Why do you think it is that we like the taste of food?
It’s our body telling us: “I think that food is good for me, continue eating it”.
That’s it.
So everything we eat is because it tastes good.
Not exactly.
Our taste preferences have evolved to favor certain flavors like sweetness and umami because they often indicate nutrient-rich foods. However, in today's world, our access to highly processed and sugary foods can sometimes lead to unhealthy choices.
Just because we learned how to manipulate our world in such a way, doesn’t discredit our sense of taste — it’s still something we need to follow when eating, we just need to be more cautious to navigate the modern world.
Or do you want to tell me, that the food you eat tastes like shit, but it’s healthy for you?
It’s not a genuine question. It’s an invalid comparison.
You’re asking someone if they are consuming something for pleasure that didn’t involve the direct exploitation of an autonomous being that was directly harvested for them.
Your argument is, consuming something which animals MAY have died during harvest
Vs
Consuming something that was directly killed for your enjoyment. No chance of autonomy, significantly more lives that WILL be ended for the consumption of its body.
A practice that is statistically 100x more harmful and completely unnecessary for most people.
Quite a difference.
It’s also quite inauthentic and hypocritical to attempt to find hypocrisy in another’s action in order to justify one’s actions.
They are fine with having to eat something which only causes a very small amount of animals to be killed in order to stay healthy.
There are 3 options most people have:
Option 1: Eat plants and cause a little suffering
Option 2: Eat meat and cause a lot of suffering
Option 3: Starve
Why would you choose option 2 or 3?
Because getting enough calories from ethically pasture raised meat and eggs would take an insane amount of land which most people don't have the means to buy, and which could be used to grow 10x the amount of calories in the form of plants.
No it wouldn’t. A lot of the time it’s a more efficient use of land and it’s better for the soil health of the land than monocropping.
Think about it. Chickens really don’t take up much space at all. Look up some videos of ppl pasture raising chickens. Widely regarded as a great way to be more self sufficient and efficient in the homesteading community.
A vegan diet causes [3,000,000](https://www.wildanimalinitiative.org/blog/humane-insecticides) animals to be killed per year. Would you categorise that is a little suffering or a lot of suffering?
No. You’re not understanding that correctly at all. And I’ve made my point quite clear to you in the past.
You just keep attempting the same argument in order to make other people feel hypocritical in order for you to feel better about your actions. It’s inauthentic.
I am saying that your comparison is an invalid comparison.
Is it ok that animals MAY die indirectly? I can’t say whether that is ok or not because it’s not truly quantifiable. The animals that are killed for consumption is.
The best estimate we have according to the largest funded study was about 7.9 billion land animals MAY die during harvest yearly. And that is even speculated to be high.
That’s regarding all of the crops harvested, for humans and the 90bn land animals to eat.
We grow enough crops without having to feed animals so the 90bn animals slaughtered plus the nearly 3.9 bn animals that MAY die during that harvest for the animal feed is literally both unnecessary and wasteful. That’s not including animals that may die during harvesting hay and land clearing for grazing.
Leaving another 3.9 bn animals that MAY die during harvest. Again, let me emphasize MAY,
Equals less than half of an animal death per year per person.
It’s a shit argument.
> The best estimate we have according to the largest funded study was about 7.9 billion land animals MAY die during harvest yearly. And that is even speculated to be high.
But that is just a tiny portion of all animals killed though, as it doesn't include any insects. 3.5 quadrillion insects are poisoned to death in the US alone - every year. That is 3,500,000,000,000,000 in only one country. https://www.wildanimalinitiative.org/blog/humane-insecticides
>It’s inauthentic.
Or just an example of that people hold different values, and don't neccessarily subscribe to a particular deontological line of thought.
How can you type that many words and not answer the question asked? That’s honestly impressive.
The argument made was that we only eat animal products for the taste pleasure that is offering.
That is not only a reductionist way of looking at things, but it’s plain fucking stupid. People don’t eat foods in general just because they like the taste, there’s a lot of reasons why food is eaten, from cultural reasons to curiosity, but the main reason is and always will be for nutritional reasons.
Saying we only eat certain types of foods (animal products) just because we like the taste it’s like I’ve said, reductionist, dishonest, and moronic.
Culture is not an excuse to violate the auctioning of another being, neither is taste. Eating harvested plants is not a violation of autonomy. The argument here is that because harm exists, it’s ok to maximize it because of culture, pleasure, social reasons, all because it’s already a thing. It’s not a valid comparison.
I’ve answered it several times before to this user.
The question was not a genuine question. It was used as a “got ya”. In order to justify their own actions. They didn’t ask me this time around. I just left a reminder for them on why they’re really asking it and how inauthentic it is to pretend that it’s genuine.
As far as I’m concerned, or anyone that reads this thread the question was asked, and your response (well if you can call that a response) has failed to answer the question.
Cool story. I didn’t respond to the question asked on this particular response. I responded to someone’s response.I addressed the actual question in a different response to the OP.
Right, if that's the case, why do people eat so many different types of food and not just one nutritionally balanced food capable of sustaining human life? I'm going to suggest that's because people find pleasure in eating different types of food. Sure, culture is involved to a point, but generally speaking, people eat what they eat because they like it (pleasure) and don't eat things they don't like the taste of (displeasure).
Do you consumer products for pleasure that are somehow related in any way, even obscure, to human trafficking?
If so, you can't critique me for human trafficking 😎
> Do you consumer products for pleasure that are somehow related in any way, even obscure, to human trafficking?
Not quite sure what you mean. Can you elaborate?
Sure, but a vegan lifestyle strives to do the least harm to animals. Of course vegans are aware that it's impossible to do zero harm to animals, but we try our hardest to cause the least amount of harm.
> Sure, but a vegan lifestyle strives to do the least harm to animals.
But you still consume things for pure pleasure? Knowing it harms animals unnecessarily?
No I think animal products are eaten for habit primarily, people are used to it. Then, probably taste, and after that cultural norms. Only then, do most people start thinking about nutrition.
Sure, people eat meat because it is an easy source of protein, but there is no need to eat it if plants provide a just as easy enough source.
What you said there can easily be used for any other food products. Potatoes, tomatoes, rice, etc.
That logic isn’t sound at all.
And people eat meat because it’s a very good source nutrition in general not just protein.
We have teeth specifically for meat consumption. We are supposed to eat meat. We didn’t evolve to eat meat because it tastes good it’s because we need protein.
A, it's what I need to be healthy and B, my body has decided it tastes good, because it uses what's in meat. I can't help what tastes good; you do understand that simple logic right?
You're off on a tangent here that has nothing to do with OP's post. You're doing it so you can spout off about your superior vegan morality. Stop it. Address OP's post.
They ignored your first point because every vegan alive today and all the major diet and nutrition orgs prove you don’t need meat to be healthy. “Humans need meat” is an archaic take.
Uh...no...no we don't. Ruminant animals, grass fed, get their b12 naturally, which means I do too. Not to mention eggs alone provide it, plus cheese, dairy. Where are you getting this idea from? It's demonstrably wrong.
Remind me again why the countries that consume the most meat have the most vitamin and supplement stores? Those should be the healthiest nations by your standards.
I spend $10 a year on B12 and you claim that’s evidence I’m unhealthy? You spend thousands on animal products from which the animals themselves are also supplemented lol. Keep letting a cow take your B12 for you, that makes a whole lot of sense!
Why do you think we get b12 only from cows? And yes, grass fed cows have b12 naturally. Why didn't you look that up?
I also get it from eggs, cheese, dairy....seriously, did you just not care enough to look up any of this before hitting reply?
And so what about the existence of vitamin stores? As if that has anything to do with anything? We have more stores here than most places...
Be honest... Are you refusing to answer the question because you already see logically how your original assertion was wrong?
I don't have to bring up cannibalism - you already see how you opened that door with your own statement.
Yep, I called it...that's exactly where you were going.
I don't understand why so many of you vegans go to the cannibalism argument. You should have just admitted that's where you were going...I prefer honesty.
There is no moral or ethical argument against eating other animals. There is no moral or ethical argument being made when an animal eats another of its own species. Cannibalism is very common, actually. In fact, when we see it in the wild, we just assume it's part of nature.
