Stop the killing!

Stop the killing! | Everyday thousands of plants are killed by vegetarians EAT BACON! Help end the violence... | image tagged in bacon,vegetarian,food | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
25,625 views, 95 upvotes, Made by gelf 36 months ago baconvegetarianfood
bacon memeRe-caption this meme
Add Meme
Post Comment
reply
[deleted]
4 ups
Spiderman is Confused. | MIND BLOWN | image tagged in spiderman is confused | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
3 ups
Picard Wtf Meme | WE SHOULD ALSO PREVENTS LIONS TO EAT MEAT I MEAN, DID YOU THINK ABOUT THOSE POOR ZEBRAS? | image tagged in memes,picard wtf | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
[deleted]
0 ups
Actually vegatarians don't understand the food chain.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
You know what vegetarians and vegans its your choice to eat plants i eat meat don't try to force me not to eat meat cause i will always eat meat
reply
0 ups
haha also plants are alive to just not the same alive as humans and animals but they are alive to so your arguments are invalid
reply
6 ups, 3 replies
It takes 5-10 lbs of produce to put 1 lb of meat on an animal, therefore you kill 5-10x the number of plants by eating animals. Your argument is invalid.
reply
7 ups
Leonardo Dicaprio Cheers Meme | GO EAT A TREE I'LL STICK TO PIGS | image tagged in memes,leonardo dicaprio cheers | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
[deleted]
2 ups, 1 reply
Probably a lot more than that....a pic or cow can eat a ton of plants during its life before slaughter. Even if you used 100% of the weight of a pig...say 100 pounds...I would be willing to bet it ate more than 400 or 500 pounds of feed during its life. Same for a 1000 pound cow. And the amount of water to grow the plants or direct to the animal is nuts.
reply
0 ups
Thanks, DVF.
reply
[deleted]
2 ups, 1 reply
reply
2 ups, 2 replies
@d2renterprise,
No, because they're bred for food domestically, which means they are bred past the numbers they would breed in the wild. That argument would only apply if we selectively hunted all animal-based food sources to near extinction.
reply
[deleted]
1 up, 1 reply
Animals that we hunt are not bred for food domestically. Animals in the wild also eat plants. So your argument is invalid.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
A) The vast minority of animals consumed are hunted in the wild. It doesn't even dent the statistics.
B) Killing off wild animals is still unethical for the endangerment factor and objective wrong factor.
C) City commissions accommodate hunters by clearing forest to create unnatural clearings which is what enables deer and some other animals to procreate more than they would naturally (because the landscape was altered to accommodate them), which means the initial trees were killed to their benefit, and the subsequent greens that grow in to replace them are essentially "raised" because they are growing in an artificial environment. On top of this, hunters primarily hunt the males, and deer exist in a 1-1 male-female ratio in nature. So, hunting the males selectively ultimately means that fewer males do more of the mating, which means that the birth rate does not curb--- so the population remains unnaturally high, and more plants subsequently die.

So, your argument is invalid.
reply
[deleted]
1 up, 2 replies
The non-hunting of animals such as deer causes insurance rates in some states to go up because the statistics of hitting a deer with your car goes from 1 in 5 in a lifetime to 1 in 5 in a year.

There is no statistic to prove that hunters primarily hunt the males. In most states, only 1 tag maybe 2 is given to kill a male, but are given more female tags.

Most animals that are hunted are not endangered, and the objective factor is only based on those who are vegans.

So your arguments are still invalid.
reply
0 ups
The artificial landscaping aspect of it still holds even if your figures are true, which means the demand to hunt still drives the creation of an artificial breeding ground/surplus of resources.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Additionally, even if they do outbreed what environment they have, the consequential diminishing of resources would naturally reduce their numbers if people did not interfere soooo...

Besides that, my point about food hunts being the minority of meat consumed still stands, soooooooo....
reply
[deleted]
1 up, 1 reply
Artificial landscaping does not hold because if you are physically destroying the habitats, you are destroying their homes, which means they end up with no place to live and die off.

