6 ms·

I like the taste of meat, I like the taste of eggs, texture of yogurt, I like the taste of practically all foods. I do not like the fact that cow, chicken, pig,

I like the taste of meat, I like the taste of eggs, texture of yogurt, I like the taste of practically all foods. I do not like the fact that cow, chicken, pig, dog, have to die for my tastebuds to feel nice. Given that I like the tastes I like and do not want to give them up, I'll rather be calm and eat something that tastes like meat but there's no death of an animal. That's it. Could I live without veggie sausages, bruger patties? Yep. But why not eat them when they are available. What I do not understand is the exclusivity of someone who eats meat. If people today are such foodies, what is wrong with ordering a vegan meal once? Or buying vegan meat replacements, to try them and see how they taste? Vegan mayo? Why not exploit the luxury of the modern world and enjoy all that engineered food, even if you're vegan or not?

gridlockd 7y ago
> I do not like the fact that cow, chicken, pig, dog, have to die for my tastebuds to feel nice. Not only do they have to die, they also have to live. If everyone went vegan, those animals would never have existed. If the standards of living for the average farm animal were really good, would that be worse than them having never existed?
- seanwilson 7y ago
  > Not only do they have to die, they also have to live. If everyone went vegan, those animals would never have existed. In the same way, you could justify birthing a human into slavery, birthing a dog for dog fighting, birthing a bull for bullfighting etc. - it's not a good reason. There's animals related to farm bred cows, pigs and chickens in the wild as well. You could use the land that's used for animal agriculture to let wild animals thrive, instead of birthing animals into a miserable life. > If the standards of living for the average farm animal were really good, would that be worse than them having never existed? I don't think there's enough land for this to ever be feasible and feed everyone that wants to eat meat. You should also consider that farm animals are killed within around 20% or less into their natural lifespan so it's not like you'd be giving them much time to experience a great life. Also, for economical reasons, you'd probably still have to kill e.g. males from egg laying hens within a day or two, and male dairy calves within weeks.
  - geggam 7y ago
    I would argue that you haven't ever really spent much time in nature. Example : Wolves and coyotes thrive on killing babies, nature is much more harsh than any farm I have seen.
    - seanwilson 7y ago
      Wolves and coyotes don't have supermarkets. We have a choice to not act like wild animals. Animals also murder their own kind, can be cannibalistic and worse. Is it okay to do those things too because they happen in nature? We shouldn't (and don't) based our morals and behaviours on wild animals.
      - geggam 7y ago
        Where do you think supermarkets get food ? This is the disconnect so many people have.
        seanwilson 7y ago
        The point was we can live long and healthy lives by going to the supermarket and buying non-meat food. We can survive now without making animals needlessly suffer (including paying others to kill animals on our behalf). Some carnivorous wild animals have no choice but to hunt and eat prey alive to survive. We have a choice.
        geggam 7y ago
        I choose to eat animals. You choose to eat plants. Question is why do you want plants to taste like animals and it was answered. Some folks don’t like killing. I don’t mind taking an animals life to eat. Therein lies the difference
        seanwilson 7y ago
        > I don’t mind taking an animals life to eat. Therein lies the difference Can I ask if you'd be okay with killing all the animals you eat yourself? If you wouldn't be prepared to do the killing yourself, why?
- athriren 7y ago
  I can't answer for everyone, but in the interest of continuing conversation my answer to your question in the last sentence would yes. It would be better for an animal to have never existed than to have its entire existence be measured by the utility of killing it and butchering it for people to eat.
  - gridlockd 7y ago
    All life leads to death, in nature or captivity. Pretty much any animal will be eaten upon death, by predators, scavengers, or microbes. Sometimes it will be killed to be eaten. Death follows wild animals at every step. Captive animals can live better lives than wild animals. They can be treated well. That's my premise. You can have the position that either such life is just meaningless suffering and that its non-existence is better than its existence.
    - athriren 7y ago