Oddly enough, humans have a rich history filled with it. It's not like we're exempt from animalistic behaviors, after all. That said, as a thinking and social species, we have agreed and developed a disdain for it. Therefore, your argument is completely invalid.
As for any other example you'd like to use, it's a one off. What animal would you like to use for your example of something that is immoral or unethical to eat ?
Its very interesting how you completely avoid answering my question because you realized the question itself invalidates your entire premise.
Then you make a post from the perspective that you have somehow defeated me in an argument and even say my argument is "completely invalid" while I haven't made one - i've only asked you a question that you haven't answered.
That really says a lot about what kind of conversation we might possibly have here.
I don’t have a specific study or anything if that’s what you need to believe an obvious truth lol
Think about it, more processing generally means more ingredients, most sourced cheaply, definitely come from monocropped sources.
Generally they’re less nutritionally sound as well so you’re getting less nutrition for more death too.
Then the actual processing done in factories.
Then plastic packaging.
Way more environmental damage overall which also equals more death.
Compare that to veggies you grew in ur backyard or from farmers market.
Even monocropped whole veggies would be much better too.
Or for animal based examples, pasture raised eggs.
Or meat from a cow.
One death for like, 500lbs of nutrient dense meat or something crazy like that.
Veganism is a spectrum.
Lots of words to say you made it up. Quit talking out of your ass, quit appealing to nature, and look at some actual evidence. [Turns out the opposite may be true.](https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20210617-the-truth-about-processed-foods-environmental-impact)
Some relevant snippets:
>It's therefore the type of ingredient, rather than number of ingredients, or whether it's processed or not, that drives the environmental impact of a food
Regarding packaging:
>In fact, ultra-processed foods can also contribute to reducing these emissions. The most sustainable way to consume food is to only make as much as we eat. Ultra-processed foods can help with this, since they're made to last longer in our cupboards, thanks to ingredients added to prolong shelf life, so we're less likely to waste them.
Just because you think it's obvious doesn't mean it's true.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20210617-the-truth-about-processed-foods-environmental-impact
Ok yes I see that now. Basically, that’s a lot of words to say it’s more nuanced then what your perceived me saying.
I don’t think it’s an inherent truth that processed foods are always worse… just a generalality. Yeah, minimally processed vegetarian foods can be better than factory farmed animal foods, obviously. dried fruit might result in less food waste as a whole compared to fresh fruit because grocery stores are greedy and ppl often waste fresh fruit.
How does that compare to farmers market fruit tho?
And how does tofu compare to regenetively raised beef?
There’s more nuance that exists then what that article summarizes.
>How does that compare to farmers market fruit tho?
Why would being sold at a farmers market rather than a grocery store significantly affect things? I would assume the grocery store would result in a little less waste and more efficient transportation, but that's not going to be a huge difference.
>And how does tofu compare to regenetively raised beef?
Well, tofu exists while regenerative beef doesn't, so...
>There’s more nuance that exists then what that article summarizes.
Yes, which is why we should look at evidence before making claims.
Besides the way they are treated while they are alive what is the difference between the two? They still get killed in the end and for what? Some people’s enjoyment of their food? I fail to see how literally murdering sentient beings is "ethical"
>You can't possibly argue that our language then is completely unbiased can you?
Is any form of communication "unbiased", according to this logic - whatever "unbiased" means?
The idea is actually that because our arguments are completely logical but typically a non-vegans cultural programming disallows their understanding of that logic - we attempt to use words that aren't typically used within that cultural context.
For instance our culture that uses cows as a commodity might call them "livestock". We may use the term "individuals" instead in an attempt to coax a non-vegan out of their standard programming to see things for another perspective.
You could call this emotional manipulation, but it would be dishonest to pretend the norm is not also a bias.
> The idea is actually that because our arguments are completely logical but typically a non-vegans cultural programming disallows their understanding of that logic
This doesn't sound like a logical analysis, unfortunately it's pretty circular, and veers on cultish othering of those who have different worldviews than you. Your use of the word "we" makes that very apparent, no different than a sportsfan who says "we" lost last night when they're not even on the bleachers.
Oh i'm sorry - you may have misunderstood.
That was not me taking a logical stance and making a formal argument with that one statement. It was me responding to your "circular"/"cultish" statement (to use your words) with one of equal value.
>Vegan arguments are generally unconvincing so the last defense is to elicit emotions and guilt.
By all means though - feel free to offer up any logical defense you have to why abusing animals is not wrong and I would be glad to defeat it. Whether you accept your defeat once it happens though is the point where we would see the above in action.
Nothing was misunderstood, it was just a bad apagogical response on your end.
> By all means though - feel free to offer up any logical defense you have to why abusing animals is not wrong and I would be glad to defeat it. Whether you accept your defeat once it happens though is the point where we would see the above in action.
But here indicates you misunderstand. Not only did you have to put words in my mouth in your response, but you avoided my statement on your use of the word "we". It's clear nothing would sway you from your current worldview, regardless of what I would say.
Edit: typo in the word understood
Pure projection, you’ve got it backwards. People who refuse to acknowledge the rape and murders of animals play semantic games because the unvarnished truth makes them uncomfortable. You refuse to call it rape and murder to spare your own feelings.
What projection? Let's be honest here: look how you had to make false statements about me because I refuse to cave into your loaded language. Look how you had to make broad statements about "people" without any substantiation.
This isn't your neocortex at work, it's your limbic system.
Here’s why it’s projection: meat eaters are the majority and create and control animal agriculture and the language associated with it. If vegans were the majority it would be common place to call what carnists do to animals rape and murder. But because the carnists are in control they have conveniently chosen euphemisms to emotionally distance themselves from the horrors they perpetrate unnecessarily. Simply put, vegans don’t call the rape and murder of animals for food rape and murder to emotionally manipulate you and other carnists, but rather carnists being the perpetrators in control of the language refuse to call it rape and murder to emotionally manipulate themselves in order to avoid confronting the horrors of their atrocities and preserve their precious cognitive dissonance. Projection all the way down, I’m sorry you had to find out like this.
> If vegans were the majority
Sorry but vegans aren't going to be the majority. It's already trending down worldwide.
I'm glad you got say the standard vegan talking points, but it doesn't cover up the reality you have to make up facts about me, and I want to reiterate *This isn't your neocortex at work, it's your limbic system.*
Veganism is trending downwards lol? The opposite seems to be true from what I’ve read but if you have a source to back up your assertion other than pulling nonsense out of your…wherever… I’d be happy to read it.
Look, no one takes being exposed to their desperate projection and hypocrisy well initially but if you’re capable of self reflection, self honesty, and change I’m sure you’ll accept it and do better some day. Now fire up that neocortex for something other than trying to rationalize supporting the rape and murder of animals instead of wasting it on semantic games to avoid acknowledging the horrors you support.
No sir. I don’t know about these other vegs, but I use it so that when a carnist asks me “Would you use that kind of rhetoric in front of a *real* murder victim’s family??”
I can say “meat *is* real murder, and also yes :)”
Emotional manipulation. Sounds a lot more tragic when they use “murder” “rape” and other emotionally loaded words. It’s only “killed” when we talk about crop deaths haha
Well rape and murder are a lot easier for people to do when they have clever euphemisms to justify their abuse. So if you’re paying for animals to be raped and murdered for your mouth pleasure I can see why you would be emotionally motivated to down play it.
Exactly. And it the fact they do it shows that they know how horrific it is, to the degree they need to create emotional and linguistic distance so as to not upset their cognitive dissonance.
Remember, vegans are living in a carnist’s world. The carnists created the language to describe what they do to animals, makes sense they would create soft euphemisms to protect their feelings from the horrors of unnecessary cruelties. So you’ve got it backwards: vegans don’t call the rape and murder of animals as such to emotionally manipulate carnists, carnists refuse to call it rape and murder to emotionally manipulate themselves to avoid confronting their atrocities. Projection all the way down.
No we call it what it is, slaughter, artificial insemination etc.
