6 ms·

So you are basically saying "if I had to make no effort at all and I could also save some money, I would switch". Yes, that's obvious, everyone would, it's redu

So you are basically saying "if I had to make no effort at all and I could also save some money, I would switch". Yes, that's obvious, everyone would, it's redundant to state it. But what those 'vegan proselytizers' are asking you for, is to not be so selfish and make a bit of a sacrifice to spare the lives of others. But of course, you 'can't stomach' to be asked to not be selfish, and they are the ones to blame.

bluGill 8y ago
My values are not yours. I do not consider animal lives worth valuing or deserving of rights. This is a fundamental disagreement, the only possible peaceful solution is agree to disagree (I hope we don't come down to the non-peaceful ones)
- pstuart 8y ago
  > I do not consider animal lives worth valuing For the sake of discussion, do you have a pet? Or have loved ones that have a pet? If you were to torture that pet would you feel anything? Would your loved ones object for any reason?
  - barrkel 8y ago
    Well-being of animals is distinct from slaughtering them for food. The beef I buy comes from cows that roam in fields, usually in Ireland. They're not unhappy then, as I can attest having grown up in the countryside. And the fact there are so many of them means the total lifetime happiness (of the cows at least) probably outweighs their death, if it's done humanely.
    - wvlia5- 8y ago
      Please, describe to me this 'humane killing' process, what does it look like?
      - pstuart 8y ago
        I believe it's the equivalent of being shot in the head. If it's quick and clean, it's probably about as humane as can be, save for sedating first.
      - wvlia5- 8y ago
        So, shooting someone in the head is 'humane' then? Then, what does 'humane' even mean?
        pstuart 8y ago
        I believe you meant to reply to me. It implies a very quick exit, which is more humane that a lingering painful one. I think some chicken processors will use controlled-atmosphere stunning — or “gas stunning” — which desensitizes the chickens to pain before slaughtering. (that last bit was copy/paste from another source).
    - pstuart 8y ago
      My reply was to a very specific (and obviously troubling to me) statement: "I do not consider animal lives worth valuing". I totally get that there's a difference between the scenario you're describing and factory farms. In fact, I've posited before that those animals would never have any life if there wasn't a demand to eat them at some point. But the statement in question reads as "I don't give a fuck what happens to any animal". My question about pets wasn't meant to be tricky, it was trying to ascertain if the statement was an absolute or a general lack of care of where his food comes from.
      - 1001101 8y ago
        You'll find about ~5% (depending on source) of people have severe difficulties feeling empathy towards fellow humans, let alone animals.
        pstuart 8y ago
        And then there's the bit about future psychopaths practicing their craft as children by torturing animals. That wasn't intended in my initial reply though.
      - kelnos 8y ago
        > But the statement in question reads as "I don't give a fuck what happens to any animal" What exactly is wrong with that statement, though? I personally do give fucks about certain kinds of animals, but I recognize that my choices as to what animals to care about is entirely subjective and is a result of my upbringing. I have no problem with a person who draws the line at "entirely no fucks given about any animal" (though that seems kinda sad to me). Which... is also different from caring or not caring about malicious cruelty. And I think you could make a further distinction between being a proponent of cruelty (as in "I enjoy torturing animals in my backyard") and being indifferent to it (as in "I personally think it's gross to torture animals, but don't feel it's my or the law's place to force other people not to do it"). (Before I get labeled a monster, I personally think malicious animal cruelty is likely a sign of mental illness and am fine with legislating it away. Regarding animals used as food, I think ultimately we're finding that healthy, sustainable food production often aligns pretty well with increased animal welfare, but I consider that a bonus, not a hard necessity.)
    - belltaco 8y ago
      As a thought experiment, would people be okay with humans being grown for meat, given a happy life and then slaughtered humanely?
      - logfromblammo 8y ago
        Sign me up for the Morlock team, and let me know when the Eloi roast is done.~ The argument against this has nothing to do with Eloi thoughts and feelings, and everything to do with their ability to invade the Morlock tunnels and wipe them all out, as a matter of survival. That is, it doesn't matter if the Eloi object, if they lack the means to enforce their objections. Eloi thoughts do not carry any weight in Morlock arguments. Besides that, feeding themselves to humans by the billions as captive domesticated prey species may be the only shot those species have at reaching other planets.
