5 ms·

As a side, note, I'd like to point out that you should go vegan predominantly for the moral ethics of killing something for 5 mins of taste pleasure rather than

As a side, note, I'd like to point out that you should go vegan predominantly for the moral ethics of killing something for 5 mins of taste pleasure rather than purely environmental concerns (although valid)

MayeulC 5y ago
> you should go vegan Don't force anybody please. As for moral ethics, those are really different depending on where you come from, your current outlook on life, etc. Ethics are not universal. I'm personally 98% vegetarian due to the lesser ecologic impact. It's also healthier, not killing animals, and has a lot of side-benefits. But don't assume the reason you specifically picked will work for everyone.
- marliechiller 5y ago
  You misunderstand. I'm not forcing anyone. I was replying directly to the original posters comment. Also to your last point, please dont assume that I am assuming. Whether you choose to acknowledge it or not, dairy and eggs still contribute to mass slaughter and suffering so your point about not killing animals on a your stated diet is a bit misinformed.
  - MayeulC 5y ago
    Sorry for coming over as harsh, that was not my intention. It's just that I interpreted your should as a relatively strong word. I agree that male chicks are being massively slaughtered after they hatch in order to get hens. For every male chick that dies, you get more than 300 eggs a year for a couple years. Hens are usually slaughtered too after some time because they get less productive. My point was mostly that bringing ethics into any topic is something you can't do without acknowledging that people have different views on what's ethical. At which point is it okay to terminate a chicken? That's a very debatable topic, same as abortion. What is not up for debate is the carbon impact of various diets. That's quite easy to measure, and much more objective.
tomc1985 5y ago
What moral ethics? A natural predator will eat its prey while it still lives, providing a slow and painful death. While I agree that livestock living conditions mostly suck, at least we provide a quick and painless death.
- lelandfe 5y ago
  I think you will be hard pressed to assign a positive spin on the treatment of livestock as it stands today. The best take one could reach for is perhaps that it's a necessary evil for feeding the planet right now. > at least we provide a quick and painless death Without trying to sound like I'm on a pulpit, "quick and painless" is not how I would describe sow stalls. The prevalence of ag-gag laws speaks to this. This is a subject that I don't have a good answer to, and I eat meat too, but I think we should at least call a spade a spade to start.
  - tomc1985 5y ago
    Last I heard the standard practice was that animals were stunned and then dealt a killing blow. Is this not true? > but I think we should at least call a spade a spade to start. Watching r/natureismetal and David Attenborough documentaries I find myself far more taken aback at the viciousness of some predators (even some trees!) than anything I read in Fast Food Nation, and sections of that book were absolutely disgusting
    - lelandfe 5y ago
      This is a strange, myopic argument. The moral quandary around factory farms does not generally stem from how quickly abattoirs perform their job, as it is economically prudent to kill livestock quickly. There is not much incentive to treat them well beforehand.
      - tomc1985 5y ago
        And my point is that the bucolic pastoral life only exists as created by humans. Everywhere else almost all animals are subject to the whims of the food chain, which can be as cruel if not more cruel than we humans. It's a much wider variation, for sure, but I simply do not understand the moral superiority that animal rights activists feel. Like, veganism because methane emissions are accelerating global warming? I can get behind that. Veganism because of some dietary need someone has? Sure. But veganism because we are mean to animals? You're stretching it...
marginalia_nu 5y ago
Why is killing animals bad?
- hervature 5y ago
  For the same reason we don't have gladiators anymore. We are at a point in time where humans can meet all of our dietary needs through plants as we now understand what things need to be fortified and which don't. Eating meat, for many people, boils down to killing another being for one's own pleasure "tastiness" (I put it in quotes because most people butcher cooking meat at home). If one has no qualms with killing animals unnecessarily, then we should really be feeding all the stray dogs to the homeless but obviously this does not happen. Why? Because people have moral issues with killing dogs and cats. Not eating meat is simply an extension of this.
  - marginalia_nu 5y ago
    I would say the reason it's a taboo to eat predators and scavengers like cats and dogs and rats and bears and sharks and coyotes and tigers and lions and what have you is because predators and scavengers accumulate parasites and toxins. At any rate, you're still not explaining why, merely pointing out an inconsistency across animals as a whole. What if it is wrong to eat dogs but right to eat cows? Why couldn't it be so?
    - hervature 5y ago
      Where I come from, eating bear was not considered taboo. Many places also with sharks. I'm not sure what kind of response you are looking for, but "thou shall not kill" is a pretty universal rule in all societies around the world. I think the onus is on you to explain why that rule should be broken. For instance, going to war to stop tyranny could be a justification.
      - marginalia_nu 5y ago
        Couldn't this line of reasoning also be extended to plants? Why is it wrong to eat a hamburger but not to mow your lawn or treat a bacterial infection? Surely, if all killing is equally wrong, then how can we go on living? One could even claim to be righteously executing the murderous cow because it spends all day maiming and murdering innocent plant matter.