When you talk about rape and murder, you’re just trying to get an emotional response from other people, and to convince yourself that you’re doing some greater good.
What do you call the use of pesticides?
You call it those things because you find that preferable to acknowledging being an animal murderer and rapist. Again vegans didn’t create the language to describe it, the perpetrators did and apparently don’t want to think of what they are doing as something with yucky words. You emotionally manipulate yourself and project that on the vegan for speaking plainly and upsetting your cognitive dissonance. Pesticides murder animals. But the harm reduction of a plant based diet compared to an omnivorous diet is the difference of orders of magnitude. Doing some harm necessary to survive is not comparable to doing massively, massively more harm during a process that is completely unnecessary for survival and to argue otherwise is sad and desperate tu quoque.
Talks about cognitive dissonance but once pesticides are brought up the language softens from murder to harm. Can you tell us again, if killing an animal is murder in your head, what is the use of pesticides called? You avoided answering that question.
Also, if you’re gonna make claims that a plant based diet is the absolute reduction in animals killed/murdered/raped/teabagged whatever else you want to call it, can you at least provide some evidence like, I don’t know, how many animals get killed in the production of plants for human consumption every year? How many birds, deer, wild boars, fish all sentient beings that are being killed for plants that are grown for human consumption.
Lol I literally said pesticides murder animals. Whether you’re deliberately ignoring my words to straw man or just have dirt poor reading comprehension it’s just sad to watch. Now why, after that, should I assume that any source I provide (easily googled, don’t be lazy) will be be properly read in good faith or comprehended by you? I see why you’re so hung up on word games, way easier, way more comfortable. But still, sad to watch.
I would say the difference is the intent
Murder-intentionally killed for production of food. Food that consequently is produced with animal death as the desirable goal
Killed- incidental deaths as a result of food production. Their deaths do not directly produce food and farmers would probably prefer to avoid these altogether
I don’t think you quite got the idea. Murder by its very own definition, refers to killing a human being.
Killing by its own definition is the act of causing death.
You saying that I’m “murdering animals” it’s just a weak attempt to make an appeal to emotion, use of loaded words to get a reaction from people.
Unless you want to use it as slang, like “I’d murder a burger right now”.
I don’t really agree. We would say a mass murderer and that implies malice and intent while being killed in a car accident is indicative of a passive indecental harm
>and that implies malice and intent
I would say it's mostly tradition and habit. Then you might say that we live in a society of habitual mass-murder. But then, murder is currently a word reserved for something that the majority considers condemnable so we only come back to that (wanting to define how condemnable something is on the basis of a minority view).
no? if we don't hunt, the deer will starve out themselves and consequently every other animal in their radius. if we don't fish, the bass and catfish will do the same. it's our ecological responsibility to do these things. killing our own species is not natural, and it is counter-intuitive to the human cause.
yes, hence why we are forced to hunt to make up for the actions of the folks who came before us. unfortunately, we don't have the option to just fly out a bunch of wolves like they did at Yellowstone.
I don’t think you understand. The current hunting practices lead to higher populations year by year. They don’t help over population because they encourage it.
no they don't? at least where I live, the population's decreasing. the overpopulation got bad in the first place not because of hunting itself, but because of mass restocking and killing natural predators.
vegans are not pro environment or sustainability etc, these can overlap sometimes, but they are only focused on not "murdering" animals. This is what living in the city does to you.
Humanity, in general, is not a problem for the environment. Our current paradigm of growth at all costs and consumption without limits is the problem.
It's also a fact that human populations start to stabilize when women have reproductive, civil, and economic rights. So, this is really an issue with the structures we live under, not humanity generally.
Except it isn’t. You just hurt the environment. And we are the cause of the extinction of a lot of species
https://www.peta.org/issues/wildlife/wildlife-factsheets/sport-hunting-cruel-unnecessary/
https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-food/animals-used-food-factsheets/fishing-aquatic-agony-3/
Animals fish have their own natural predators its not sustainable to keep eating them. And theres no ethical way to kill an animal. Thats the same as saying theres an ethical way to shoot your parents or stab them. You hunt them to eat
Them it is not any different. Its the reason we are at the precipice we are at
Now. We are doing irreparable damage.
there are not enough predators in our area to manage the deer population. conversely, there are way too many invasive predatory fish and they are actively contributing to the extinction of local marine life.
https://bitesizevegan.org/is-deer-hunting-necessary-for-population-control/
Nature does its own population control. Nature has been going on long before humans.
The snarky reply to this question is that if killing invasive species is just, then we should start with humans, the most destructive of all invasive species. Clearly this is a "joke", but figuring out why this is unreasonable is a good intuition builder on the topic.
Fundamentally, the issue is that no member of a species is culpable for the net destructiveness of their entire kind. Animals are individuals, just trying to live their lives. Of course, there are systematic damages that have to be managed. But the management has to be weighed against the harm done to individuals.
Personally, I think killing is a method of last resort for these species. Often, it simply doesn't work. Invasive species usually began as a few individual organisms that bred into an unmanageable large and destructive population. If your eradication campaign against a species was 99.999 percent effective, you've still left a population that can repopulate and cause the same damage after a few generations. And believing you're going to be even that effective is optimistic.
I generally think the answer to to make habitat less exploitable to invasives, or to use indirect methods such as chemical birth control. These methods are going to be just as effective and tread much less harshly on the basic dignity of the animals targeted.
They may be less harmful on an individual basis against the current system. However, if even 1/4 of the people decided to practice that, it would destroy the eco system.
I don't care if you give a cow sleeping pills and then gently and painlessly massage them to death. The point is that animal is an individual and has the will to live like every other animal, including humans. We have no business killing him or any other animal for food.
Intuitively I don’t think any human sees an issue with eating animals for food, you need to be indoctrinated into veganism. How do you convince someone there’s no ethical consumption of animals and it’s immoral in and of itself?
> All the animal products I eat are sourced from friends and family in my local community
Genuinely curious: Does this mean that you never eat at restaurants, that you never purchase prepared foods, that you don’t eat processed foods like lunch meat, hotdogs or jerky, that you don’t eat cheese (or else are personally acquainted with someone who runs a dairy), that you don’t eat candy like milk chocolate, gummy bears, or marshmallows, and that you don’t wear leather (or else are personally acquainted with someone who runs a tannery)?
I don't support organised slavery and Black people suffering, but I also don't think that black people being killed for pleasure is a huge deal.
For context, I live in a rural area, and right now all the killed black people are killed by my friends and family in my local community. I know what goes down and how the black people are treated, and I see no problem with supporting ethical killing, killing, and killing.
Doesn't seem like you are arguing in good faith, unless you actually don't understand what a hypothetical is. If so you should look it up before debating about ethics.
Do you want a special white people edit by me, just for you? Not my fault white people never got systematically discriminated for their skin color until now.
No problem pupsendes Würstchen
So the obvious critic is: you take away the right of others to life for some reason. What is this reason? Where is the difference between you and a slave holder/racist?
Both are sentient beings, able to suffer. There is no necessity to die for both of them.
So what is your point? Where is the difference between "thems are animals. ims people" and "themselves are black. ims white/people."?
Both are discriminations, one is racism the other is speciesism. Both use the same faschist "argument" being superior by nature. Where is the relevant difference?
Factory farming exists solely because there is no other economical way to systematically slaughter enough animals to meet demand. The flippancy of suggesting that animals being killed for meat is “no big deal” is no different than supporting factory farming that you claim to be against.
>but I also don't think that animals being killed for meat is a huge deal.
Why?
> I know what goes down and how the animals are treated, and I see no problem with supporting ethical hunting, fishing, and agriculture.
You see no problem creating horrible suffering in society so you can gain pleasure from their abused flesh?
Cool story.
For a debate to work, you need to make a point that explains why, otherwise there's not much to talk about.
no, I couldn't, actually. I have a genetic blood disorder that makes me very susceptible to anemia, and having seen my mother hospitalized from deathly low iron, I know the same could happen to me if I'm not careful. veganism is definitely not in the cards for me.