      - kelnos 8y ago
        I think that some people (though probably very few) might be okay with that, but most people probably draw the line at cannibalism even if they don't respect human life. Really, your question just illustrates the fact that this debate is entirely subjective and based on emotion. As a further thought experiment, we're obviously already working on growing human organs for the purpose of organ transplants. Would people be ok with growing individual human organs for the purpose of food? I expect most people would think that would be gross and be against it, but ethically it seems in the clear.
      - bluGill 8y ago
        Cannibals did exist in history. I'm not sure how common they were, but presumably such societies would be okay with it. I think it is safe to say today such a society would not be allowed to exist by others.
  - kelnos 8y ago
    Not the parent poster, but I think, given that this boils down to an emotional reaction, it's perfectly consistent to value the well-being of different animals in different ways. There's no inherent quality that makes a cat or dog more or less deserving of humane treatment than a cow or pig. There's no inherent difference (aside from judgments around taste) that makes it acceptable to eat the meat of a cow but not of a dog (and, indeed, in some cultures, the opposite can be the case). At the end of the day it's all just what we've been socialized from a young age to believe is acceptable or not, sometimes reinforced with religious beliefs. I personally will never be swayed by vegetarian/vegan "the poor animals!"-type arguments (but fully respect people who choose not to eat meat for those reasons). Arguments around health, sustainability, and cost (in that order) are what I care about. (For the record, I think torturing any animal out of malice is messed up and is probably an indicator of some sort of mental illness. However, other people simply being indifferent toward animal welfare is just not something I care about. Everyone has different emotional attachments to different things.)
    - pbhjpbhj 8y ago
      There's another aspect don't think it's mentioned yet, that someone's emotional attachment imbues an animal with a difference that makes harming it different to harming another animal. Similar (at a different level) to me snapping a stick, vs snapping my kids "favourite" stick that he found. Identical actions in one respect, but the human emotional impact is very different.
    - pvaldes 8y ago
      Is a neverending, emotional and often really messed-up rabbit hole. Closing eyes when is not convenient for the discurse, and rejecting any logical reasoning or fact against. We can see people on tv acussing other people of being torturers and organising harassment plans against them, whereas happily showing their "baby" toy-dog in their arms. The same dogs selectively breeded to keep cute deformed craneus, jaw bones like an acordion, popping eyes, crossed teeth, deformed humerus and femurs, no tail, chronic fatigue, all sort of health problems. Dogs feeded with "vegan dog food" for years... and castrated of course. All for human entertainment. How this is not an extreme evil form of torture for them? Maybe they should give example and kill those pets humanely as soon as possible to end their endless life of suffering?
  - bluGill 8y ago
    I'm intentionally not answering this as it hides the point I'm trying to make which is that people have fundamental disagreements on various issues and how to deal with this is an open question. That isn't to say your question isn't valid or uninteresting, just that I don't want the debate to go that direction.
- rebuilder 8y ago
  There are also important environmental issues that come with the production of meat and other animal products.
  - Cyph0n 8y ago
    As a meat eater, this is the main reason why I am interested in artificial meat production. The whole "living beings" argument isn't very convincing, but that's just my opinion.
- wvlia5- 8y ago
  What if I don't value your life and want to keep you as a slave, would it be fair to 'agree to disagree'?
  - bluGill 8y ago
    That is why violent solutions are sometimes the only possibility. There are times my values can be different from someone else, and times that different value system cannot be allowed to exist in the world.
- CompelTechnic 8y ago
  Interesting, judging by the other replies, that the opponents in your debate have not agreed to disagree, despite the fact that the underlying differences are deep-rooted enough that any action on their part, especially on an internet forum, is unlikely to make a change.
  - pstuart 8y ago
    I didn't technically disagree, I merely asked for clarification of a statement. The only answer was a downvote. Edit: I'm not vegan because I'm lazy and love bacon cheeseburgers, etc. Beyond Meat and their ilk are helping to address the last part and I'm excited for it.
  - Vinnl 8y ago