MayeulC 5y ago

> you should go vegan Don't force anybody please. As for moral ethics, those are really different depending on where you come from, your current outlook on life, etc. Ethics are not universal. I'm personally 98% vegetarian due to the lesser ecologic impact. It's also healthier, not killing animals, and has a lot of side-benefits. But don't assume the reason you specifically picked will work for everyone.

marliechiller 5y ago
You misunderstand. I'm not forcing anyone. I was replying directly to the original posters comment. Also to your last point, please dont assume that I am assuming. Whether you choose to acknowledge it or not, dairy and eggs still contribute to mass slaughter and suffering so your point about not killing animals on a your stated diet is a bit misinformed.
- MayeulC 5y ago
  Sorry for coming over as harsh, that was not my intention. It's just that I interpreted your should as a relatively strong word. I agree that male chicks are being massively slaughtered after they hatch in order to get hens. For every male chick that dies, you get more than 300 eggs a year for a couple years. Hens are usually slaughtered too after some time because they get less productive. My point was mostly that bringing ethics into any topic is something you can't do without acknowledging that people have different views on what's ethical. At which point is it okay to terminate a chicken? That's a very debatable topic, same as abortion. What is not up for debate is the carbon impact of various diets. That's quite easy to measure, and much more objective.

tomc1985 5y ago

What moral ethics? A natural predator will eat its prey while it still lives, providing a slow and painful death. While I agree that livestock living conditions mostly suck, at least we provide a quick and painless death.

lelandfe 5y ago
I think you will be hard pressed to assign a positive spin on the treatment of livestock as it stands today. The best take one could reach for is perhaps that it's a necessary evil for feeding the planet right now. > at least we provide a quick and painless death Without trying to sound like I'm on a pulpit, "quick and painless" is not how I would describe sow stalls. The prevalence of ag-gag laws speaks to this. This is a subject that I don't have a good answer to, and I eat meat too, but I think we should at least call a spade a spade to start.
- tomc1985 5y ago
  Last I heard the standard practice was that animals were stunned and then dealt a killing blow. Is this not true? > but I think we should at least call a spade a spade to start. Watching r/natureismetal and David Attenborough documentaries I find myself far more taken aback at the viciousness of some predators (even some trees!) than anything I read in Fast Food Nation, and sections of that book were absolutely disgusting
  - lelandfe 5y ago
    This is a strange, myopic argument. The moral quandary around factory farms does not generally stem from how quickly abattoirs perform their job, as it is economically prudent to kill livestock quickly. There is not much incentive to treat them well beforehand.
    - tomc1985 5y ago
      And my point is that the bucolic pastoral life only exists as created by humans. Everywhere else almost all animals are subject to the whims of the food chain, which can be as cruel if not more cruel than we humans. It's a much wider variation, for sure, but I simply do not understand the moral superiority that animal rights activists feel. Like, veganism because methane emissions are accelerating global warming? I can get behind that. Veganism because of some dietary need someone has? Sure. But veganism because we are mean to animals? You're stretching it...

marginalia_nu 5y ago

Why is killing animals bad?

hervature 5y ago
For the same reason we don't have gladiators anymore. We are at a point in time where humans can meet all of our dietary needs through plants as we now understand what things need to be fortified and which don't. Eating meat, for many people, boils down to killing another being for one's own pleasure "tastiness" (I put it in quotes because most people butcher cooking meat at home). If one has no qualms with killing animals unnecessarily, then we should really be feeding all the stray dogs to the homeless but obviously this does not happen. Why? Because people have moral issues with killing dogs and cats. Not eating meat is simply an extension of this.
- marginalia_nu 5y ago
  I would say the reason it's a taboo to eat predators and scavengers like cats and dogs and rats and bears and sharks and coyotes and tigers and lions and what have you is because predators and scavengers accumulate parasites and toxins. At any rate, you're still not explaining why, merely pointing out an inconsistency across animals as a whole. What if it is wrong to eat dogs but right to eat cows? Why couldn't it be so?
  - hervature 5y ago
    Where I come from, eating bear was not considered taboo. Many places also with sharks. I'm not sure what kind of response you are looking for, but "thou shall not kill" is a pretty universal rule in all societies around the world. I think the onus is on you to explain why that rule should be broken. For instance, going to war to stop tyranny could be a justification.
    - marginalia_nu 5y ago
      Couldn't this line of reasoning also be extended to plants? Why is it wrong to eat a hamburger but not to mow your lawn or treat a bacterial infection? Surely, if all killing is equally wrong, then how can we go on living? One could even claim to be righteously executing the murderous cow because it spends all day maiming and murdering innocent plant matter.