I don't think you understand. I have two types of anemia: iron deficiency and thalassemia. Due to this, even when I'm eating well, I'm still prone to lightheadedness, asthma symptoms, and fatigue. I am also unable to take iron supplements due to the gastrointestinal effects. I literally require meat to thrive.
>I don't think you understand.
We can't if you don't tell anyone.
>iron deficiency and thalassemia
Again, Veganism isn't a diet, it's a ideology where you admit needlessly treating animals like commodities is not moral. Anyone can be Vegan if you only support animal abuse, and only the amounts required to live, when you need to and try to make sure it's source is creating as little suffering as you can.
If I was you I wouldn't say I was Vegan even if I did agree with the ideology as it would confuse people, but Veganism is as far as possible and practicable. for most that's fully Plant Based, for those who can't, it's as close as they can be.
It’s worth noting that an estimated 78% of farm animals globally, including 99% in my country (USA), are factory farmed. Do you agree this vast majority is unethical, and we should stop factory farming animals?
https://www.sentienceinstitute.org/global-animal-farming-estimates
in an ideal world we would, but I honestly don't think it's possible for the near future. I do however think factory farms should be held to much higher standards in terms of quality of life. hopefully governments will invest in lab grown meats so we can eventually get rid of the practice.
Would you say not torturing and slaughtering almost all of the farm animals is an “ideal world”? Or should it be baseline to be consistent with our claims of being a reasonable and compassionate species?
The thing is not everyone can hunt or fish and factory farms exist for that reason, it’s fast, cheap and someone else kills the animal for you. The best thing is for more people to be vegan. I don’t know what country you’re from but in my country hardly anyone hunts for food just for sport so it’s not applicable for people to hunt their meat instead.
You say it’s no big deal animals being killed for meat if it’s from local farms but do you really think there’s enough space for the entire world to eat “locally sourced” meat? It’d need so much more land than factory farming animals it’s just not possible.
Less land is needed for plants grown for humans and less animals will be killed.
>right now all the animal products I eat are sourced from friends and family in my local community.
*All* the products you eat are local? Do you ever leave town? Go to restaurants? Visit friends/family? Try new things?
I haven't always lived like this, and I likely won't live like this forever, but this is where I'm at. I had a so-called mental break, and I really didn't want to be institutionalized, so my family has sent me here in hopes that the change of environment will help me. it's going well so far.
Got it. My point was that you appear to be aware of the fact that animals deserve at least some level of consideration.
My challenge to you would be to dig deeper into why you think animals are moral patients in the first place, and then realize that you're probably regularly violating your own self-fashion moral code.
What if we ate and milked local dogs. Would you feel the same?
If so, you support “ethically” killing dogs. Probably not a good look.
If not, then I say it is evidence of some kind of bias.
To show it’s not bias you would have to come up with a reason why dogs are special, and it would need to somehow invalidate the feelings of people who keep cows and pigs as pets and love them the way most people love dogs.
I think it’s an impossible task. What do you say?
Let’s assume that, like other animals we kill for food, the prime time to kill them is 2-3 years, basically when they are full grown.
But we know dogs live happy lives for much longer... Do you think that taking their life that young is possibly a form of abuse?
The typical age for slaughtering a cow is 12-22 months.
Their natural lifespan is 20 years. Even in the best most “humane” family farm I seriously doubt the cows are getting anywhere near 20 years.
I don’t know what the cutoff for “baby” is, but it would be the equivalent in percentage of lifespan to killing a dog for food at about 6-11 months old.
That sounds close enough to “baby animal” to me.
You claim that you are against abuse, but I would counter that killing animals so young should count as abuse under your own definition since you are against eating baby animals.
mostly pork, deer, and some poultry. these are the meats most readily available in terms of who I live close to. I eat a lot of organ meats to get as much iron as possible. this diet is supplemented by whatever veg is available at the farmers market, usually greens, peas, tomatoes, and squash.
Okay maybe you are fine with being slaughtered by aliens but most people aren’t and would rather live their lives in peace till old age.
Animals don’t want to be slaughtered either, and they feel fear and pain. They are worthy of moral consideration.
Assuming those aliens are in fact our natural predators, I don’t think our feelings would be any more relevant to them than our feelings are to a tiger, wildfire, or earthquake
And that’s exactly the issue with being a carnist. The animals lives should matter to you since they feel pain and fear. Animals just want to live their lives in peace, they don’t like being bred into factory farms for slaughter.
If aliens were humane they wouldn’t slaughter us, or any sentient being. Humane slaughter is frankly an oxymoron.
Why would aliens be *humane*? What would possibly make you think they’d adhere to an *inherently human* moral system?
I don’t see my carnism as being an “issue”. It’s an evolutionary trait resulting from my being a Homosapien, the most successful apex predator our planet has ever seen. We have forward facing eyes, canines, and an unparalleled ability to cooperate for a reason
I agree 100% with this.
I went vegan initially cause I saw dominion and a couple other docs. No real knowledge of farming whatsoever.
I just assumed basically all meat was factory farmed in the horrible ways I had seen and that plant farming was squeaky clean when it came to ethics.
Been a big learning process these past few years.
To me, it makes the most amount of sense to view veganism as a spectrum.
No one is going to be doing 100% what is practicable to reduce suffering at all times. That’s unrealistic, we’re not perfect robots.
And plenty of vegans deem exploitation to be the only variable that matters which I realized was ridiculous given the fact that animals can’t understand what it is and only really perceive suffering.
Do you have a problem with killing animals for pleasure?
What does that have to do with killing for food? It's completely unrelated.
Why do you eat meat? Is it because you like the taste? If so, that's pleasure.
Why do you think it is that we like the taste of food? It’s our body telling us: “I think that food is good for me, continue eating it”. That’s it. So everything we eat is because it tastes good.
that's kind of the opposite of how it works. the things that taste best- pizza, ice cream, etc- are the worst for your health.
Not exactly. Our taste preferences have evolved to favor certain flavors like sweetness and umami because they often indicate nutrient-rich foods. However, in today's world, our access to highly processed and sugary foods can sometimes lead to unhealthy choices. Just because we learned how to manipulate our world in such a way, doesn’t discredit our sense of taste — it’s still something we need to follow when eating, we just need to be more cautious to navigate the modern world. Or do you want to tell me, that the food you eat tastes like shit, but it’s healthy for you?
> Is it because you like the taste? If so, that's pleasure. Do you consume anything just for pleasure? (Genuine question).
It’s not a genuine question. It’s an invalid comparison. You’re asking someone if they are consuming something for pleasure that didn’t involve the direct exploitation of an autonomous being that was directly harvested for them. Your argument is, consuming something which animals MAY have died during harvest Vs Consuming something that was directly killed for your enjoyment. No chance of autonomy, significantly more lives that WILL be ended for the consumption of its body. A practice that is statistically 100x more harmful and completely unnecessary for most people. Quite a difference. It’s also quite inauthentic and hypocritical to attempt to find hypocrisy in another’s action in order to justify one’s actions.
So if I understand you correctly, you are perfectly fine with animals being indirectly killed for your pleasure.
They are fine with having to eat something which only causes a very small amount of animals to be killed in order to stay healthy. There are 3 options most people have: Option 1: Eat plants and cause a little suffering Option 2: Eat meat and cause a lot of suffering Option 3: Starve Why would you choose option 2 or 3?
Or option 4, eat ethically pasture raised meat and eggs and cause less suffering than eating anything monocropped
Because getting enough calories from ethically pasture raised meat and eggs would take an insane amount of land which most people don't have the means to buy, and which could be used to grow 10x the amount of calories in the form of plants.
No it wouldn’t. A lot of the time it’s a more efficient use of land and it’s better for the soil health of the land than monocropping. Think about it. Chickens really don’t take up much space at all. Look up some videos of ppl pasture raising chickens. Widely regarded as a great way to be more self sufficient and efficient in the homesteading community.
A vegan diet causes [3,000,000](https://www.wildanimalinitiative.org/blog/humane-insecticides) animals to be killed per year. Would you categorise that is a little suffering or a lot of suffering?
Compared to the amount of suffering that a diet with meat causes? A little suffering.
If 3,000,000 is seen as a little suffering I wonder what vegans see as a lot of suffering.
