4 ms·

> If you're going to kill something, how much it suffered will be irrelevant the second it dies. No. Just because something bad that happened is in the past,

> If you're going to kill something, how much it suffered will be irrelevant the second it dies. No. Just because something bad that happened is in the past, doesn't make it OK that it happened in the first place. (just to be clear, I am ok with killing animals and eating them, I would just prefer that it be done humanely). I'm afraid I don't understand the argument you are trying to make with the rest of your comment...

Retra 10y ago
Do you think a cheetah knows anything about speed records? Who's the fastest cheetah? It doesn't matter who the fastest cheetah was because cheetahs don't keep records. And that chicken you ate -- Did someone record how much it suffered? Then it doesn't matter how much it suffered. The point is, if you are willing to kill something -- to erase its state of mind (the majority of its 'record') from existence -- then you're actively making its suffering irrelevant. If someone starts my house on fire, that fact becomes irrelevant when they detonate a nuclear explosion on it. >Just because something bad that happened is in the past, doesn't make it OK that it happened in the first place. It is ok that it happened. It's ok that everything in the past happened. It's not ok to forget that it happened, or to fail to learn from it. But killing something is a great big "fuck you" to that thing's memory and learning facilities, so there's quite a lot of hypocrisy wrapped up in thinking that killing something is ok if it didn't suffer. Suffering and death are bad for reasons. Those reasons provide proportionality to ethical evaluations.
- loco5niner 10y ago
  > there's quite a lot of hypocrisy wrapped up in thinking that killing something is ok if it didn't suffer. I believe this to be your central point? It seems we will have to agree to disagree.
  - Retra 10y ago
    We can just disagree.

Retra 10y ago

Do you think a cheetah knows anything about speed records? Who's the fastest cheetah? It doesn't matter who the fastest cheetah was because cheetahs don't keep records. And that chicken you ate -- Did someone record how much it suffered? Then it doesn't matter how much it suffered. The point is, if you are willing to kill something -- to erase its state of mind (the majority of its 'record') from existence -- then you're actively making its suffering irrelevant. If someone starts my house on fire, that fact becomes irrelevant when they detonate a nuclear explosion on it. >Just because something bad that happened is in the past, doesn't make it OK that it happened in the first place. It is ok that it happened. It's ok that everything in the past happened. It's not ok to forget that it happened, or to fail to learn from it. But killing something is a great big "fuck you" to that thing's memory and learning facilities, so there's quite a lot of hypocrisy wrapped up in thinking that killing something is ok if it didn't suffer. Suffering and death are bad for reasons. Those reasons provide proportionality to ethical evaluations.

loco5niner 10y ago
> there's quite a lot of hypocrisy wrapped up in thinking that killing something is ok if it didn't suffer. I believe this to be your central point? It seems we will have to agree to disagree.
- Retra 10y ago
  We can just disagree.