I've made no points?! I'll re-iterate the points I've made so far: 1.
2.
3. The cute pictures themselves. Why would anyone want to put an end to another creature's life when there's no survival reason to do so?What are the chances that in the end, "the free range grass fed" animal would have preferred to still be free range and feeding on grass?
Although the caring treatment of an animal while alive is obviously a step in the right direction, being slaughtered after an ideal life (or in the case of lamb/veal, before having a chance of having a life at all) is still a violation of that animal's right to life. This is specially true in a day an age when we know that we can live healthily without animal products.
In short what are your/anyone's reasons for eating meat?
I will start with question 3: I enjoy eating things with cute faces. I enjoy going down on people. -drop the mic
What is your opinion of 'lesser' animals that are omnivorous yet still eat meat? Are they monsters? What is your opinion of the species of ant that farm aphids for milk and meat? What would you say to only eating animals that have died of 'natural causes?' What would you say to the genetic engineering of organisms that produce meat but never have enough nervous tissue to even be considered alive? Having an unpopular opinion on Hubski is not a bad thing. As long as you can defend it, and can discuss it in the framework that seems to be consensus. Also, using fun latin like ad hominem, for example, isn't much of a mark of intelligence here. People in lesser portions of the internet fall beneath good vocab (Or call you a faggot, but that's something else entirely) but here on Hubski, we have dictionaries, and we're not afraid to use them.
Also, using fun latin like ad hominem, for example, isn't much of a mark of intelligence here. People in lesser portions of the internet fall beneath good vocab (Or call you a faggot, but that's something else entirely) but here on Hubski, we have dictionaries, and we're not afraid to use them. Preach. On hubski, feelings aren't as good as facts, and appeals to emotion in debate without anything to back them up are going to get you nowhere. I'm working on eating less meat and more vegetables because 1.) I need more vitaminos and less protein in my life, and veggies are a great way to do that. 2.) vegetables are delicious and I want to find more ways to include their deliciousness in my diet. Do I dislike factory farming? of course, that's why I try to buy local (it's usually better quality anyways, and I like supporting my local economy). However, at the end of the day i look out for Number One, and if my body says "I need to eat NOW" and Wendy's is the closest option i have time for, then factory farmed chicken it is. I have places I don't shop for "political" reasons, and same for places i don't eat. I think a lot of this falls under The discussion we had in this thread. Some people care incredibly about factory farming, or about the long term effects of our diet on our ecosystem. Other people just want a burger so that they can get back to working on our huge homeless vet problem or finding ways to get Thorium reactors up and running, or are looking for ways to solve the ongoing crisis between Israel and Palestine. Don't hate on people for having passions and causes that they find more important than yours, is what i'm saying, I guess.Having an unpopular opinion on Hubski is not a bad thing. As long as you can defend it, and can discuss it in the framework that seems to be consensus.
This here is the very crux of the issue. organicAnt, your argument is appealing to an emotional response within the listener. If the listener doesn't have that same emotional foreground as you, you literally having nothing to back up your points. Wouldn't cows prefer to live? Don't I feel sorry for factory farmed animals? Why and do I need to eat meat? Is there scientific reason to eat meat? All irrelevant. You must provide at least some objective, scientific grounding or formal argument for your statement, otherwise you're just expressing emotion based opinions. Which, as subjective opinions, are very messy to formally debate.On hubski, feelings aren't as good as facts, and appeals to emotion in debate without anything to back them up are going to get you nowhere.
I agree that we shouldn't allow negative emotions to drive our decisions but I find it quite sad and heartless when people don't see any value in empathy and compassion. I don't know how we can ever live peacefully among ourselves and other species if we don't allow positive emotions, which connect us to drive our values. But that's another topic. That's fine, let's play by your rules of debate. There are plenty of scientific reasons not to eat meat. The health and environmental benefits of a plant based diet are extensive. BLOB_CASTLE mentioned the emission of gases exacerbating climate change. There's also the fact that growing animals for food uses way more resources than eating plants directly. This is particularly important with the growing global population. Animal foods are known to be the cause of many diseases currently affecting modern western society. Heart disease, stroke and certain cancers are some of the top deadly diseases caused by meat eating. There you go, 3 major (non-emotional) reasons not to eat meat: health, environment, resources.
No one is saying that empathy isn't valuable. What most of us are saying, is that we cannot default on empathy as an end of reason. You cannot just appeal to 'our better natures' and expect us to come over to your side. Vegetarianism has caused at least one death, and that of an infant. Adults make their choices, can you say the same for a baby?
Are you seriously comparing the irresponsibility of a vegetarian couple with the death of thousands of people due to consumption of animal products?!