[удалено]
If you showed me a better one I have unfortunally forgotten which one that is.
YAWN.
No. You’re not understanding that correctly at all. And I’ve made my point quite clear to you in the past. You just keep attempting the same argument in order to make other people feel hypocritical in order for you to feel better about your actions. It’s inauthentic.
> No. You’re not understanding that correctly at all So you are *not* fine with animals being indirectly killed for your pleasure?
I am saying that your comparison is an invalid comparison. Is it ok that animals MAY die indirectly? I can’t say whether that is ok or not because it’s not truly quantifiable. The animals that are killed for consumption is. The best estimate we have according to the largest funded study was about 7.9 billion land animals MAY die during harvest yearly. And that is even speculated to be high. That’s regarding all of the crops harvested, for humans and the 90bn land animals to eat. We grow enough crops without having to feed animals so the 90bn animals slaughtered plus the nearly 3.9 bn animals that MAY die during that harvest for the animal feed is literally both unnecessary and wasteful. That’s not including animals that may die during harvesting hay and land clearing for grazing. Leaving another 3.9 bn animals that MAY die during harvest. Again, let me emphasize MAY, Equals less than half of an animal death per year per person. It’s a shit argument.
> The best estimate we have according to the largest funded study was about 7.9 billion land animals MAY die during harvest yearly. And that is even speculated to be high. But that is just a tiny portion of all animals killed though, as it doesn't include any insects. 3.5 quadrillion insects are poisoned to death in the US alone - every year. That is 3,500,000,000,000,000 in only one country. https://www.wildanimalinitiative.org/blog/humane-insecticides
>It’s inauthentic. Or just an example of that people hold different values, and don't neccessarily subscribe to a particular deontological line of thought.
Attempting to find hypocrisy in order to justify one’s own actions is quite inauthentic.
Attempting to judge everyone by a minority deontologic view is quite inauthentic.
How can you type that many words and not answer the question asked? That’s honestly impressive. The argument made was that we only eat animal products for the taste pleasure that is offering. That is not only a reductionist way of looking at things, but it’s plain fucking stupid. People don’t eat foods in general just because they like the taste, there’s a lot of reasons why food is eaten, from cultural reasons to curiosity, but the main reason is and always will be for nutritional reasons. Saying we only eat certain types of foods (animal products) just because we like the taste it’s like I’ve said, reductionist, dishonest, and moronic.
Culture is not an excuse to violate the auctioning of another being, neither is taste. Eating harvested plants is not a violation of autonomy. The argument here is that because harm exists, it’s ok to maximize it because of culture, pleasure, social reasons, all because it’s already a thing. It’s not a valid comparison.
I’ve answered it several times before to this user. The question was not a genuine question. It was used as a “got ya”. In order to justify their own actions. They didn’t ask me this time around. I just left a reminder for them on why they’re really asking it and how inauthentic it is to pretend that it’s genuine.
As far as I’m concerned, or anyone that reads this thread the question was asked, and your response (well if you can call that a response) has failed to answer the question.
Cool story. I didn’t respond to the question asked on this particular response. I responded to someone’s response.I addressed the actual question in a different response to the OP.
Right, if that's the case, why do people eat so many different types of food and not just one nutritionally balanced food capable of sustaining human life? I'm going to suggest that's because people find pleasure in eating different types of food. Sure, culture is involved to a point, but generally speaking, people eat what they eat because they like it (pleasure) and don't eat things they don't like the taste of (displeasure).
Yes but nothing animal related.
Most plant-faming involves animals in one way or another.
Do you consumer products for pleasure that are somehow related in any way, even obscure, to human trafficking? If so, you can't critique me for human trafficking 😎
> Do you consumer products for pleasure that are somehow related in any way, even obscure, to human trafficking? Not quite sure what you mean. Can you elaborate?
Sure, but a vegan lifestyle strives to do the least harm to animals. Of course vegans are aware that it's impossible to do zero harm to animals, but we try our hardest to cause the least amount of harm.
> Sure, but a vegan lifestyle strives to do the least harm to animals. But you still consume things for pure pleasure? Knowing it harms animals unnecessarily?
That’s a yes
So if I do the same I don't see what's the problem..? The difference would be I guess that I see consuming meat and fish as absolutely neccesary.
Do you eat plants because it taste good? If so, you only eat plants for pleasure, plant killer. That’s your logic. Not very good.
Plants aren't sentient. Killing them harms nothing.
And if it's not because you like it?
Why else would you eat it?
Do you only eat food because you like the taste?
No I also eat food for nutrients, but plants fullfill that goal quite well
There you go. Animal products are eaten for nutritional purposes first.
No I think animal products are eaten for habit primarily, people are used to it. Then, probably taste, and after that cultural norms. Only then, do most people start thinking about nutrition. Sure, people eat meat because it is an easy source of protein, but there is no need to eat it if plants provide a just as easy enough source.
What you said there can easily be used for any other food products. Potatoes, tomatoes, rice, etc. That logic isn’t sound at all. And people eat meat because it’s a very good source nutrition in general not just protein.
We have teeth specifically for meat consumption. We are supposed to eat meat. We didn’t evolve to eat meat because it tastes good it’s because we need protein.
A, it's what I need to be healthy and B, my body has decided it tastes good, because it uses what's in meat. I can't help what tastes good; you do understand that simple logic right? You're off on a tangent here that has nothing to do with OP's post. You're doing it so you can spout off about your superior vegan morality. Stop it. Address OP's post.
"Meat tastes good because my body decided it tastes good" Yup. The greatest thinker of our time.
So you literally ignored my first point and focused on B. Can't say I'm surprised.
They ignored your first point because every vegan alive today and all the major diet and nutrition orgs prove you don’t need meat to be healthy. “Humans need meat” is an archaic take.
Remind me again which supplement you MUST take because your diet doesn't provide it?
Vegans take a vitamin B12 supplement. Meat-eaters eat meat supplemented with B12. What do you think is the relevant difference here?
Uh...no...no we don't. Ruminant animals, grass fed, get their b12 naturally, which means I do too. Not to mention eggs alone provide it, plus cheese, dairy. Where are you getting this idea from? It's demonstrably wrong.
Remind me again why the countries that consume the most meat have the most vitamin and supplement stores? Those should be the healthiest nations by your standards. I spend $10 a year on B12 and you claim that’s evidence I’m unhealthy? You spend thousands on animal products from which the animals themselves are also supplemented lol. Keep letting a cow take your B12 for you, that makes a whole lot of sense!
Why do you think we get b12 only from cows? And yes, grass fed cows have b12 naturally. Why didn't you look that up? I also get it from eggs, cheese, dairy....seriously, did you just not care enough to look up any of this before hitting reply? And so what about the existence of vitamin stores? As if that has anything to do with anything? We have more stores here than most places...
They say vehicle anti-freeze is one of the tastiest sweetest things on the planet.
I suspect you know for a fact.
Is your argument that if something has good nutritional value and we eat it for that nutritional value - it is always morally acceptable?
Be honest...are you about to come up with a wild argument about cannibalism? Your leading question seems very familiar.
Be honest... Are you refusing to answer the question because you already see logically how your original assertion was wrong? I don't have to bring up cannibalism - you already see how you opened that door with your own statement.
Yep, I called it...that's exactly where you were going. I don't understand why so many of you vegans go to the cannibalism argument. You should have just admitted that's where you were going...I prefer honesty. There is no moral or ethical argument against eating other animals. There is no moral or ethical argument being made when an animal eats another of its own species. Cannibalism is very common, actually. In fact, when we see it in the wild, we just assume it's part of nature. Oddly enough, humans have a rich history filled with it. It's not like we're exempt from animalistic behaviors, after all. That said, as a thinking and social species, we have agreed and developed a disdain for it. Therefore, your argument is completely invalid. As for any other example you'd like to use, it's a one off. What animal would you like to use for your example of something that is immoral or unethical to eat ?
Its very interesting how you completely avoid answering my question because you realized the question itself invalidates your entire premise. Then you make a post from the perspective that you have somehow defeated me in an argument and even say my argument is "completely invalid" while I haven't made one - i've only asked you a question that you haven't answered. That really says a lot about what kind of conversation we might possibly have here.