    > the underlying differences are deep-rooted enough Although I'm not one of the other replies, I do think I'd actually disagree on this point. I used to feel the same way like GP (and still do, to some extent), but my view has definitely softened after learning more. After being presented with some ethical dilemma's, and seeing descriptions of how we actually treat animals, I found out I actually can be affected by the suffering of animals - just not to the same scale. In other words: even though it might feel like a fundamental disagreement, I've experienced that there can still be room for your opinion to change to at least move somewhat in the other direction.
- belltaco 8y ago
  >I do not consider animal lives worth valuing or deserving of rights So you're against animal anti-cruelty laws? Are you okay with animals like dogs and cats being torture for human entertainment?
  - Arnavion 8y ago
    >So you're against animal anti-cruelty laws? "I do not consider animal lives worth valuing or deserving of rights" is not necessarily the same as "I don't want animals to have rights". It can simply be "I don't care if animals have rights".
    - dsabanin 8y ago
      "I do not consider animal ... deserving of rights" is pretty much as close to "I don't want animals to have rights" as you can get.
  - TomMarius 8y ago
    Cruelty means e.g. causing pain. We can kill animals without causing them pain.
    - cies 8y ago
      At a broad enough definition of pain, that is very hard. Many of our farm animals have strong family ties. In order to kill them you have to sever them ties. That hurts. If you see intellegent mammals being reunited after some time apart you will know they reeeeaaly love each other, much like we humans do.
    - saagarjha 8y ago
      > We can kill animals without causing them pain. We can, but it seems like we often don't.
  - white-flame 8y ago
    Animal cruelty laws also police an active precursor behavior that might easily turn into human cruelty, which is a justification that really has nothing to do with the animals themselves.
- moate 8y ago
  I guess this depends on where we consider the line for "peaceful" to be. If the culture shifted enough where your views were in the minority, there's legislative action that can be taken criminalizing raising and harvesting of animals for food (in the US they just did this with dog and cats for example, with the latest farm bill). Whether you agree or not, if your behavior is criminalized, the matter is settled (as a point of law at least). To be fair, I don't know that violence against you (or others) would really convince you that these lives are valuable or not, just that you might value not being violently punished for acting on your beliefs.
- jobigoud 8y ago
  > This is a fundamental disagreement, the only possible peaceful solution is agree to disagree (I hope we don't come down to the non-peaceful ones) So here is the kicker, exactly because vegan people see these animal lives as worth valuing, they don't consider your "agree to disagree" stance as a "peaceful solution", as it implies the death and suffering of these entities. It's one of those subjects where you can't have an "agree to disagree" or a "live and let live", or a "to each their own" type of deal, because one side is considering that a third party is involved and hurt, while the other side doesn't consider that a third party is involved at all. i.e: sentient being vs food.
  - vatueil 8y ago
    Eh. We exist in a society where people who perform abortions must live with people who believe a fetus is equivalent to a full human life. People who believe unbelievers go to hell must live with people who are atheists. The tension between vegans and non-vegans is not unique or unprecedented. The only thing that's new is veganism's recent growth spurt, which has produced a lot of new converts that mainstream society is slowly learning to tolerate, and vice versa.
    - cies 8y ago
      Exactly. Also the scale of the "3rd party damage" is humongous in case of bio-industry. Many millions of animals per day are having the life squeezed out of m. Abortions need supervision, paperwork, a studied persons decision. Slaughterhouse killing of often done by immigrants, unable to find any better work. Where the embryo can potentially harm the mother, the animals we kill every day have zero possible negative impact on our lives. So I agree there are similar cases, but all these cases are very ---very--- unique in their dynamics.
      - saagarjha 8y ago
        > the animals we kill every day have zero possible negative impact on our lives We kill them because in doing so they have a positive impact on our lives.
Cyph0n 8y ago
> Yes, that's obvious, everyone would, it's redundant to state it. No, it's not. Do you truly think that there would be no self-proclaimed "meat purists"? Many would still enjoy real meat and would be prepared to pay a premium for it. Heck, even now, there are people who pay attention to the grade of their meat.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 8y ago
  Yeah - you would have “all-natural” meat that would sell for a premium over the “processed, artificial” meat.