Have you ever read the study of what took place in Yellowstone National Park when wolves were removed from there? The deer population grew so much that plant life was dying off, causing other animals to evacuate the area. There were not enough hunters in the area to control the population, so it wasn't until wolves were put back into the park that the deer population dropped and everything started going back the way it was suppose to be. So if you don't kill the animals in one way or another, the plant life reduces dramatically, which means my initial point of not killing animals actually kills more plants than if you were to kill animals. So it doesn't matter if the majority of the food is farm grown or not. Not killing animals can have, and has shown to have, more of an effect on the overall environment than not killing them. Sooooooooooo.....
reply
0 ups, 2 replies
1. I never said THEIR habitats were being destroyed; I suggested others' habitats were being altered to be suitable to deer.
2. The problem you are suggesting of deer running rampant was a byproduct of killing animals (wolves) to begin with, so animal killing was still at the core of the problem.
3. The original argument of this post is based on the ludicrous assertion that plants are sentient, so if the animals being raised for food outnumber (GROSSLY, GROSSLY, GROSSLY!) animals being hunted for food in the wild, then the number of plants feeding (re: over-feeding) the domesticated animals is also greater. The main math to consider here is whether or not plants on the whole die more as a result of consuming animals, so even if you were right (you're not) about wild hunting saving plants, the consumption of raised meat alone shores up a way higher "plant body count," which is the initial subject matter of the post.
reply
0 ups
You're talking about hundreds of thousands of hunts compared to billions of domesticated animal slaughters. There is no comparison.
reply
[deleted]
1 up, 2 replies
What habitat would need to be altered to be suitable for a deer? Deer live in forest environments and can even flourish there. The only habitat that would have to be altered in order to be more suitable for deer would be that in which we live in.

The killing of the wolves only proves that it was the killing of the wrong animal for the wrong reason. With the deer/elf population not declining but growing at a rapid rate after the removal of the wolves, the plant population declined at an even higher rate. Which this proves without an outside food source like grown plants, animals (raised or wild) can kill off the natural plant life causing even more problems in the environment. So this proves that without the removal of certain animals, their population would overpopulate the plant life, which would result in higher plant than body death count (proving you are wrong). So whether or not animals are being raised domestically, if their population is not controlled, than the non-production of raised plants would result in a dramatic loss in overall plant life. If you were capable of comprehending what actually took place in Yellowstone, and not just focus on the wolves that were killed, you would be capable of seeing what would happen without the growing of plants or killing of animals.
1 up
Waitaminit--- since when is "overpopulating plant life" a thing?
What kinda bullsh.... That isn't a thing!!!
[deleted]
1 up
The "overpopulat the plant life" may be the wrong terminology to use, but not unexpected at 3am. It was to mean that the population of the animals would be higher than what the plant population would be able to support. The plant to animal ratio would be off, resulting in the removal of the plants. So if the killing of animals was to stop all together, there would be no way to produce enough food for them and for everyone to become vegetarians.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
But we also grow corn past the numbers that it would naturally produce in the wild.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Which is exactly my point...
If this argument is "plant lives matter", then we are creating more of them solely for the purpose to destroy them to feed the animals so we can ultimately destroy them too...

The fact remains that you kill fewer plants by not eating animals.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
reply
3 ups, 3 replies
Thanks for the love lol.
I'm working on my most f**ked up meme/ stand-up comedy bit to date:
Premise: "The arguments for why we should have abortion are way too similar to the
arguments for why we should bring back slavery."
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Something's either wrong with my PC or imgflip, but I can't see some meme comments. Just a small picture box with an X in it.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
I've heard of that from other users, but have never experienced it. Could be the NSA jacking in!
0 ups
Ah okay I see it now.
reply
0 ups
Oh god, I'ma get booed offstage. It'll be worth it.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Orcoaba are you a vegan?
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
In the hopes that you are not baiting me for another bacon joke, etc., yes, for about 6 years now.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
lol awesome I've been a vegan for about a year :D
0 ups
What kind? Fruitarian, junk food vegan, do your own cooking etc.? Mock meats, no mock meats? Need any assistance with food product recommendations or anything else?
Flip Settings
bacon memeRe-caption this meme

Created with the Imgflip Meme Generator

Show embed codes
IMAGE DESCRIPTION:
Everyday thousands of plants are killed by vegetarians EAT BACON! Help end the violence...
hotkeys: D = random, W = like, S = dislike, A = back