|
Because it tastes good right? I'm a simple man, I like simple things, blahblahblah.
Here in France a video showing the insides of a slaughterhouse was just released. The level of violence and cruelty displayed are mind-blowing. You could be watching a wildlife documentary and think "wow not cool" when the pack of hyenas bleeds little by little a sick and tired buffalo. Then you watch this and feel like you've woken up from a really nice dream and that reality is really just a nightmare.
Isn't it interesting how differently we treat humans - animals themselves - and other animals? How we are really careful about not hurting anyone's feelings but yet we can lift an old horse up in the air and smash its head with a hammer until the skull shatters as if it was just an inanimate thing? Or, in a less shocking way, how we have "pet stores" where we basically keep babies in tiny unhygienic cages until a passerby has enough pity to give that little fellow a somewhat decent life?
We know pigs are very intelligent creatures, we know animals aren't that different from us, we've studied them and communicated in fascinating ways with gorillas, elephants and dogs who have shown us that they too feel emotions. Yet it still doesn't connect, it still doesn't translate into action. You can still grab a one month old kitten and smash it against a wall and it's nothing, nothing happened. Do that with a human and you're all over the news. Sure, we're different, but are we that different? Are humans everything and the rest nothing?
There is a scene where pigs are asphyxiated in a cage too small to fit them all. It's industrialized murder. If you industrially slaughter human beings through asphyxiation, it ends up in history books. If you do the same with pigs, nothing happens. Even if you can see them squeal and scream and screech to death as they convulse in that metal cage.
Even then, cheap BBQs are more important.
Video is NSFW I guess.
mod edit: video removed for being nsfw
|
On October 15 2015 07:28 Kukaracha wrote:
You can still grab a one month old kitten and smash it against a wall and it's nothing, nothing happened. Do that with a human and you're all over the news.
Animal abuse cases hit the news often here in the states. Usually it's about some drunk guy throwing a dog out of a 6 story building, then getting brought up on animal abuse charges.
That said, I think most people have a cognitive dissonance regarding the treatment of animals and the industrialized murder machine that produces yummy meats. I grew up on a farm, so videos like these don't bother me very much--- but I suspect most people would be bothered if confronted with this kind of stuff on labeling in food stores.
|
This is a very deep topic that I am very interested in. Unfortunately, last time it was brought up in this forum I had to facepalm across 20+ pages of comments like 'I don't care I still eat it' 'Not bothered at all, you should resolve war firsts' 'what weak logic arguments'.
My point of view is that eating meat is not necessary nowadays and that we do it out of habitude. I like to say that this is like smoking: I know that it is bad but I keep doing it. Also, noone ever changes idea on both sides of the fence.
The only realistical meeting point I can think of: after seeing hundreds of discussions I can just say that we will stop eating meat when someone will be able to create artificial meat which will have same accessibility, nutritional value, taste, cost, 'safety'.
P.s here is a 'enlightened' post from the other thread. You'll understand why a rational discussion is impossible, on both sides of the spectrum. Name hidden.
+ Show Spoiler +How i decide what i eat... "Does it taste good?" If yes..eat. If no.. don't eat.
Putting anymore thought into this seems just flat out silly to me.
As soon as non-meat tastes better than meat... ill stop eating meat... until then.. hide yo cows, hide yo pigs, cause i could really go for a bacon cheeseburger
Or my all time favourite:
+ Show Spoiler +I don't see a moral dilemma in killing a sentient being for my personal enjoyment, unless that sentient being is human
Thread I am referring to is http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/general/373528-ethics-eating-meat, it had some good points apart from the rambling.
|
This is like a religion debate. No matter what can be said, people will eat what they want to eat and believe what they want to believe. Look at pollution and human draining earth of its resource but don't we all contribute to that by buying food and using electricity?
|
In the lines of capatalism, it's kinda simple why people still eat meat.
Low level/entry level workers get paid dog shit, and the only affordable food to sustain a healthy amount of nutricients, is meat, which gets produced by the corps that pay their low level workers dog shit.
I'm a person that doesn't care what i eat, as long as it tastes good and that i have enough nutricients it doesn't matter to me if it's real meat or a substitute. But if go out and do my groceries specifically to avoid meat, i would spend 20 euro's a week more on it, and to be honest, i can't afford that all the time.
Besides that, i do enjoy my occosianal steak, BBQ or whatever good meat i want to prepare, so i don't think i will ever stop eating meat all together.