- be-ez 8y ago
  I think this is correct. There is a core group of "meat purists" who define eating beef as being American or vice versa.
Wowfunhappy 8y ago
Just a tip, of sorts: I don't wholly disagree with your argument, but you might do well to soften the tone. As written, your post comes across as accusatory. Maybe that's your intention, but it's a really bad way to persuade people of anything.
- news_to_me 8y ago
  Respectfully, I agree with the tone of the parent comment. I think there are circumstances when a little bite in a comment is appropriate. I'm not sure of wvlia5's original intent, but logfromblammo's position seemed a bit shockingly selfish to me, and a shocked/accusatory response seemed to echo my feeling as well.
rhino369 8y ago
I dunno, I'd probably still pay extra for the real deal.
logfromblammo 8y ago
Yes. Exactly so. If I had to make no effort at all, and I could also save some money, I would switch. But it is not obvious that everyone would. Perhaps all of your acquaintances would, but perhaps you just don't know someone of the sort who wouldn't. Pre-framing the debate in (hostile) terms of just how selfish I am gives me the inkling that you are not looking for an honest, factual, and productive discussion, and that my participation might be seen as an invitation to browbeat me with guilt and propaganda. Instead of wasting your words on convincing me that you're so prejudiced in this matter that the outcome of any discussion we might have is already predetermined, go buy an Impossible Burger--or a thousand--and let them do all the arguing for you, because their actions speak louder than your words. They'll win over my stomach with a $2.00-off coupon, while you're still trying to recover from implicitly devaluing every sacrifice I have ever made for the sake of someone else. Your post is an exemplar of exactly the sort of vector that I can't stomach--unnecessarily hostile and loaded with assumptions.
- Djvacto 8y ago
  In my experiences, both as a meat-eater for most of my life and about a year of not eating meat, most of the reason you (or I, previously) couldn't stomach that kind of vector is because (at least in my case) it's the difference between thinking about where the meat comes from vs not. I was fully aware of what animals were, and that they died so I could have that food, but I never really tried to think about it. Basically, it seems hostile because it makes us feel challenged. That's not to say that no vegans/vegetarians are ever hostile, because they can be, just as much as anyone else can. But overall, the general idea is a challenge to your/our current worldview, and no matter how they word it, we're going to feel challenged.
  - logfromblammo 8y ago
    I would advise against telling someone who they are or why they feel a particular way, without at least some minimal level of acquaintance. Meat comes from the corpses of animals slaughtered on our behalf. Selfishness does not come from eating it, or from insufficiently valuing the environmental impact of it, or from getting annoyed with people that have made it a cornerstone of their personal religion. I don't feel challenged at all by vegans, in the same sense that I am not challenged by missionaries knocking on doors or distributing flyers. When they speak, and I detect the emotional investment, I tune out, because I have learned long ago that one cannot argue with religion. I don't want a religion; you can't convert me by preaching. So when someone tells me I am selfish, knowing little of me beyond the words in my initial post, I have exactly the same emotional reaction as with someone telling me that I will go to Hell for being atheist. It only makes sense to a believer, and I am not one. I tuned my bullshit detector with years of pointless arguments with kooks and crackpots, and no one but an expert is going to slip a rhetorical cheat past it. If I am selfish, by definition, I wouldn't care whether other people think I am selfish. Ergo, attempting to sway someone by suggesting they might be selfish is implicitly dishonest. It would only work on someone already concerned that they might be too selfish, while not knowing of any specific reasons why that might be so. By introspection and by comparison with acquaintances, I have reached the conclusion that I am not selfish, or at least not more than one standard deviation above the median level of selfishness. I am stubborn and skeptical; sometimes it comes out looking similar. Since I know myself better than anyone else does, whenever someone comes out and says I am selfish, my bullshit detector pings, and I look for the ulterior motive. Aha! The person making the claim has no specific interest in me or my prior claims, but is using me as a prop to preach to the more accessible listeners in the audience, and to their own choir. They are treating me exactly as I treat a piece of meat--a thing to be used to advance their own ends, rather than something of inherent value. That's hypocrisy, of a sort, and I dislike it in vegan preachers, and every other kind of preacher.

