> Many pet owners, after getting over the fear of bombings and lack of food, regretted killing their pets and blamed the government for starting the hysteria.
Ha yes, the government. How many hundreds of millions sentient mammals are we still killing every year just because they taste good grilled...
I was mostly pointing at the cognitive dissonance in between care for pets and cruelty for farm animals, but I do enjoy having triggered both vegans and carnivores.
You are right, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't care about anything because nothing is ideal. Ceteris paribus, eating plants is better for our environment and is very obviously causing less suffering...
The animal kingdom eats each other for food too. This veganism argument has never made sense to me, it implies that we are not, ourselves, a member of the natural food chain.
Do we know that animals don’t have morals? What are morals and how are they unique to humans? They’re valuable in society because they help shape society into what it is today, but do they help us much in our interactions with other members of the animal kingdom?
If you’re calling me a murderer… then you’re welcome to try. But generally, yes, I do think in extreme cases the death penalty is warranted for serial killers and the like.
The argument for veganism was never about not killing animals but about how much suffering factory-farmed animals go through to become meat on our plates. Because of the difficulties in sourcing ethically raised animal products, some choose to forgo all animal products.
The argument for veganism began with not killing animals. Hindus, Jains, and Buddhists all worked on this for millennia. Percy Bysshe Shelly, likewise. https://www.britannica.com/topic/veganism
Fair enough. It might have begun with that in mind but the contemporary argument for veganism or vegetarianism is not about that. There is no need for such language.
I'm not real bright, can you highlight and quote the exact phrase used above that you object to? (Was it "Shelly" perhaps?)
> argument for veganism was never about not killing animals but about how much suffering factory-farmed animals go through
So, to be clear here, you're absolutely A-OK with the traditional steppe herding practices of treating animals well and then, when needing to kill them for meat, hugging them and quickly cutting open the chest and directly stopping the heart?
It's a well cared for life with as rapid and relatively painless death as can be wished for.
Not resorting to ad hominem arguments is a good start
> So, to be clear here, you're absolutely A-OK...
It is not about what I think, it is about what are the contemporary arguments for veganism or vegetarianism.
If you care about the suffering of factory-farmed (or not factory-farmed) animals, good for you. How far you want to take that is entirely up to you. Some people eat less meat, others avoid all animal products.
Yes, your links indicate that it's even more radical than you described at first. It's not about merely ending suffering due to overcrowded factory farms or inhumane slaughtering/lab testing. It's not merely about not-killing animals. It's far broader than that. In fact, veganism is only a means to an end for animal liberation activists. They desire that animals achieve equality, or should I say, have equity, compared to mankind.
So I apologize for assuming that you were attempting to narrow the focus, but once again, you don't speak for all vegans, and Hindus, Jains and Buddhists all still exist.
> Yes, your links indicate that it's even more radical than you described at first
The basic idea is the suffering of animals, factory-farmed or not. If you can recognise that, good for you. How far you want to take that is entirely up to you.
> you don't speak for all vegans
I have never claimed to if you actually read what I wrote.
I believe the vegan argument is, simply, if you have the option to cause or not to cause suffering to another being, you should choose not to. Other animals do not have that choice — it's eat or starve — but we do have the choice and so the ethical thing to do is avail ourselves of it.
You with your trolley zooming through the refrigerated section of the supermarket, part of the food chain?
Come on, there is nothing natural about our environment. Lucky us, we can now live until 80 instead of 25, in good portion because we don't accept to be part of it.
I also fish, would hunt, and forage for mushrooms and other vegetables. But yes I also partake in meat at the supermarket. The natural thing is I could be hiking in the mountains and get attacked and eaten by a bear at any time. Omnivorous and carnivorous animals eat other animals, that’s what’s natural.
> Omnivorous and carnivorous animals eat other animals, that’s what’s natural.
Sure, that's why every time some dude gets attacked by a bear or a wolf, that makes headlines... because as a society we are completely OK with it being natural and all. Same goes for natural disasters by the way.
