it’s the case with her) then you can behave like you want, and people can’t take a bad offense?
I believe that, because of research and studies that you can read, you can make yourself a very good opinion, even if you do not have so much knowledge of agriculture. First of all, it is also about ethics, because we do not need to know about agriculture.
There are no arguments. She only commands what the others have to do and leave. There is no argument out of that “if you are feminists, you must”.
I’m sick of seeing arguments. You seem to have “hat arguments” = “right”.
If someone “argumentate” you refuse, it would surely appear to you immediately:)
I have to contradict you. It is about the objectification of animals and especially of female cows. A feminist who is ALLER for equality, but does not relate to animals and at the same time operates speciesism, but does not apply to the rights of all, cannot be a feminist at all levels. Thus, on the basis of ethics, it is completely right.
Again: these are NO arguments.
Arguments are justifications for a thesis, conviction, assertion.
Like her, you only repeat the position yourself several times.
If you can’t differentiate this, you need urgent training in terminology.
Well, you started with polemics, I just showed you the opposite objectively. That’s an argument. Apparently, you are not aware of the definition of an argument.
You can or are not able to define the word argument according to your views, because this is most likely not even aware of you.
My statement was that the militant vegan has right in her statements that people who buy or eat meat now act unethical, as they indirectly support animal murder and are commissioned to do so indirectly. I have now explained the basis or the theory to you, and how to logically follow this action does not correspond to the theory set forth, since no person wants to be treated in the same way as we now treat livestock!
You’re just saying there’s no argument, just a reason? where is your argument here. However, something does not require itself to be able to justify this.
Now you get into a Tirada of insults.
There is still no argument. What much says. Good evening.
Apparently you didn’t take care of ethics, because the theory behind it is actually self-explaining. I would advise you to read a journal of ethical principles and theories. If you were powerful in reading, you would also understand the relation she has with her argumentation.
There are now values and standards that are based on not harming others, as long as they are not taken from an emergency or from a certain emergency situation.
A common example here is the golden rule or the categorical imperative.
Would you like to be raped as a cow and then watch your child be taken away from you and then murdered because it appears “ineconomically” from an economic point of view. Then you can’t stand up on your own, because you’re so exhausted because of the breeding, that the peasants take you off the stable and take you off the stable, so that you’re crumpled on the concrete under bad weather? You don’t want to!
It draws attention to the right issue, that is right. The problem is just how to draw them attention. You have to go to people and talk and not “You eat meat you killer.” It’s all like that.
Climate activists paralyzing one street, super. You can clear the way when rescuers get through. Climate activists who stick to the street, shit.
I see this similar to those but most people don’t really go on
What you have to say is that she is really right and nobody has said anything about her arguments.
Yes, most have no objective arguments based on an ethical basis. Most argue only with polemics against them or with statements that seem insane.