bluGill 8y ago

My values are not yours. I do not consider animal lives worth valuing or deserving of rights. This is a fundamental disagreement, the only possible peaceful solution is agree to disagree (I hope we don't come down to the non-peaceful ones)

pstuart 8y ago
> I do not consider animal lives worth valuing For the sake of discussion, do you have a pet? Or have loved ones that have a pet? If you were to torture that pet would you feel anything? Would your loved ones object for any reason?
- barrkel 8y ago
  Well-being of animals is distinct from slaughtering them for food. The beef I buy comes from cows that roam in fields, usually in Ireland. They're not unhappy then, as I can attest having grown up in the countryside. And the fact there are so many of them means the total lifetime happiness (of the cows at least) probably outweighs their death, if it's done humanely.
  - wvlia5- 8y ago
    Please, describe to me this 'humane killing' process, what does it look like?
    - pstuart 8y ago
      I believe it's the equivalent of being shot in the head. If it's quick and clean, it's probably about as humane as can be, save for sedating first.
    - wvlia5- 8y ago
      So, shooting someone in the head is 'humane' then? Then, what does 'humane' even mean?
      - pstuart 8y ago
        I believe you meant to reply to me. It implies a very quick exit, which is more humane that a lingering painful one. I think some chicken processors will use controlled-atmosphere stunning — or “gas stunning” — which desensitizes the chickens to pain before slaughtering. (that last bit was copy/paste from another source).
  - pstuart 8y ago
    My reply was to a very specific (and obviously troubling to me) statement: "I do not consider animal lives worth valuing". I totally get that there's a difference between the scenario you're describing and factory farms. In fact, I've posited before that those animals would never have any life if there wasn't a demand to eat them at some point. But the statement in question reads as "I don't give a fuck what happens to any animal". My question about pets wasn't meant to be tricky, it was trying to ascertain if the statement was an absolute or a general lack of care of where his food comes from.
    - 1001101 8y ago
      You'll find about ~5% (depending on source) of people have severe difficulties feeling empathy towards fellow humans, let alone animals.
      - pstuart 8y ago
        And then there's the bit about future psychopaths practicing their craft as children by torturing animals. That wasn't intended in my initial reply though.
    - kelnos 8y ago
      > But the statement in question reads as "I don't give a fuck what happens to any animal" What exactly is wrong with that statement, though? I personally do give fucks about certain kinds of animals, but I recognize that my choices as to what animals to care about is entirely subjective and is a result of my upbringing. I have no problem with a person who draws the line at "entirely no fucks given about any animal" (though that seems kinda sad to me). Which... is also different from caring or not caring about malicious cruelty. And I think you could make a further distinction between being a proponent of cruelty (as in "I enjoy torturing animals in my backyard") and being indifferent to it (as in "I personally think it's gross to torture animals, but don't feel it's my or the law's place to force other people not to do it"). (Before I get labeled a monster, I personally think malicious animal cruelty is likely a sign of mental illness and am fine with legislating it away. Regarding animals used as food, I think ultimately we're finding that healthy, sustainable food production often aligns pretty well with increased animal welfare, but I consider that a bonus, not a hard necessity.)
  - belltaco 8y ago
    As a thought experiment, would people be okay with humans being grown for meat, given a happy life and then slaughtered humanely?
    - logfromblammo 8y ago
      Sign me up for the Morlock team, and let me know when the Eloi roast is done.~ The argument against this has nothing to do with Eloi thoughts and feelings, and everything to do with their ability to invade the Morlock tunnels and wipe them all out, as a matter of survival. That is, it doesn't matter if the Eloi object, if they lack the means to enforce their objections. Eloi thoughts do not carry any weight in Morlock arguments. Besides that, feeding themselves to humans by the billions as captive domesticated prey species may be the only shot those species have at reaching other planets.
    - kelnos 8y ago