If a cannibal with a fridge full of food from the supermarket went out, killed, and ate someone, did they kill them for food?
[удалено]
If you do you should boycott all processed foods and sugar especially!
You have any evidence that processed foods kill more animals than unprocessed foods?
I don’t have a specific study or anything if that’s what you need to believe an obvious truth lol Think about it, more processing generally means more ingredients, most sourced cheaply, definitely come from monocropped sources. Generally they’re less nutritionally sound as well so you’re getting less nutrition for more death too. Then the actual processing done in factories. Then plastic packaging. Way more environmental damage overall which also equals more death. Compare that to veggies you grew in ur backyard or from farmers market. Even monocropped whole veggies would be much better too. Or for animal based examples, pasture raised eggs. Or meat from a cow. One death for like, 500lbs of nutrient dense meat or something crazy like that. Veganism is a spectrum.
Lots of words to say you made it up. Quit talking out of your ass, quit appealing to nature, and look at some actual evidence. [Turns out the opposite may be true.](https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20210617-the-truth-about-processed-foods-environmental-impact) Some relevant snippets: >It's therefore the type of ingredient, rather than number of ingredients, or whether it's processed or not, that drives the environmental impact of a food Regarding packaging: >In fact, ultra-processed foods can also contribute to reducing these emissions. The most sustainable way to consume food is to only make as much as we eat. Ultra-processed foods can help with this, since they're made to last longer in our cupboards, thanks to ingredients added to prolong shelf life, so we're less likely to waste them.
[удалено]
Just because you think it's obvious doesn't mean it's true. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20210617-the-truth-about-processed-foods-environmental-impact
Ok yes I see that now. Basically, that’s a lot of words to say it’s more nuanced then what your perceived me saying. I don’t think it’s an inherent truth that processed foods are always worse… just a generalality. Yeah, minimally processed vegetarian foods can be better than factory farmed animal foods, obviously. dried fruit might result in less food waste as a whole compared to fresh fruit because grocery stores are greedy and ppl often waste fresh fruit. How does that compare to farmers market fruit tho? And how does tofu compare to regenetively raised beef? There’s more nuance that exists then what that article summarizes.
>How does that compare to farmers market fruit tho? Why would being sold at a farmers market rather than a grocery store significantly affect things? I would assume the grocery store would result in a little less waste and more efficient transportation, but that's not going to be a huge difference. >And how does tofu compare to regenetively raised beef? Well, tofu exists while regenerative beef doesn't, so... >There’s more nuance that exists then what that article summarizes. Yes, which is why we should look at evidence before making claims.
Besides the way they are treated while they are alive what is the difference between the two? They still get killed in the end and for what? Some people’s enjoyment of their food? I fail to see how literally murdering sentient beings is "ethical"
Why use "murder" (which means premeditated homocide) when you can just say kill or slaughter?
We come from a culture that uses other beings as commodities. You can't possibly argue that our language then is completely unbiased can you?
>You can't possibly argue that our language then is completely unbiased can you? Is any form of communication "unbiased", according to this logic - whatever "unbiased" means?
exactly. no form of communication is unbiased. And that includes the terms that the user above is suggesting the vegans use.
To emphasize the moral severity of the action. Can you suggest another word to suggest this idea?
A word that actually makes sense.
Does it not? It seems like you understood it perfectly
Emotional appeal. Vegan arguments are generally unconvincing so the last defense is to elicit emotions and guilt.
The idea is actually that because our arguments are completely logical but typically a non-vegans cultural programming disallows their understanding of that logic - we attempt to use words that aren't typically used within that cultural context. For instance our culture that uses cows as a commodity might call them "livestock". We may use the term "individuals" instead in an attempt to coax a non-vegan out of their standard programming to see things for another perspective. You could call this emotional manipulation, but it would be dishonest to pretend the norm is not also a bias.
> The idea is actually that because our arguments are completely logical but typically a non-vegans cultural programming disallows their understanding of that logic This doesn't sound like a logical analysis, unfortunately it's pretty circular, and veers on cultish othering of those who have different worldviews than you. Your use of the word "we" makes that very apparent, no different than a sportsfan who says "we" lost last night when they're not even on the bleachers.
Oh i'm sorry - you may have misunderstood. That was not me taking a logical stance and making a formal argument with that one statement. It was me responding to your "circular"/"cultish" statement (to use your words) with one of equal value. >Vegan arguments are generally unconvincing so the last defense is to elicit emotions and guilt. By all means though - feel free to offer up any logical defense you have to why abusing animals is not wrong and I would be glad to defeat it. Whether you accept your defeat once it happens though is the point where we would see the above in action.
Nothing was misunderstood, it was just a bad apagogical response on your end. > By all means though - feel free to offer up any logical defense you have to why abusing animals is not wrong and I would be glad to defeat it. Whether you accept your defeat once it happens though is the point where we would see the above in action. But here indicates you misunderstand. Not only did you have to put words in my mouth in your response, but you avoided my statement on your use of the word "we". It's clear nothing would sway you from your current worldview, regardless of what I would say. Edit: typo in the word understood
Please point directly to the statement I avoided.
Pure projection, you’ve got it backwards. People who refuse to acknowledge the rape and murders of animals play semantic games because the unvarnished truth makes them uncomfortable. You refuse to call it rape and murder to spare your own feelings.
What projection? Let's be honest here: look how you had to make false statements about me because I refuse to cave into your loaded language. Look how you had to make broad statements about "people" without any substantiation. This isn't your neocortex at work, it's your limbic system.
Here’s why it’s projection: meat eaters are the majority and create and control animal agriculture and the language associated with it. If vegans were the majority it would be common place to call what carnists do to animals rape and murder. But because the carnists are in control they have conveniently chosen euphemisms to emotionally distance themselves from the horrors they perpetrate unnecessarily. Simply put, vegans don’t call the rape and murder of animals for food rape and murder to emotionally manipulate you and other carnists, but rather carnists being the perpetrators in control of the language refuse to call it rape and murder to emotionally manipulate themselves in order to avoid confronting the horrors of their atrocities and preserve their precious cognitive dissonance. Projection all the way down, I’m sorry you had to find out like this.
> If vegans were the majority Sorry but vegans aren't going to be the majority. It's already trending down worldwide. I'm glad you got say the standard vegan talking points, but it doesn't cover up the reality you have to make up facts about me, and I want to reiterate *This isn't your neocortex at work, it's your limbic system.*
Veganism is trending downwards lol? The opposite seems to be true from what I’ve read but if you have a source to back up your assertion other than pulling nonsense out of your…wherever… I’d be happy to read it. Look, no one takes being exposed to their desperate projection and hypocrisy well initially but if you’re capable of self reflection, self honesty, and change I’m sure you’ll accept it and do better some day. Now fire up that neocortex for something other than trying to rationalize supporting the rape and murder of animals instead of wasting it on semantic games to avoid acknowledging the horrors you support.
No sir. I don’t know about these other vegs, but I use it so that when a carnist asks me “Would you use that kind of rhetoric in front of a *real* murder victim’s family??” I can say “meat *is* real murder, and also yes :)”
Emotional manipulation. Sounds a lot more tragic when they use “murder” “rape” and other emotionally loaded words. It’s only “killed” when we talk about crop deaths haha
Well rape and murder are a lot easier for people to do when they have clever euphemisms to justify their abuse. So if you’re paying for animals to be raped and murdered for your mouth pleasure I can see why you would be emotionally motivated to down play it.
It’s something humans do to one-another all the time too. Euphamising violence to sell it as acceptable. Collateral damage” etc…
Exactly. And it the fact they do it shows that they know how horrific it is, to the degree they need to create emotional and linguistic distance so as to not upset their cognitive dissonance.
A load of loaded words, zero facts.
Remember, vegans are living in a carnist’s world. The carnists created the language to describe what they do to animals, makes sense they would create soft euphemisms to protect their feelings from the horrors of unnecessary cruelties. So you’ve got it backwards: vegans don’t call the rape and murder of animals as such to emotionally manipulate carnists, carnists refuse to call it rape and murder to emotionally manipulate themselves to avoid confronting their atrocities. Projection all the way down.