      But the purpose of a wild animal is not to be killed and eaten. I’m not convinced you could accurately describe in words what the purpose of a wild animal is. However, it is easy to describe what the purpose of beef cattle. It is to be killed and be eaten by the same animal who has bred them to have high muscle content and caged them. “Captive” animals is entirely too broad a class. Pets have great lives much of the time. I am talking about animals bred and raised for human consumption only, and I do believe those lives are meaningless suffering based on the goal of that life. Extending the argument, if a person were birthed solely to be an organ farm for a wealthy individual, that would also be meaningless suffering even if they were treated “well” for most of their life. Just my opinion. Thanks for discussing!
      - gridlockd 7y ago
        > But the purpose of a wild animal is not to be killed and eaten. I’m not convinced you could accurately describe in words what the purpose of a wild animal is. A wild animal doesn't have a purpose. It just is. It will die and it will get eaten anyway. > However, it is easy to describe what the purpose of beef cattle. It is to be killed and be eaten by the same animal who has bred them to have high muscle content and caged them. Fair enough. > I am talking about animals bred and raised for human consumption only, and I do believe those lives are meaningless suffering based on the goal of that life. Feeding some other being isn't entirely meaningless. Also, if the animal was living the best life it could live, is it still suffering? If so, then all life is suffering. > Extending the argument, if a person were birthed solely to be an organ farm for a wealthy individual, that would also be meaningless suffering even if they were treated “well” for most of their life. That's the plot of "The Island". Obviously, it sounds morally repulsive, but from the perspective of such a life lived subjectively, it's better than most lives lived throughout human history.
- hombre_fatal 7y ago
  Could ask the same about humans. Do you really think it's better to give a kid a good life and then off them at age 10 because something else thinks they taste good? Seems like a pretty simple ethical question: no. You could extend this anywhere. Pussy feels great. Rape doesn't kill anyone. We could keep some women around and give them great lives as sex slaves. Surely nonexistance is be worse than that! I could even give my harem a much better life than any animal can experience.
  - gridlockd 7y ago
    > Do you really think it's better to give a kid a good life and then off them at age 10 because something else thinks they taste good? Seems like a pretty simple ethical question: no. A more appropriate question would be, would you rather live a life in the wild and die from starvation, from a simple infection, or from being mauled to death? Or, would you rather have full accommodation for your entire life, but you get killed at age 35? Or, would you rather not exist at all? I don't think that question is as simple as you make it sound. > We could keep some women around and give them great lives as sex slaves. "Great lives as sex slaves" sounds a bit oxymoronic, doesn't it? > I could even give my harem a much better life than any animal can experience. If you can afford it, you can have a harem right now without enslaving anybody, because some women would rather be a prostitute than whatever the alternative is.
- superpermutat0r 7y ago
  The only meat I'd eat is from an animal, living in excellent conditions, dying of old age. If the species was ever bred, it must have been bred exclusively for health and fitness, not for higher yield of flesh or milk. If it was not bred, the reproduction should have no human intervention. Everything else life related should not have human intervention, if it does not improve upon the quality of life. Although, this view is pretty idyllic and probably unattainable or not profitable.
  - gridlockd 7y ago
    > Although, this view is pretty idyllic and probably unattainable or not profitable. It's on the extreme end, but there is a spectrum of how we allow animals to be raised. At the one end, even those with the lowest incomes can afford meat, but conditions are bad. At the other end, only the wealthy can afford meat, but conditions can be good. That's the trade-off. Profit is just markup, it can be made either way.
geggam 7y ago
Thank you for the answer. Philosophically I understand you dont want to contribute to the death of an animal, that said, birth causes death. I am of the opinion folks should eat what they want and only worry about what they eat. Letting others eat what they want. Personally I don't do well on veggies. I lose energy and feel lethargic not to mention carbs make me fat.