Another point, in the animal kingdom there is always 1 predator at the top of the foodchain, so yes in a way it's humans are everything, animals are nothing. They are there to feed us, i just don't agree with animal cruelty to get more money out of your "production facility". In the perfect world everyone can enjoy their piece of meat 1-2 times a week, and have affordable substitutes for meat 5-6 times a week. This would mean that all meat production can be brought down by 70-80% and that again would mean you can let all the chickens/pigs/cows/whatever other animals have a good life before they are eaten by us.
|
Don't feel bad for pigs, those fuckers would eat you alive if they had the chance.
|
On October 15 2015 09:07 TechSc2 wrote: In the lines of capatalism, it's kinda simple why people still eat meat.
Low level/entry level workers get paid dog shit, and the only affordable food to sustain a healthy amount of nutricients, is meat, which gets produced by the corps that pay their low level workers dog shit.
I'm a person that doesn't care what i eat, as long as it tastes good and that i have enough nutricients it doesn't matter to me if it's real meat or a substitute. But if go out and do my groceries specifically to avoid meat, i would spend 20 euro's a week more on it, and to be honest, i can't afford that all the time.
Besides that, i do enjoy my occosianal steak, BBQ or whatever good meat i want to prepare, so i don't think i will ever stop eating meat all together.
Another point, in the animal kingdom there is always 1 predator at the top of the foodchain, so yes in a way it's humans are everything, animals are nothing. They are there to feed us, i just don't agree with animal cruelty to get more money out of your "production facility". In the perfect world everyone can enjoy their piece of meat 1-2 times a week, and have affordable substitutes for meat 5-6 times a week. This would mean that all meat production can be brought down by 70-80% and that again would mean you can let all the chickens/pigs/cows/whatever other animals have a good life before they are eaten by us. It's quite feasible to eat healthy and affordably without meat. At least it is in the US. I don't know where you're getting your health info from, or what prices are like where you are, but it'd be odd for meat to be cheaper than other foods, it is by its inherent nature more expensive. Maybe you have some sort of crazy agricultural subsidy distorting things (quite common sadly). What's your total budget for food per week?
|
I think animals are treated like shit. I think more could/should be done to not be as horrific as possible. I appreciate that some people recognize this and hunt for their own meat. However, all that being said. I couldn't kill an animal myself so hunting is out of the question for me, I know they're treated like shit but I don't want to see it, and I'll never stop eating meat ever.
Its one of those things. I understand I'm a hypocrite on this and I'm fine with that, and I'll never be talked out of it.
|
I think at the basic level it's very simple. As humans we associate with our surrounding humans, because that's the way to survive in a pack. Pity is based on reflection, of our ability and willingness to put ourselves in others shoes and in the end a survival mechanism, since it's in our best interest that the pack is doing well. If it's not part of the pack and as a result not important for the pack, we don't really care for it's life.Once it leaves the direct surrounding we don't really care anymore even for our own species, because it's "far away", it couldn't happen to us.
The differences to other animals are even bigger, so taking the step to put yourself into the other species' shoes is even harder.
Btw animal cruelty is calculated part of meat mass production, it's not the exception, most of the time it's not even done out of malevolence. Ducks f.e. get their beaks and claws cut off (often cutting the middle "toe" off as well, since they cut all 3 claws with one cut) so they can't hurt each other if they go crazy on their 15x15cm full of excrements. I've read similar things about chickens as well.
And yeah we are killers out of convenience. Brutality is part of reality and will be as long as live exists, no matter how high we build our ivory towers and think that we are civilized. Civilization doesn't change that we are carnivores, inflicting pain and killing lies in our blood.
Maybe a civilization of herbivores would be more "human", but then again herbivores tend to be less intelligent, probably because they don't need to hunt, so the probability of a plant eating species creating a civilization is a lot lower.
|
On October 15 2015 10:15 Blackfeather wrote: I think at the basic level it's very simple. As humans we associate with our surrounding humans, because that's the way to survive in a pack. Pity is based on reflection, of our ability and willingness to put ourselves in others shoes and in the end a survival mechanism, since it's in our best interest that the pack is doing well. If it's not part of the pack and as a result not important for the pack, we don't really care for it's life.Once it leaves the direct surrounding we don't really care anymore even for our own species, because it's "far away", it couldn't happen to us.
The differences to other animals are even bigger, so taking the step to put yourself into the other species' shoes is even harder.