      I think that some people (though probably very few) might be okay with that, but most people probably draw the line at cannibalism even if they don't respect human life. Really, your question just illustrates the fact that this debate is entirely subjective and based on emotion. As a further thought experiment, we're obviously already working on growing human organs for the purpose of organ transplants. Would people be ok with growing individual human organs for the purpose of food? I expect most people would think that would be gross and be against it, but ethically it seems in the clear.
    - bluGill 8y ago
      Cannibals did exist in history. I'm not sure how common they were, but presumably such societies would be okay with it. I think it is safe to say today such a society would not be allowed to exist by others.
- kelnos 8y ago
  Not the parent poster, but I think, given that this boils down to an emotional reaction, it's perfectly consistent to value the well-being of different animals in different ways. There's no inherent quality that makes a cat or dog more or less deserving of humane treatment than a cow or pig. There's no inherent difference (aside from judgments around taste) that makes it acceptable to eat the meat of a cow but not of a dog (and, indeed, in some cultures, the opposite can be the case). At the end of the day it's all just what we've been socialized from a young age to believe is acceptable or not, sometimes reinforced with religious beliefs. I personally will never be swayed by vegetarian/vegan "the poor animals!"-type arguments (but fully respect people who choose not to eat meat for those reasons). Arguments around health, sustainability, and cost (in that order) are what I care about. (For the record, I think torturing any animal out of malice is messed up and is probably an indicator of some sort of mental illness. However, other people simply being indifferent toward animal welfare is just not something I care about. Everyone has different emotional attachments to different things.)
  - pbhjpbhj 8y ago
    There's another aspect don't think it's mentioned yet, that someone's emotional attachment imbues an animal with a difference that makes harming it different to harming another animal. Similar (at a different level) to me snapping a stick, vs snapping my kids "favourite" stick that he found. Identical actions in one respect, but the human emotional impact is very different.
  - pvaldes 8y ago
    Is a neverending, emotional and often really messed-up rabbit hole. Closing eyes when is not convenient for the discurse, and rejecting any logical reasoning or fact against. We can see people on tv acussing other people of being torturers and organising harassment plans against them, whereas happily showing their "baby" toy-dog in their arms. The same dogs selectively breeded to keep cute deformed craneus, jaw bones like an acordion, popping eyes, crossed teeth, deformed humerus and femurs, no tail, chronic fatigue, all sort of health problems. Dogs feeded with "vegan dog food" for years... and castrated of course. All for human entertainment. How this is not an extreme evil form of torture for them? Maybe they should give example and kill those pets humanely as soon as possible to end their endless life of suffering?
- bluGill 8y ago
  I'm intentionally not answering this as it hides the point I'm trying to make which is that people have fundamental disagreements on various issues and how to deal with this is an open question. That isn't to say your question isn't valid or uninteresting, just that I don't want the debate to go that direction.
rebuilder 8y ago
There are also important environmental issues that come with the production of meat and other animal products.
- Cyph0n 8y ago
  As a meat eater, this is the main reason why I am interested in artificial meat production. The whole "living beings" argument isn't very convincing, but that's just my opinion.
wvlia5- 8y ago
What if I don't value your life and want to keep you as a slave, would it be fair to 'agree to disagree'?
- bluGill 8y ago
  That is why violent solutions are sometimes the only possibility. There are times my values can be different from someone else, and times that different value system cannot be allowed to exist in the world.
CompelTechnic 8y ago
Interesting, judging by the other replies, that the opponents in your debate have not agreed to disagree, despite the fact that the underlying differences are deep-rooted enough that any action on their part, especially on an internet forum, is unlikely to make a change.
- pstuart 8y ago
  I didn't technically disagree, I merely asked for clarification of a statement. The only answer was a downvote. Edit: I'm not vegan because I'm lazy and love bacon cheeseburgers, etc. Beyond Meat and their ilk are helping to address the last part and I'm excited for it.
