4 ms·

Do you not think that hitting them, packing them into cramped conditions, transporting them in similar conditions is torturous?

gtirloni 8y ago
People eating pork don't think their meat as coming from such conditions and/or want/expect that to happen. So it's not fair to say "people" are okay with that and not the brain experiment. Producers might be okay but that's a different argument to which the one you're replying in this thread.
- Sharlin 8y ago
  People don’t want to know what’s going on on factory farms about it because it makes them uncomfortable. A textbook example of cognitive dissonance. From ethics point of view that’s better than wholeheartedly endorsing it but not by a large margin.
jacquesm 8y ago
There is plenty wrong with the bio-industry but to compare that and this experiment is not helping the discussion. It's the same as saying that what was happening at Guantanamo bay was no worse than what was happening elsewhere so why all the fuss?
- horsecaptin 8y ago
  Could you provide more specific examples of "what was happening everywhere else"? An animal doesn't know if it is being raised for experimentation or food. They are simply being treated cruelly until they are slaughtered. They may even be leading a better life if they are being raised for experimentation than for slaughter. We on the other hand are trying to wipe our conscious clean by rationalizing the reasons behind the slaughter and putting food over knowledge. We don't need to eat meat to survive or thrive, so saying "but it is for food" holds no higher a moral ground than "but it is for an experiment".
red75prime 8y ago
On the plus side they aren't being eaten alive as it happens in the wild.
- horsecaptin 8y ago
  In the wild, they get to be free until the day they are killed by a predator. In captivity they are treated cruelly, fattened, and slaughtered with no chance of escape. How is that a "plus side"?
  - red75prime 8y ago
    The alternative lifestyle for them is not frolicking on a green grass, but non-existence. We are the cause that they exists. They don't know about "no chance of escape", you do. I'm all for labgrown meat, but mixing your own feelings and objective information about their assessment of quality of their own life (which you don't have) is not helping your cause.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - horsecaptin 8y ago
      Feelings are there for a reason, mate. Mine tell me that an animal would rather not exist than being born into a life of torture followed by slaughter.
      - red75prime 8y ago
        So a next step should be redesigning biosphere to eliminate suffering or eliminating all sufficiently intelligent animals. Their life is a struggle for survival followed by death, after all.

gtirloni 8y ago

People eating pork don't think their meat as coming from such conditions and/or want/expect that to happen. So it's not fair to say "people" are okay with that and not the brain experiment. Producers might be okay but that's a different argument to which the one you're replying in this thread.

Sharlin 8y ago
People don’t want to know what’s going on on factory farms about it because it makes them uncomfortable. A textbook example of cognitive dissonance. From ethics point of view that’s better than wholeheartedly endorsing it but not by a large margin.

jacquesm 8y ago

There is plenty wrong with the bio-industry but to compare that and this experiment is not helping the discussion. It's the same as saying that what was happening at Guantanamo bay was no worse than what was happening elsewhere so why all the fuss?

horsecaptin 8y ago
Could you provide more specific examples of "what was happening everywhere else"? An animal doesn't know if it is being raised for experimentation or food. They are simply being treated cruelly until they are slaughtered. They may even be leading a better life if they are being raised for experimentation than for slaughter. We on the other hand are trying to wipe our conscious clean by rationalizing the reasons behind the slaughter and putting food over knowledge. We don't need to eat meat to survive or thrive, so saying "but it is for food" holds no higher a moral ground than "but it is for an experiment".

red75prime 8y ago

On the plus side they aren't being eaten alive as it happens in the wild.

horsecaptin 8y ago
In the wild, they get to be free until the day they are killed by a predator. In captivity they are treated cruelly, fattened, and slaughtered with no chance of escape. How is that a "plus side"?
- red75prime 8y ago
  The alternative lifestyle for them is not frolicking on a green grass, but non-existence. We are the cause that they exists. They don't know about "no chance of escape", you do. I'm all for labgrown meat, but mixing your own feelings and objective information about their assessment of quality of their own life (which you don't have) is not helping your cause.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - horsecaptin 8y ago
    Feelings are there for a reason, mate. Mine tell me that an animal would rather not exist than being born into a life of torture followed by slaughter.
    - red75prime 8y ago
      So a next step should be redesigning biosphere to eliminate suffering or eliminating all sufficiently intelligent animals. Their life is a struggle for survival followed by death, after all.