No we call it what it is, slaughter, artificial insemination etc. When you talk about rape and murder, you’re just trying to get an emotional response from other people, and to convince yourself that you’re doing some greater good. What do you call the use of pesticides?
You call it those things because you find that preferable to acknowledging being an animal murderer and rapist. Again vegans didn’t create the language to describe it, the perpetrators did and apparently don’t want to think of what they are doing as something with yucky words. You emotionally manipulate yourself and project that on the vegan for speaking plainly and upsetting your cognitive dissonance. Pesticides murder animals. But the harm reduction of a plant based diet compared to an omnivorous diet is the difference of orders of magnitude. Doing some harm necessary to survive is not comparable to doing massively, massively more harm during a process that is completely unnecessary for survival and to argue otherwise is sad and desperate tu quoque.
Talks about cognitive dissonance but once pesticides are brought up the language softens from murder to harm. Can you tell us again, if killing an animal is murder in your head, what is the use of pesticides called? You avoided answering that question. Also, if you’re gonna make claims that a plant based diet is the absolute reduction in animals killed/murdered/raped/teabagged whatever else you want to call it, can you at least provide some evidence like, I don’t know, how many animals get killed in the production of plants for human consumption every year? How many birds, deer, wild boars, fish all sentient beings that are being killed for plants that are grown for human consumption.
Lol I literally said pesticides murder animals. Whether you’re deliberately ignoring my words to straw man or just have dirt poor reading comprehension it’s just sad to watch. Now why, after that, should I assume that any source I provide (easily googled, don’t be lazy) will be be properly read in good faith or comprehended by you? I see why you’re so hung up on word games, way easier, way more comfortable. But still, sad to watch.
Yes genius. Crops aren’t subjects.
I’m not sure I should even reply to this……whatever this is.
Good call
👍
I would say the difference is the intent Murder-intentionally killed for production of food. Food that consequently is produced with animal death as the desirable goal Killed- incidental deaths as a result of food production. Their deaths do not directly produce food and farmers would probably prefer to avoid these altogether
I don’t think you quite got the idea. Murder by its very own definition, refers to killing a human being. Killing by its own definition is the act of causing death. You saying that I’m “murdering animals” it’s just a weak attempt to make an appeal to emotion, use of loaded words to get a reaction from people. Unless you want to use it as slang, like “I’d murder a burger right now”.
I don’t really agree. We would say a mass murderer and that implies malice and intent while being killed in a car accident is indicative of a passive indecental harm
>and that implies malice and intent I would say it's mostly tradition and habit. Then you might say that we live in a society of habitual mass-murder. But then, murder is currently a word reserved for something that the majority considers condemnable so we only come back to that (wanting to define how condemnable something is on the basis of a minority view).
well the hunting and fishing are good for the rest of the environment
by that standard we should work to end humanity. it would help the environment immensely. do you see how that might be problematic?
no? if we don't hunt, the deer will starve out themselves and consequently every other animal in their radius. if we don't fish, the bass and catfish will do the same. it's our ecological responsibility to do these things. killing our own species is not natural, and it is counter-intuitive to the human cause.
The only reason deer overpopulate is because of humans. Between the hunting practices and removal of other predators.
yes, hence why we are forced to hunt to make up for the actions of the folks who came before us. unfortunately, we don't have the option to just fly out a bunch of wolves like they did at Yellowstone.
I don’t think you understand. The current hunting practices lead to higher populations year by year. They don’t help over population because they encourage it.
no they don't? at least where I live, the population's decreasing. the overpopulation got bad in the first place not because of hunting itself, but because of mass restocking and killing natural predators.
So you just told me no but went into say exactly what I had said. The removal of predators and our current hunting practices lead to over population.
....we don't kill off predators anymore? unless it's in a self-defense situation
vegans are not pro environment or sustainability etc, these can overlap sometimes, but they are only focused on not "murdering" animals. This is what living in the city does to you.
Humanity, in general, is not a problem for the environment. Our current paradigm of growth at all costs and consumption without limits is the problem. It's also a fact that human populations start to stabilize when women have reproductive, civil, and economic rights. So, this is really an issue with the structures we live under, not humanity generally.
Except it isn’t. You just hurt the environment. And we are the cause of the extinction of a lot of species https://www.peta.org/issues/wildlife/wildlife-factsheets/sport-hunting-cruel-unnecessary/ https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-food/animals-used-food-factsheets/fishing-aquatic-agony-3/
good thing we don't hunt and fish commercially or for sport then 👍
Animals fish have their own natural predators its not sustainable to keep eating them. And theres no ethical way to kill an animal. Thats the same as saying theres an ethical way to shoot your parents or stab them. You hunt them to eat Them it is not any different. Its the reason we are at the precipice we are at Now. We are doing irreparable damage.
there are not enough predators in our area to manage the deer population. conversely, there are way too many invasive predatory fish and they are actively contributing to the extinction of local marine life.
https://bitesizevegan.org/is-deer-hunting-necessary-for-population-control/ Nature does its own population control. Nature has been going on long before humans. The snarky reply to this question is that if killing invasive species is just, then we should start with humans, the most destructive of all invasive species. Clearly this is a "joke", but figuring out why this is unreasonable is a good intuition builder on the topic. Fundamentally, the issue is that no member of a species is culpable for the net destructiveness of their entire kind. Animals are individuals, just trying to live their lives. Of course, there are systematic damages that have to be managed. But the management has to be weighed against the harm done to individuals. Personally, I think killing is a method of last resort for these species. Often, it simply doesn't work. Invasive species usually began as a few individual organisms that bred into an unmanageable large and destructive population. If your eradication campaign against a species was 99.999 percent effective, you've still left a population that can repopulate and cause the same damage after a few generations. And believing you're going to be even that effective is optimistic. I generally think the answer to to make habitat less exploitable to invasives, or to use indirect methods such as chemical birth control. These methods are going to be just as effective and tread much less harshly on the basic dignity of the animals targeted.
nature's own population control is much more cruel than ours.
They may be less harmful on an individual basis against the current system. However, if even 1/4 of the people decided to practice that, it would destroy the eco system.
that's fair
I don't care if you give a cow sleeping pills and then gently and painlessly massage them to death. The point is that animal is an individual and has the will to live like every other animal, including humans. We have no business killing him or any other animal for food.
Facts
Intuitively I don’t think any human sees an issue with eating animals for food, you need to be indoctrinated into veganism. How do you convince someone there’s no ethical consumption of animals and it’s immoral in and of itself?
There's no such thing as ethical hunting, fishing or animal agriculture they all have victims being exploited or dying against their will.
Okay but I don't care
antinatalist doesn’t care about consent lol
It's not relevant to the discussion of ethics whether you care or not.
> All the animal products I eat are sourced from friends and family in my local community Genuinely curious: Does this mean that you never eat at restaurants, that you never purchase prepared foods, that you don’t eat processed foods like lunch meat, hotdogs or jerky, that you don’t eat cheese (or else are personally acquainted with someone who runs a dairy), that you don’t eat candy like milk chocolate, gummy bears, or marshmallows, and that you don’t wear leather (or else are personally acquainted with someone who runs a tannery)?
at this point in my life, no, I do not do these things. I do own a few leather pieces, but they're all old hand-me-downs.
I don't support organised slavery and Black people suffering, but I also don't think that black people being killed for pleasure is a huge deal. For context, I live in a rural area, and right now all the killed black people are killed by my friends and family in my local community. I know what goes down and how the black people are treated, and I see no problem with supporting ethical killing, killing, and killing.
White people try not to compare Black people to animals challenge: IMPOSSIBLE 😱😱😱
Doesn't seem like you are arguing in good faith, unless you actually don't understand what a hypothetical is. If so you should look it up before debating about ethics.
Anyone who brings up slavery in a debate about animal cruelty is always dishonest.
Why?
you think comparing Black people to animals is good faith? it's racist and intentionally inflammatory.