There will always be irresponsible people regardless of background or ethical values, we can agree on that much. As I said in another reply any diet can be unhealthy upon the ignorance of nutritional requirements of the human body. Heck a lot of omnivores are deficient in vitamins and minerals for lack of eating enough veggies. The same way veggie diets can be deficient in certain nutrients due to carelessness. However, the difference of scale does matter. Taking an isolated example which is an exception to the rule and trying to compare it with the systemic health issues caused by meat eating is not a fair comparison by far and you know it. You're clutching at straws here.
When I ignore scale, i'm using to illustrate a point. The reason that you're more upset about the genocide of animals than the death of a human child, is because of scale, not because of kind. If we had your ideal system, we would have systemic problems resulting from the mass institution of veganism. Including most likely the mass enslavement of a significant portion of the human population to produce the amount of necessary complex plant proteins and fats. You're simply saying that it's okay to harm humans to produce human food, but not okay to harm animals to produce human food.
Seriously?! I honestly don't understand how you get to this conclusion using logic. I'm too tired to take this even remotely seriously.You're simply saying that it's okay to harm humans to produce human food, but not okay to harm animals to produce human food.
I appreciate the response. Personally, I have no interest at present in debating for/against meat consumption. I enjoy eating meat as part of balanced diet and that's all there is to it. I was merely trying to clarify why others might not have been accepting your prior arguments.
I think we should give much more credit to the reality of our thoughts and emotions creating reality. Subjective arguments are just as valid ob objective ones in any conversation.
Oh yeah man, for sure. I'm all for discussions of consciousness and how we perceive reality. They are of course incredibly powerful experiences and we should always be exploring how our own minds work and our reactions to the world. All I'm suggesting is that for such a substantial issue such as this, one should have incisive argument that rests on more than emotional basis.
Emotional arguments do not get resolved. If we do not work from facts and instead work from how each of us feels, then the more emotive person wins... or closes the discussion. At this point, I want to lock the doors on this anger festival. We're all pissed off, and we keep needing to type more to unravel that. The more we post here, the more popular this thread looks. However it's the least productive thread, least Hubski-like thread.
Okay, so the discussion you wanted to have with me hinged around anthropomorphizing cows. 1. whether or not I think a cow would rather be dead or alive if I were to somehow converse with it? Is this a Disney cow? 2. To live is to die. That is the only universal right. 3. Sustenance. Same reason we kill wheat, corn, mushrooms and other plants, fungi etc.
It has nothing to do with anthropomorphizing animals. It has to do with the recognition that animals are sentient, capable of suffering just like you. And then choosing not to willingly cause them any suffering since we wouldn't like it ourselves.
I don't think you will find a lot of people here that will argue that factory farming is a good or moral practice. However, sustainable and ethical animal farming is and it exists. I have a cousin that raises chickens, they have about 30 of them. They raise them, give them the best life a chicken will ever see and then humanely kill and eat them. It's a fast death at the hands of those that have cared for them. If, they were to be let free and in to the wild, the death that they would inevitably face would likely be far more brutal. I'm curious, what's your issue with this scenario? Please answer as it pertains to this scenario. Thanks.
The problem I have with this is that (as I have described before) although animal welfare is a step in the right direction, it is not the same as the right to life. In the end a well taken care off creature is killed for no good reason other than, it tastes good. It's the ultimate display of subjugation and abuse of the weak. Then we use wording such as "humane kill" to make it sound acceptable. Have you considered the blatant contradiction in this saying? Since when is killing a human like thing to do?! Which human would like to be killed in a "humane" way? It's a cop out to say that killing is ok as long as it's done painlessly. Furthermore have you killed any of your own animals? Were you ok with it? I have and although back then I loved meat, it still bothered me seeing the life of the animals I helped kill - chickens, pigs, rabbits - fade away. It still pains me today, to know I was ever able to cause so much harm to such helpless innocent creatures. But I was simply following the acceptable social convention.