gridlockd 7y ago

> I do not like the fact that cow, chicken, pig, dog, have to die for my tastebuds to feel nice. Not only do they have to die, they also have to live. If everyone went vegan, those animals would never have existed. If the standards of living for the average farm animal were really good, would that be worse than them having never existed?

seanwilson 7y ago
> Not only do they have to die, they also have to live. If everyone went vegan, those animals would never have existed. In the same way, you could justify birthing a human into slavery, birthing a dog for dog fighting, birthing a bull for bullfighting etc. - it's not a good reason. There's animals related to farm bred cows, pigs and chickens in the wild as well. You could use the land that's used for animal agriculture to let wild animals thrive, instead of birthing animals into a miserable life. > If the standards of living for the average farm animal were really good, would that be worse than them having never existed? I don't think there's enough land for this to ever be feasible and feed everyone that wants to eat meat. You should also consider that farm animals are killed within around 20% or less into their natural lifespan so it's not like you'd be giving them much time to experience a great life. Also, for economical reasons, you'd probably still have to kill e.g. males from egg laying hens within a day or two, and male dairy calves within weeks.
- geggam 7y ago
  I would argue that you haven't ever really spent much time in nature. Example : Wolves and coyotes thrive on killing babies, nature is much more harsh than any farm I have seen.
  - seanwilson 7y ago
    Wolves and coyotes don't have supermarkets. We have a choice to not act like wild animals. Animals also murder their own kind, can be cannibalistic and worse. Is it okay to do those things too because they happen in nature? We shouldn't (and don't) based our morals and behaviours on wild animals.
    - geggam 7y ago
      Where do you think supermarkets get food ? This is the disconnect so many people have.
      - seanwilson 7y ago
        The point was we can live long and healthy lives by going to the supermarket and buying non-meat food. We can survive now without making animals needlessly suffer (including paying others to kill animals on our behalf). Some carnivorous wild animals have no choice but to hunt and eat prey alive to survive. We have a choice.
        geggam 7y ago
        I choose to eat animals. You choose to eat plants. Question is why do you want plants to taste like animals and it was answered. Some folks don’t like killing. I don’t mind taking an animals life to eat. Therein lies the difference
        seanwilson 7y ago
        > I don’t mind taking an animals life to eat. Therein lies the difference Can I ask if you'd be okay with killing all the animals you eat yourself? If you wouldn't be prepared to do the killing yourself, why?
athriren 7y ago
I can't answer for everyone, but in the interest of continuing conversation my answer to your question in the last sentence would yes. It would be better for an animal to have never existed than to have its entire existence be measured by the utility of killing it and butchering it for people to eat.
- gridlockd 7y ago
  All life leads to death, in nature or captivity. Pretty much any animal will be eaten upon death, by predators, scavengers, or microbes. Sometimes it will be killed to be eaten. Death follows wild animals at every step. Captive animals can live better lives than wild animals. They can be treated well. That's my premise. You can have the position that either such life is just meaningless suffering and that its non-existence is better than its existence.
  - athriren 7y ago
    But the purpose of a wild animal is not to be killed and eaten. I’m not convinced you could accurately describe in words what the purpose of a wild animal is. However, it is easy to describe what the purpose of beef cattle. It is to be killed and be eaten by the same animal who has bred them to have high muscle content and caged them. “Captive” animals is entirely too broad a class. Pets have great lives much of the time. I am talking about animals bred and raised for human consumption only, and I do believe those lives are meaningless suffering based on the goal of that life. Extending the argument, if a person were birthed solely to be an organ farm for a wealthy individual, that would also be meaningless suffering even if they were treated “well” for most of their life. Just my opinion. Thanks for discussing!
    - gridlockd 7y ago
      > But the purpose of a wild animal is not to be killed and eaten. I’m not convinced you could accurately describe in words what the purpose of a wild animal is. A wild animal doesn't have a purpose. It just is. It will die and it will get eaten anyway. > However, it is easy to describe what the purpose of beef cattle. It is to be killed and be eaten by the same animal who has bred them to have high muscle content and caged them. Fair enough. > I am talking about animals bred and raised for human consumption only, and I do believe those lives are meaningless suffering based on the goal of that life. Feeding some other being isn't entirely meaningless. Also, if the animal was living the best life it could live, is it still suffering? If so, then all life is suffering. > Extending the argument, if a person were birthed solely to be an organ farm for a wealthy individual, that would also be meaningless suffering even if they were treated “well” for most of their life. That's the plot of "The Island". Obviously, it sounds morally repulsive, but from the perspective of such a life lived subjectively, it's better than most lives lived throughout human history.
hombre_fatal 7y ago
Could ask the same about humans. Do you really think it's better to give a kid a good life and then off them at age 10 because something else thinks they taste good? Seems like a pretty simple ethical question: no. You could extend this anywhere. Pussy feels great. Rape doesn't kill anyone. We could keep some women around and give them great lives as sex slaves. Surely nonexistance is be worse than that! I could even give my harem a much better life than any animal can experience.
- gridlockd 7y ago
  > Do you really think it's better to give a kid a good life and then off them at age 10 because something else thinks they taste good? Seems like a pretty simple ethical question: no. A more appropriate question would be, would you rather live a life in the wild and die from starvation, from a simple infection, or from being mauled to death? Or, would you rather have full accommodation for your entire life, but you get killed at age 35? Or, would you rather not exist at all? I don't think that question is as simple as you make it sound. > We could keep some women around and give them great lives as sex slaves. "Great lives as sex slaves" sounds a bit oxymoronic, doesn't it? > I could even give my harem a much better life than any animal can experience. If you can afford it, you can have a harem right now without enslaving anybody, because some women would rather be a prostitute than whatever the alternative is.
superpermutat0r 7y ago
The only meat I'd eat is from an animal, living in excellent conditions, dying of old age. If the species was ever bred, it must have been bred exclusively for health and fitness, not for higher yield of flesh or milk. If it was not bred, the reproduction should have no human intervention. Everything else life related should not have human intervention, if it does not improve upon the quality of life. Although, this view is pretty idyllic and probably unattainable or not profitable.
- gridlockd 7y ago
  > Although, this view is pretty idyllic and probably unattainable or not profitable. It's on the extreme end, but there is a spectrum of how we allow animals to be raised. At the one end, even those with the lowest incomes can afford meat, but conditions are bad. At the other end, only the wealthy can afford meat, but conditions can be good. That's the trade-off. Profit is just markup, it can be made either way.

geggam 7y ago

Thank you for the answer. Philosophically I understand you dont want to contribute to the death of an animal, that said, birth causes death. I am of the opinion folks should eat what they want and only worry about what they eat. Letting others eat what they want. Personally I don't do well on veggies. I lose energy and feel lethargic not to mention carbs make me fat.