- Vinnl 8y ago
  > the underlying differences are deep-rooted enough Although I'm not one of the other replies, I do think I'd actually disagree on this point. I used to feel the same way like GP (and still do, to some extent), but my view has definitely softened after learning more. After being presented with some ethical dilemma's, and seeing descriptions of how we actually treat animals, I found out I actually can be affected by the suffering of animals - just not to the same scale. In other words: even though it might feel like a fundamental disagreement, I've experienced that there can still be room for your opinion to change to at least move somewhat in the other direction.
belltaco 8y ago
>I do not consider animal lives worth valuing or deserving of rights So you're against animal anti-cruelty laws? Are you okay with animals like dogs and cats being torture for human entertainment?
- Arnavion 8y ago
  >So you're against animal anti-cruelty laws? "I do not consider animal lives worth valuing or deserving of rights" is not necessarily the same as "I don't want animals to have rights". It can simply be "I don't care if animals have rights".
  - dsabanin 8y ago
    "I do not consider animal ... deserving of rights" is pretty much as close to "I don't want animals to have rights" as you can get.
- TomMarius 8y ago
  Cruelty means e.g. causing pain. We can kill animals without causing them pain.
  - cies 8y ago
    At a broad enough definition of pain, that is very hard. Many of our farm animals have strong family ties. In order to kill them you have to sever them ties. That hurts. If you see intellegent mammals being reunited after some time apart you will know they reeeeaaly love each other, much like we humans do.
  - saagarjha 8y ago
    > We can kill animals without causing them pain. We can, but it seems like we often don't.
- white-flame 8y ago
  Animal cruelty laws also police an active precursor behavior that might easily turn into human cruelty, which is a justification that really has nothing to do with the animals themselves.
moate 8y ago
I guess this depends on where we consider the line for "peaceful" to be. If the culture shifted enough where your views were in the minority, there's legislative action that can be taken criminalizing raising and harvesting of animals for food (in the US they just did this with dog and cats for example, with the latest farm bill). Whether you agree or not, if your behavior is criminalized, the matter is settled (as a point of law at least). To be fair, I don't know that violence against you (or others) would really convince you that these lives are valuable or not, just that you might value not being violently punished for acting on your beliefs.
jobigoud 8y ago
> This is a fundamental disagreement, the only possible peaceful solution is agree to disagree (I hope we don't come down to the non-peaceful ones) So here is the kicker, exactly because vegan people see these animal lives as worth valuing, they don't consider your "agree to disagree" stance as a "peaceful solution", as it implies the death and suffering of these entities. It's one of those subjects where you can't have an "agree to disagree" or a "live and let live", or a "to each their own" type of deal, because one side is considering that a third party is involved and hurt, while the other side doesn't consider that a third party is involved at all. i.e: sentient being vs food.
- vatueil 8y ago
  Eh. We exist in a society where people who perform abortions must live with people who believe a fetus is equivalent to a full human life. People who believe unbelievers go to hell must live with people who are atheists. The tension between vegans and non-vegans is not unique or unprecedented. The only thing that's new is veganism's recent growth spurt, which has produced a lot of new converts that mainstream society is slowly learning to tolerate, and vice versa.
  - cies 8y ago
    Exactly. Also the scale of the "3rd party damage" is humongous in case of bio-industry. Many millions of animals per day are having the life squeezed out of m. Abortions need supervision, paperwork, a studied persons decision. Slaughterhouse killing of often done by immigrants, unable to find any better work. Where the embryo can potentially harm the mother, the animals we kill every day have zero possible negative impact on our lives. So I agree there are similar cases, but all these cases are very ---very--- unique in their dynamics.
    - saagarjha 8y ago
      > the animals we kill every day have zero possible negative impact on our lives We kill them because in doing so they have a positive impact on our lives.

