3 ms·

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 a

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

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)