My initial comment was about industrial farming, which has absolutely no common ground with the natural food chain our ancestors had to be part of to survive. You're completely off topic.
> because as a society we are completely OK with it being natural and all.
To be honest, it hurts when it's a family member, but the people really upset about this with no relation to the deceased just have weak stomachs, in my opinion. The bear was hungry, or annoyed, or threatened, and did what it had to do to reconcile the situation from its perspective.
> was about industrial farming
Sure, and industrial farming was a thing that humanity did to continue our natural eating habits but further society in other ways. If we're all out farming with our own livestock, we have far fewer IT professionals, doctors, lawyers, scientists, etc. So to make way for that, we furthered industrial. It's not ideal for the animals, granted.
Anyway, I digress. You feel bad for the animals and did something about it. I can respect that. I'm not going to change my diet regardless of the outcome of this conversation, though. If the bears figured out how to process humans in an industrial farm setting to ensure their kin don't go hungry, they would have done it too.
28 comments
[ 7.0 ms ] story [ 367 ms ] thread> Many pet owners, after getting over the fear of bombings and lack of food, regretted killing their pets and blamed the government for starting the hysteria.
Ha yes, the government. How many hundreds of millions sentient mammals are we still killing every year just because they taste good grilled...
There is no evidence that plants have feelings. Current consensus is that cows and dogs do, however...
Taking a life out from a living being.
You are right, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't care about anything because nothing is ideal. Ceteris paribus, eating plants is better for our environment and is very obviously causing less suffering...
Now you're trying to rewrite history to appeal to people in the PETA and Upton Sinclair traditions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jungle
You can say what you want about your personal reasons, but don't pretend that all vegans have this narrow focus.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Liberation_(book)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_liberation_movement
I'm not real bright, can you highlight and quote the exact phrase used above that you object to? (Was it "Shelly" perhaps?)
> argument for veganism was never about not killing animals but about how much suffering factory-farmed animals go through
So, to be clear here, you're absolutely A-OK with the traditional steppe herding practices of treating animals well and then, when needing to kill them for meat, hugging them and quickly cutting open the chest and directly stopping the heart?
It's a well cared for life with as rapid and relatively painless death as can be wished for.
Not resorting to ad hominem arguments is a good start
> So, to be clear here, you're absolutely A-OK...
It is not about what I think, it is about what are the contemporary arguments for veganism or vegetarianism. If you care about the suffering of factory-farmed (or not factory-farmed) animals, good for you. How far you want to take that is entirely up to you. Some people eat less meat, others avoid all animal products.
So I apologize for assuming that you were attempting to narrow the focus, but once again, you don't speak for all vegans, and Hindus, Jains and Buddhists all still exist.
The basic idea is the suffering of animals, factory-farmed or not. If you can recognise that, good for you. How far you want to take that is entirely up to you.
> you don't speak for all vegans
I have never claimed to if you actually read what I wrote.
Come on, there is nothing natural about our environment. Lucky us, we can now live until 80 instead of 25, in good portion because we don't accept to be part of it.
Sure, that's why every time some dude gets attacked by a bear or a wolf, that makes headlines... because as a society we are completely OK with it being natural and all. Same goes for natural disasters by the way.
My initial comment was about industrial farming, which has absolutely no common ground with the natural food chain our ancestors had to be part of to survive. You're completely off topic.
To be honest, it hurts when it's a family member, but the people really upset about this with no relation to the deceased just have weak stomachs, in my opinion. The bear was hungry, or annoyed, or threatened, and did what it had to do to reconcile the situation from its perspective.
> was about industrial farming
Sure, and industrial farming was a thing that humanity did to continue our natural eating habits but further society in other ways. If we're all out farming with our own livestock, we have far fewer IT professionals, doctors, lawyers, scientists, etc. So to make way for that, we furthered industrial. It's not ideal for the animals, granted.
Anyway, I digress. You feel bad for the animals and did something about it. I can respect that. I'm not going to change my diet regardless of the outcome of this conversation, though. If the bears figured out how to process humans in an industrial farm setting to ensure their kin don't go hungry, they would have done it too.