Cyph0n 8y ago

> Yes, that's obvious, everyone would, it's redundant to state it. No, it's not. Do you truly think that there would be no self-proclaimed "meat purists"? Many would still enjoy real meat and would be prepared to pay a premium for it. Heck, even now, there are people who pay attention to the grade of their meat.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 8y ago
Yeah - you would have “all-natural” meat that would sell for a premium over the “processed, artificial” meat.
be-ez 8y ago
I think this is correct. There is a core group of "meat purists" who define eating beef as being American or vice versa.

Wowfunhappy 8y ago

Just a tip, of sorts: I don't wholly disagree with your argument, but you might do well to soften the tone. As written, your post comes across as accusatory. Maybe that's your intention, but it's a really bad way to persuade people of anything.

news_to_me 8y ago
Respectfully, I agree with the tone of the parent comment. I think there are circumstances when a little bite in a comment is appropriate. I'm not sure of wvlia5's original intent, but logfromblammo's position seemed a bit shockingly selfish to me, and a shocked/accusatory response seemed to echo my feeling as well.

rhino369 8y ago

I dunno, I'd probably still pay extra for the real deal.

logfromblammo 8y ago

Yes. Exactly so. If I had to make no effort at all, and I could also save some money, I would switch. But it is not obvious that everyone would. Perhaps all of your acquaintances would, but perhaps you just don't know someone of the sort who wouldn't. Pre-framing the debate in (hostile) terms of just how selfish I am gives me the inkling that you are not looking for an honest, factual, and productive discussion, and that my participation might be seen as an invitation to browbeat me with guilt and propaganda. Instead of wasting your words on convincing me that you're so prejudiced in this matter that the outcome of any discussion we might have is already predetermined, go buy an Impossible Burger--or a thousand--and let them do all the arguing for you, because their actions speak louder than your words. They'll win over my stomach with a $2.00-off coupon, while you're still trying to recover from implicitly devaluing every sacrifice I have ever made for the sake of someone else. Your post is an exemplar of exactly the sort of vector that I can't stomach--unnecessarily hostile and loaded with assumptions.

Djvacto 8y ago
In my experiences, both as a meat-eater for most of my life and about a year of not eating meat, most of the reason you (or I, previously) couldn't stomach that kind of vector is because (at least in my case) it's the difference between thinking about where the meat comes from vs not. I was fully aware of what animals were, and that they died so I could have that food, but I never really tried to think about it. Basically, it seems hostile because it makes us feel challenged. That's not to say that no vegans/vegetarians are ever hostile, because they can be, just as much as anyone else can. But overall, the general idea is a challenge to your/our current worldview, and no matter how they word it, we're going to feel challenged.
- logfromblammo 8y ago
  I would advise against telling someone who they are or why they feel a particular way, without at least some minimal level of acquaintance. Meat comes from the corpses of animals slaughtered on our behalf. Selfishness does not come from eating it, or from insufficiently valuing the environmental impact of it, or from getting annoyed with people that have made it a cornerstone of their personal religion. I don't feel challenged at all by vegans, in the same sense that I am not challenged by missionaries knocking on doors or distributing flyers. When they speak, and I detect the emotional investment, I tune out, because I have learned long ago that one cannot argue with religion. I don't want a religion; you can't convert me by preaching. So when someone tells me I am selfish, knowing little of me beyond the words in my initial post, I have exactly the same emotional reaction as with someone telling me that I will go to Hell for being atheist. It only makes sense to a believer, and I am not one. I tuned my bullshit detector with years of pointless arguments with kooks and crackpots, and no one but an expert is going to slip a rhetorical cheat past it. If I am selfish, by definition, I wouldn't care whether other people think I am selfish. Ergo, attempting to sway someone by suggesting they might be selfish is implicitly dishonest. It would only work on someone already concerned that they might be too selfish, while not knowing of any specific reasons why that might be so. By introspection and by comparison with acquaintances, I have reached the conclusion that I am not selfish, or at least not more than one standard deviation above the median level of selfishness. I am stubborn and skeptical; sometimes it comes out looking similar. Since I know myself better than anyone else does, whenever someone comes out and says I am selfish, my bullshit detector pings, and I look for the ulterior motive. Aha! The person making the claim has no specific interest in me or my prior claims, but is using me as a prop to preach to the more accessible listeners in the audience, and to their own choir. They are treating me exactly as I treat a piece of meat--a thing to be used to advance their own ends, rather than something of inherent value. That's hypocrisy, of a sort, and I dislike it in vegan preachers, and every other kind of preacher.