Btw animal cruelty is calculated part of meat mass production, it's not the exception, most of the time it's not even done out of malevolence. Ducks f.e. get their beaks and claws cut off (often cutting the middle "toe" off as well, since they cut all 3 claws with one cut) so they can't hurt each other if they go crazy on their 15x15cm full of excrements. I've read similar things about chickens as well.
And yeah we are killers out of convenience. Brutality is part of reality and will be as long as live exists, no matter how high we build our ivory towers and think that we are civilized. Civilization doesn't change that we are carnivores, inflicting pain and killing lies in our blood.
To add on this, the farmers normally aren't even the "villains" here either. They're forced to abide by rules that corporations stick on them. It's a mess of a system and sure we should try to make gestation crates larger for pigs ect. but who is going to pay for all of it?
|
Mexico2169 Posts
People shouldn't stop eating meat because they treat animals bad, they should instead make sure the animals are treated well before they die.
Eating meat is necessary as it gives you nutrients that by being vegan you would not recieve. Maybe you kind of be ok if you eat those Protein shakes or whatever, but they aren't as practical, or as tasty.
The truth is, simply by existing you are making someone die. If everyone turned vegetarian millions of animals would die anyway because there is no longer demand for them so why would farms take care of them? Furthermore, if you only eat vegetable you are also indirectly killing thousands of insects, which inevitably leads to the dead of other animals that feed on them. Funnily, a lot of the time I bring up the "killing insects argument" people bring up that "well, but they are insects" and before someone here does so I would like to point that by saying that you are saying that not all lifes are equal, therefore the live of a pig is more valuable than the life of an ant, consecuently the life of a human could also be worth more than that of a pig, and then your argument doesn't make sense anymore.
We should fight so farmers and the industry treats the animals well, but if by simply existing you will be killing other beings, you better do it for something useful and necessary like eating.
|
I can say that I am for ending slaughterhouses, but when a hotdog is on a BBQ you know that the animal is already dead, and that the level of support you add to the industry by purchasing a hot dog for $2.50 is so insignificant that even if you did have moral concerns, the amount that you're adding to the problem is so small in comparison with the taste of the meal that you tend to ignore that.
So its like the old dilemma of everyone participating but no one really being responsible for the actions of the other 99.999%, or at least of the slaughterhouses. If I decided to stop eating meat today practically nothing would change, it would have to be a concerted global effort.
The other problem is that, generally speaking humans are not that evolved morally speaking. Like, if people are sufficiently far away (poor people in Africa starving to death), and the media campaign doesn't do a good enough job of showing us the pain that those people are enduring, we tend to just ignore the problem and go about our day. Which is really strange, because if even one member of our close group of friends/family were in that much trouble we would feel terrible and do what we could to help them. I think its doubly true for animals, who for the most part are totally out of sight and mind from the general public.
But on the other hand I can't be that cynical because humans have made a lot of moral progress in many areas. I think given time we can at least end the process of factory farming and give animals painless deaths, and then move on from there to hopefully making artificially designed meats in laboratories.
|
Americans love their weekend bbqs. I also get to admire the lawn while I'm at it.
That colon cancer though, oh well not something I'm going to worry about till I'm 50 and didn't die in a car accident yet.
|
On October 15 2015 10:29 [Phantom] wrote: People shouldn't stop eating meat because they treat animals bad, they should instead make sure the animals are treated well before they die.
Eating meat is necessary as it gives you nutrients that by being vegan you would not recieve. Maybe you kind of be ok if you eat those Protein shakes or whatever, but they aren't as practical, or as tasty.
The truth is, simply by existing you are making someone die. If everyone turned vegetarian millions of animals would die anyway because there is no longer demand for them so why would farms take care of them? Furthermore, if you only eat vegetable you are also indirectly killing thousands of insects, which inevitably leads to the dead of other animals that feed on them. Funnily, a lot of the time I bring up the "killing insects argument" people bring up that "well, but they are insects" and before someone here does so I would like to point that by saying that you are saying that not all lifes are equal, therefore the live of a pig is more valuable than the life of an ant, consecuently the life of a human could also be worth more than that of a pig, and then your argument doesn't make sense anymore.
We should fight so farmers and the industry treats the animals well, but if by simply existing you will be killing other beings, you better do it for something useful and necessary like eating.
Your argument indirectly reminds me of a Star Trek episode where one of the alien races was arguing for farming humans, because they were less intelligent, and that it should be allowed on the same basis that humans are allowed to eat pigs.