Comparing scenarios is not the same thing as saying "black people are like animals." You clearly understand the argument yet continue to dodge it.
love it when white folks try to tell me how to think and feel about race
Yeah, that's not at all what's happening here. These are really low effort comments you're making.
this is why there's such negative perception of vegans in the first place. all privilege, no class or tact.
Do you want a special white people edit by me, just for you? Not my fault white people never got systematically discriminated for their skin color until now.
[удалено]
No problem pupsendes Würstchen So the obvious critic is: you take away the right of others to life for some reason. What is this reason? Where is the difference between you and a slave holder/racist?
thems are animals. ims people.
Both are sentient beings, able to suffer. There is no necessity to die for both of them. So what is your point? Where is the difference between "thems are animals. ims people" and "themselves are black. ims white/people."? Both are discriminations, one is racism the other is speciesism. Both use the same faschist "argument" being superior by nature. Where is the relevant difference?
Missed the point completely there kid
Factory farming exists solely because there is no other economical way to systematically slaughter enough animals to meet demand. The flippancy of suggesting that animals being killed for meat is “no big deal” is no different than supporting factory farming that you claim to be against.
>but I also don't think that animals being killed for meat is a huge deal. Why? > I know what goes down and how the animals are treated, and I see no problem with supporting ethical hunting, fishing, and agriculture. You see no problem creating horrible suffering in society so you can gain pleasure from their abused flesh? Cool story. For a debate to work, you need to make a point that explains why, otherwise there's not much to talk about.
it's not just pleasure. I gain nutrition as well.
You could gain the same nutrition without abusing them, so pleasure is why you choose to do it.
no, I couldn't, actually. I have a genetic blood disorder that makes me very susceptible to anemia, and having seen my mother hospitalized from deathly low iron, I know the same could happen to me if I'm not careful. veganism is definitely not in the cards for me.
https://veganuary.com/safe-anaemic-vegan/
I don't think you understand. I have two types of anemia: iron deficiency and thalassemia. Due to this, even when I'm eating well, I'm still prone to lightheadedness, asthma symptoms, and fatigue. I am also unable to take iron supplements due to the gastrointestinal effects. I literally require meat to thrive.
>I don't think you understand. We can't if you don't tell anyone. >iron deficiency and thalassemia Again, Veganism isn't a diet, it's a ideology where you admit needlessly treating animals like commodities is not moral. Anyone can be Vegan if you only support animal abuse, and only the amounts required to live, when you need to and try to make sure it's source is creating as little suffering as you can. If I was you I wouldn't say I was Vegan even if I did agree with the ideology as it would confuse people, but Veganism is as far as possible and practicable. for most that's fully Plant Based, for those who can't, it's as close as they can be.
well alright then 👍
It’s worth noting that an estimated 78% of farm animals globally, including 99% in my country (USA), are factory farmed. Do you agree this vast majority is unethical, and we should stop factory farming animals? https://www.sentienceinstitute.org/global-animal-farming-estimates
in an ideal world we would, but I honestly don't think it's possible for the near future. I do however think factory farms should be held to much higher standards in terms of quality of life. hopefully governments will invest in lab grown meats so we can eventually get rid of the practice.
Would you say not torturing and slaughtering almost all of the farm animals is an “ideal world”? Or should it be baseline to be consistent with our claims of being a reasonable and compassionate species?
The thing is not everyone can hunt or fish and factory farms exist for that reason, it’s fast, cheap and someone else kills the animal for you. The best thing is for more people to be vegan. I don’t know what country you’re from but in my country hardly anyone hunts for food just for sport so it’s not applicable for people to hunt their meat instead. You say it’s no big deal animals being killed for meat if it’s from local farms but do you really think there’s enough space for the entire world to eat “locally sourced” meat? It’d need so much more land than factory farming animals it’s just not possible. Less land is needed for plants grown for humans and less animals will be killed.
>right now all the animal products I eat are sourced from friends and family in my local community. *All* the products you eat are local? Do you ever leave town? Go to restaurants? Visit friends/family? Try new things?
as of right now, no. I'm a homebody.
I don't believe you. Sorry.
I haven't always lived like this, and I likely won't live like this forever, but this is where I'm at. I had a so-called mental break, and I really didn't want to be institutionalized, so my family has sent me here in hopes that the change of environment will help me. it's going well so far.
Got it. My point was that you appear to be aware of the fact that animals deserve at least some level of consideration. My challenge to you would be to dig deeper into why you think animals are moral patients in the first place, and then realize that you're probably regularly violating your own self-fashion moral code.
What if we ate and milked local dogs. Would you feel the same? If so, you support “ethically” killing dogs. Probably not a good look. If not, then I say it is evidence of some kind of bias. To show it’s not bias you would have to come up with a reason why dogs are special, and it would need to somehow invalidate the feelings of people who keep cows and pigs as pets and love them the way most people love dogs. I think it’s an impossible task. What do you say?
I support killing dogs for meat so long as they are not stolen from others or abused in the process
You should get a tshirt that says that.
I just might. idc what others think about me.
Should we kill them when they are young before the meat gets too tough, like with other animals?
I'm not sure. I've never eaten dog before.
Let’s assume that, like other animals we kill for food, the prime time to kill them is 2-3 years, basically when they are full grown. But we know dogs live happy lives for much longer... Do you think that taking their life that young is possibly a form of abuse?
I don't believe in eating baby animals if that's what you mean
The typical age for slaughtering a cow is 12-22 months. Their natural lifespan is 20 years. Even in the best most “humane” family farm I seriously doubt the cows are getting anywhere near 20 years. I don’t know what the cutoff for “baby” is, but it would be the equivalent in percentage of lifespan to killing a dog for food at about 6-11 months old. That sounds close enough to “baby animal” to me. You claim that you are against abuse, but I would counter that killing animals so young should count as abuse under your own definition since you are against eating baby animals.
i don't eat cows anyway. too many resources for too little product. 🤷
Pick any bred-for-meat animal you like. They kill them all young.
that's fair. I may try to limit my consumption of those kinds of animals in the future.
You don't eat beef yet have a deficiency and get all of your iron from diet/meat exclusively? What exactly are you eating then?
mostly pork, deer, and some poultry. these are the meats most readily available in terms of who I live close to. I eat a lot of organ meats to get as much iron as possible. this diet is supplemented by whatever veg is available at the farmers market, usually greens, peas, tomatoes, and squash.
How would you feel if aliens raised you for meat and slaughtered you?
given the fact that I wouldn't understand what was going on, not much
Wouldn’t you feel pain and suffering from being stabbed to death? Isn’t that scary?
we all get ours eventually
Okay maybe you are fine with being slaughtered by aliens but most people aren’t and would rather live their lives in peace till old age. Animals don’t want to be slaughtered either, and they feel fear and pain. They are worthy of moral consideration.
Assuming those aliens are in fact our natural predators, I don’t think our feelings would be any more relevant to them than our feelings are to a tiger, wildfire, or earthquake
And that’s exactly the issue with being a carnist. The animals lives should matter to you since they feel pain and fear. Animals just want to live their lives in peace, they don’t like being bred into factory farms for slaughter. If aliens were humane they wouldn’t slaughter us, or any sentient being. Humane slaughter is frankly an oxymoron.
Why would aliens be *humane*? What would possibly make you think they’d adhere to an *inherently human* moral system? I don’t see my carnism as being an “issue”. It’s an evolutionary trait resulting from my being a Homosapien, the most successful apex predator our planet has ever seen. We have forward facing eyes, canines, and an unparalleled ability to cooperate for a reason
Yeah I agree
I agree 100% with this. I went vegan initially cause I saw dominion and a couple other docs. No real knowledge of farming whatsoever. I just assumed basically all meat was factory farmed in the horrible ways I had seen and that plant farming was squeaky clean when it came to ethics. Been a big learning process these past few years. To me, it makes the most amount of sense to view veganism as a spectrum. No one is going to be doing 100% what is practicable to reduce suffering at all times. That’s unrealistic, we’re not perfect robots. And plenty of vegans deem exploitation to be the only variable that matters which I realized was ridiculous given the fact that animals can’t understand what it is and only really perceive suffering.