I have killed my own food before a number of times. I've killed fish and I have killed chickens. The fish were quick and easy and I felt/feel no guilt for it. I did not enjoy killing the chickens, but then I didn't enjoy killing the fish either. They died at my hands, quickly and with very little pain. You do realize that these animals are GOING TO DIE regardless, right? Also, most of them would have never existed otherwise. Please tell me which of these two scenarios you think the chicken would prefer: Scenario 1: Chicken is born and raised on a family farm, is treated well and cared for for years. Then it is killed to be eaten by those that cared for it. They carefully break it's neck, quickly and with little to no pain or pre-anxiety. Scenario 2: The same chicken is released from the farm. It sees a fox approaching. The fox stalks it for about half an hour, pouncing at it repeatedly until it finally catches its wing in its mouth. It tears the wing off. Now, the bird can't move as easily but is floundering around on the ground. The Fox pounces again and grips it in it's teeth around the birds neck. It presses down firmly with it's teeth, careful not to kill it but silencing it's calls for help. The fox heads back to its den where it places the bird at the mercy of it's pups. They each take turns pouncing on the wounded and bloody bird until finally, it can no longer take it and with the last of it's fight or flight adrenaline, it attempts to burst out the opening of the hole. The mother fox tears open it's neck before it can escape. It bleeds out and becomes their meal. Also, I'm an organ donor. Why? Because after I die, I want my body to be useful.Which human would like to be killed in a "humane" way?
Many would. Death can be painful and brutal, but it doesn't need to be.
Yes, the question is would you prefer to die a premature life or to die an old life of natural causes? It is true that farmed animals of carefully selected breeds are a human creation. This selection was never made with the well-being of the animals in mind but purely based on how much flesh they produce and how quickly they can grow so they live the shortest lives for the largest profit. In fact some breeds have developed severe health of problems due to this type of horrible selection. Are you saying that farmed animals should be thankful to their owners for having granted them a short (even if in some rare cases kind) existence followed by dead? That's quite a twisted, even sadistic, view to have, to do as we please with other beings and then claim it's for their own good. For the record I never advocated for the release of farmed animals into the wild. This would be irresponsible after the thousands of years of species subjugation/domestication. A compassionate management of farmed animals would have to be thought out, perhaps in the shape of animal sanctuaries, I don't know. However, I don't think this will ever be an actual problem since it is unlikely that the whole world will become vegan overnight, leaving us not knowing what to do with billions of caged animals. I think it's a bit disingenuous to come up with a real life example and compare it with a highly hypothetical and unlikely graphic fox example just to support your views. I appreciate that you make an effort to buy meat from supposedly more ethical sources, however most of the animals don't have that luck. There's way higher likelihood that an animal is born in a factory farm, Scenario 3: chick is born in factory egg farm. If male, he gets minced immediately since he can't produce eggs; if female gets her beak painfully cut in half to prevent fighting due to crowded conditions and natural instinct of territorial disputes, lives half a life in a dark, cruelly small cage where she can barely move, before getting slaughtered. Depressingly similar stories exist for other farmed species. This is the reality of the largest majority of farmed animals today. Why not take the alternative compassion driven Scenario 4: Animal gets born in natural environment, animal gets to live freely with minimal human interference, animal dies of natural causes. Isn't this what you expect for yourself? Why do you have double standards for other species?You do realize that these animals are GOING TO DIE regardless, right?
Also, most of them would have never existed otherwise.
Scenario 1 vs Scenario 2
I have not. But I have killed many animals for science research. Specifically, I harvest brain cells to (hopefully) advance treatments for stroke. I don't talk about the specifics of the work I do around people I don't know well, because you get mixed reactions. Many people think that I'm a monster, but I'd say most think it's a better than even trade for humanity. My experience over the last eight years since I've been doing this work has been mixed. The strange part is that you really do get more used to the killing. What used to bother me a lot in a physical sense, now doesn't bother me at all. That it, I don't have a negative visceral reaction to killing, but I definitely did when I started. However, the flip side is that I feel less and less comfortable with the idea of animal research the more I do it. I wish there was a better way. Maybe one day there will be, but I tend to doubt it. These systems are complex enough that it's difficult to imagine that a computer program could ever replace a mammal. A bacterium? Sure. But a mammal is a whole 'nuther story. At least for the foreseeable future, I think if we want to march forward with medicine, animals are the only way. It does raise an interesting calculus about the value of a rodent, dog, or monkey vs. a human. How many dogs are worth saving a congestive heart failure patient? I don't know, and I think the assigned values are basically arbitrary. It's up to each of us to decide for ourselves whether research, or eating meat, or destroying habitat for a home to live in (something pretty much all vegetarians do just like the rest of us) is worth our comfort. I detest factory farming (which I see as a completely different topic than eating meat by itself), but as a moral judgement, I would never try to convince anyone on either side that their position is wrong. Too complicated for my small brain. (I am also an organ donor. I don't see any good reason as to why anyone wouldn't be. But it's also a topic a wouldn't debate, because people who are against it get surprisingly heated over it.)I have killed my own food before a number of times.
All life feeds on death. When I eventually need a new heart (barring advances in certain technologies of course) it will come from someone who died to give it to me. Not all deaths are wasted into the void, some manage to benefit a higher cause than maggot food. Because after I die, I want my body to be useful.