But anyway I actually feel like the proper response really is 'they're just insects'. Your response doesn't work because I don't think most people feel that killing should be done on the basis of '*relative* intelligence/complexity'. If an animal of any kind (including us) has a sufficient level of intelligence and self-awareness that they can feel and communicate in at least some rudimentary way, then I think that we ought to not be killing such an entity (obviously, regardless of whether it is painless or not).
There is simply some baseline, or minimum threshold of intelligence/self-awareness that we need to identify and say below this life is essentially machinelike. It acts like a virus, or some dumb automaton that flies this way and that but otherwise there is nothing of value there (your insect example). But above that, there is a special sense of awareness that should be treated with respect.
It is this argument by which I think people should not eat meat, in theory. Also I don't think 'simply by existing you make someone die' works either. I mean farms could easily take care of animals on a moral basis, and let them pass away at old age. That seems like a pretty easy counterexample
|
On October 15 2015 10:25 OmniEulogy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2015 10:15 Blackfeather wrote: I think at the basic level it's very simple. As humans we associate with our surrounding humans, because that's the way to survive in a pack. Pity is based on reflection, of our ability and willingness to put ourselves in others shoes and in the end a survival mechanism, since it's in our best interest that the pack is doing well. If it's not part of the pack and as a result not important for the pack, we don't really care for it's life.Once it leaves the direct surrounding we don't really care anymore even for our own species, because it's "far away", it couldn't happen to us.
The differences to other animals are even bigger, so taking the step to put yourself into the other species' shoes is even harder.
Btw animal cruelty is calculated part of meat mass production, it's not the exception, most of the time it's not even done out of malevolence. Ducks f.e. get their beaks and claws cut off (often cutting the middle "toe" off as well, since they cut all 3 claws with one cut) so they can't hurt each other if they go crazy on their 15x15cm full of excrements. I've read similar things about chickens as well.
And yeah we are killers out of convenience. Brutality is part of reality and will be as long as live exists, no matter how high we build our ivory towers and think that we are civilized. Civilization doesn't change that we are carnivores, inflicting pain and killing lies in our blood. To add on this, the farmers normally aren't even the "villains" here either. They're forced to abide by rules that corporations stick on them. It's a mess of a system and sure we should try to make gestation crates larger for pigs ect. but who is going to pay for all of it? I can only speak for Europe, but tbh I'd start by stopping subsidizing the hell out of everyone who mass produces meat (and everyone else in the agricultural industry). Start putting half of that money on loose housing companies and let the rest go bankrupt. I can't believe I'm paying that shitty industry despite not buying their products.
Prices would explode and as a result meat consumption would go down. In the long run loose housing would establish itself because the rest without all the money they currently get from the EU can't be successful and if the prices settle at even prices as loose housing most people would buy loose housing products.
But yeah that would need states that actually do something because it's right, against lobbyism and probably against demonstrations, with the side effect of a temporarily higher unemployment rate. It's more probable that the sun doesn't go up tomorrow.
On October 15 2015 10:29 [Phantom] wrote: People shouldn't stop eating meat because they treat animals bad, they should instead make sure the animals are treated well before they die.
Eating meat is necessary as it gives you nutrients that by being vegan you would not recieve. Maybe you kind of be ok if you eat those Protein shakes or whatever, but they aren't as practical, or as tasty.
The truth is, simply by existing you are making someone die. If everyone turned vegetarian millions of animals would die anyway because there is no longer demand for them so why would farms take care of them? Furthermore, if you only eat vegetable you are also indirectly killing thousands of insects, which inevitably leads to the dead of other animals that feed on them. Funnily, a lot of the time I bring up the "killing insects argument" people bring up that "well, but they are insects" and before someone here does so I would like to point that by saying that you are saying that not all lifes are equal, therefore the live of a pig is more valuable than the life of an ant, consecuently the life of a human could also be worth more than that of a pig, and then your argument doesn't make sense anymore.
We should fight so farmers and the industry treats the animals well, but if by simply existing you will be killing other beings, you better do it for something useful and necessary like eating. In the end you always have to draw the line somewhere and ofc it's up to you where you draw the line. The line being the point at which you start to support killing to survive, or for simple pleasantry.
Theoretically even plants have a very rudimentary recognition their surroundings.
But yeah similar to radscorpion9 I draw the line at the point when we can speak of a being that is making decisions. Insects are pretty much robots.
