5 ms·

My point was about suffering + killing of the animal. What happens after was irrelevant. 'pink slime' was irrelevant, and 'disrespectful' was a absurd term. But

My point was about suffering + killing of the animal. What happens after was irrelevant. 'pink slime' was irrelevant, and 'disrespectful' was a absurd term. But they move attention from the issue of suffering + killing. FTR once you killed an animal it makes no sense not to use it fully so I agree with you - but that wasn't my point, had nothing to do with it.

aerostable_slug 4y ago
No, they don't. They highlight the issue of killing. The animal is being killed, so it makes moral and practical sense to exploit the carcass as much as possible. I'm not sure why this is hard to grasp, unless your entire premise is that killing animals for human use is innately immoral and unacceptable. To that, I simply disagree.
- zasdffaa 4y ago
  Using the carcass 100% or 0% after death will not affect by a jot the fact the animal was killed, nor erase in the slightest any suffering it went through. If an animal died in agony then how the carcass was used does not erase any of that suffering. That's my point you seem unable to grasp. FYI I do not necessarily see killing an animal as wrong, though you want me to as that would fit me into a neat cliche of vegan or hippy or whatever you can file me away under (or so ISTM). People aren't necessarily that simple.
  - aerostable_slug 4y ago
    Who says there was terrible suffering? Modern slaughterhouses minimize this possibility (Grandin's legacy), and 'bespoke' slaughtering effectively eliminates it in my direct experience. One day it's munching away on some sweet feed and then BANG cow/pig/etc. heaven. The same is true with ethical hunting — I'd far rather take a well-constructed bullet to the boiler room and quickly fade out than have predators ripping me up while I'm still alive. The point of fully exploiting the carcass is recognizing that a life was taken, regardless of suffering, and choosing to make as much use of it as possible. Nothing I've written is intended to minimize suffering or other inhumane treatment.
    - zasdffaa 4y ago
      > Who says there was terrible suffering? jesus. Nobody. I said 'if' > Modern slaughterhouses minimize this possibility (Grandin's legacy), EXACTLY MY POINT IN THE ORIGINAL POST! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33657818 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33657818 > — I'd far rather take a well-constructed bullet to the boiler room and quickly fade out than I'd want the same. > The point of fully exploiting the carcass is recognizing that a life was taken, regardless of suffering, and choosing to make as much use of it as possible While economically that makes sense, that is a money/efficiency issue not an ethical one. So I agree fiscally but say that has no ethical bearing.
      - everforward 4y ago
        > While economically that makes sense, that is a money/efficiency issue not an ethical one. So I agree fiscally but say that has no ethical bearing. All else equal, extracting the maximum food products from an animal should reduce the number we have to slaughter. It would be absurd, but if we only processed half the animal, we would need to slaughter twice as many to provide the same amount of meat. In reality, I think it's not that simple because more efficient processes lower the cost of meat which increases demand.
        zasdffaa 4y ago
        Excellent points, thanks (and ref to jevon's paradox)

aerostable_slug 4y ago

No, they don't. They highlight the issue of killing. The animal is being killed, so it makes moral and practical sense to exploit the carcass as much as possible. I'm not sure why this is hard to grasp, unless your entire premise is that killing animals for human use is innately immoral and unacceptable. To that, I simply disagree.

zasdffaa 4y ago
Using the carcass 100% or 0% after death will not affect by a jot the fact the animal was killed, nor erase in the slightest any suffering it went through. If an animal died in agony then how the carcass was used does not erase any of that suffering. That's my point you seem unable to grasp. FYI I do not necessarily see killing an animal as wrong, though you want me to as that would fit me into a neat cliche of vegan or hippy or whatever you can file me away under (or so ISTM). People aren't necessarily that simple.
- aerostable_slug 4y ago
  Who says there was terrible suffering? Modern slaughterhouses minimize this possibility (Grandin's legacy), and 'bespoke' slaughtering effectively eliminates it in my direct experience. One day it's munching away on some sweet feed and then BANG cow/pig/etc. heaven. The same is true with ethical hunting — I'd far rather take a well-constructed bullet to the boiler room and quickly fade out than have predators ripping me up while I'm still alive. The point of fully exploiting the carcass is recognizing that a life was taken, regardless of suffering, and choosing to make as much use of it as possible. Nothing I've written is intended to minimize suffering or other inhumane treatment.
  - zasdffaa 4y ago
    > Who says there was terrible suffering? jesus. Nobody. I said 'if' > Modern slaughterhouses minimize this possibility (Grandin's legacy), EXACTLY MY POINT IN THE ORIGINAL POST! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33657818 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33657818 > — I'd far rather take a well-constructed bullet to the boiler room and quickly fade out than I'd want the same. > The point of fully exploiting the carcass is recognizing that a life was taken, regardless of suffering, and choosing to make as much use of it as possible While economically that makes sense, that is a money/efficiency issue not an ethical one. So I agree fiscally but say that has no ethical bearing.
    - everforward 4y ago
      > While economically that makes sense, that is a money/efficiency issue not an ethical one. So I agree fiscally but say that has no ethical bearing. All else equal, extracting the maximum food products from an animal should reduce the number we have to slaughter. It would be absurd, but if we only processed half the animal, we would need to slaughter twice as many to provide the same amount of meat. In reality, I think it's not that simple because more efficient processes lower the cost of meat which increases demand.
      - zasdffaa 4y ago
        Excellent points, thanks (and ref to jevon's paradox)