At the core the vegetarian question comes down to if you find a shitty life with a shitty death preferable to no life at all. And ofc at what proximity a being starts to be something potentially valuable.
|
Sure, we're different, but are we that different?
Depends on how you look at it.
Scientific and philosophical views differ vastly.
Scientifically, yes. We are. We are that different. In fact, we're unique in many ways, compared to animals of any sort.
Philosophically? We're pretty much the same. Made out of the same stuff, based on some soup which it all started from billions of years ago.
Well, i guess there's religiously views as well, but alas. Let's not consider magic and stuff.
Your argument indirectly reminds me of a Star Trek episode where one of the alien races was arguing for farming humans, because they were less intelligent, and that it should be allowed on the same basis that humans are allowed to eat pigs.
Interesting. But not necessarily a correct comparison. It's not about being "intelligent". Animals can be astonishingly intelligent (pigs for example are).
But anyway I would seriously say what most people bring up, they are just insects, but that to respond to your comment we can't think of killing on a relative basis. If an animal of any kind (including us) has a sufficient level of intelligence and self-awareness that they can feel and communicate in at least some rudimentary way, then I think that we ought to not be killing such an entity (obviously, regardless of whether it is painless or not).
By that definition, you literally are pretty much down to die by starvation. Literally. There is no animal down there that does not have at least one feature of the ones you listed. Some are self aware, some are very intelligent, and almost all of them communicate (even insects btw, so that's no good for food either then). In fact, plants communicate as well. Ever smelled fresh mowed grass? Smells nice, doesn't it? It's a chemical death scream.
If you want to be responsible, go to a butcher (tastes better as well). Humans are omnivores, that's just how it is. If someone doesn't like that, i'm totally okay with it - it's your choice. Don't try to act like you're on some moral high ground though, you're not.
edit
Civilization doesn't change that we are carnivores, inflicting pain and killing lies in our blood.
You might wanna read up on what a carnivore is. Because that statement is just plain wrong - and something you actually learn in the first couple of school years.
|
On October 15 2015 09:16 Souone wrote: Don't feel bad for pigs, those fuckers would eat you alive if they had the chance. rofl
On October 15 2015 10:34 radscorpion9 wrote: I think given time we can at least end the process of factory farming and give animals painless deaths, and then move on from there to hopefully making artificially designed meats in laboratories. Yeah we can strive for this
|
Canada10904 Posts
Reading the OP, I'm confused- is the argument against eating animals an intrinsic argument or an argument against methodology? Because the title seems suggests that eating animals is intrinsically bad, but the complaints against industrial slaughterhouses, while legitimate really only pertain to bad practice.
|
On October 15 2015 11:24 Falling wrote: Reading the OP, I'm confused- is the argument against eating animals an intrinsic argument or an argument against methodology? Because the title seems suggests that eating animals is intrinsically bad, but the complaints against industrial slaughterhouses, while legitimate really only pertain to bad practice.
I think that illegal practices don't need to be discussed, so i assumed that we're talking intrinsically bad.
It would kinda come down to "instead of getting frozen meat from the freezer, get it fresh from the butcher". Since that argument wasn't made, well.. Yeah. Eating meat = bad.
|
After years and years of posting on TL, I've finally come across a thread that can be answered solely by the word Bacon.
Some people find the killing and eating of animals immoral and unethical, and that's fine. They're more than welcome to think that. They can completely disregard evolution and survival of the fittest and what other carnivores/ omnivores have done for hundreds of millions of years, presumably because they believe that we're capable of more intellectual and nuanced decisions, due to our more complex brain and the fact that we don't need to kill animals to survive. I don't think animals should be raised under cruel and torturous conditions, nor do I think that we should be causing animals to go extinct. But other than that, I'm open to trying most meats/ animal foods.
There is a very cool book full of 100 thought experiments called The Pig That Wants To Be Eaten (and another book called The Duck That Won The Lottery). One of the hypothetical situations was something like this: Let's assume that, through genetic engineering, we could create a pig (bacon and all) that wanted to be eaten. As in, it considered its sole goal in life to be the eventual meal of a human. If such a pig (or animal, in general) existed, would it still be immoral to slaughter and eat it? After all, we would be fulfilling its entire reason for existing (as far as it was concerned), and nothing would make it happier than becoming a meal for us.
Also, can a mod please change the thread title to "Why do some people still resist bacon?"
|
|
|
|