4 ms·

And while that's a nice survey of one side of the argument, it doesn't mean anything. People that agree with you that meat => cruelty will, as it happens, agree

by fargle 4y ago

And while that's a nice survey of one side of the argument, it doesn't mean anything. People that agree with you that meat => cruelty will, as it happens, agree with you. But I don't. Lots of other people don't. In fact, a majority of people don't. I despise cruelty to animals and the people who inflict it. I just don't think that for example, separating calves, is necessarily cruel. I don't think that eating their meat and wearing their skins is necessarily cruel either. It's not for lack of education or empathy. I raise animals, I love animals, and yet I still eat some. I have no issue with that. uberman has a good point that not everyone agrees or thinks that position is obviously true. And it's a far more intelligent argument than just restating your obvious position as fact.

myshpa 4y ago
> I despise cruelty to animals and the people who inflict it. I just don't think that for example, separating calves, is necessarily cruel > I raise animals, I love animals, and yet I still eat some. I have no issue with that https://www.farmforward.com/issues/animal-welfare/animal-welfare-issues/ https://www.farmforward.com/issues/animal-welfare/animal-wel... Gary Comstock, professor of philosophy at North Carolina State University. "People used to justify eating meat for biological reasons: we are omnivores, our incisors are designed to eat meat, this is a natural thing for us to do. The problem is there are many natural things that are not right for us to do, and the biological features are irrelevant to the question of how we ought to live our lives. "Evidence seems to be building that the shoe's on the other foot now; that those who want to kill animals and eat them ought to justify their view. It shouldn't be the other way round." --- Tell your descendants that you truly love animals, when they'll ask you why are wild mammals, all elephants, giraffes and tigers extinct, and why is the earth in such a bad shape. They'll surely understand why you couldn't give up meat & dairy. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/mar/18/a-wake-up-call-total-weight-of-wild-mammals-less-than-10-of-humanitys https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/mar/18/a-wake-u... - ‘A wake-up call’: total weight of wild mammals less than 10% of humanity’s https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320356605_Agriculture_production_as_a_major_driver_of_the_Earth_system_exceeding_planetary_boundaries https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320356605_Agricultu... - Agriculture production is a major driver of the Earth system exceeding planetary boundaries
- fargle 4y ago
  While I appreciate your ability to make appeals to authority, particularly those who agree with you, those are not convincing arguments. The conversation is about whether there is a Moral Paradox involved in eating animals while believing you are a moral person. Not about deforestation or extinction, etc. If you ask me, by the way, the problem is just flat out too many people not what they choose to eat. Every living thing eats something. Plants? Other animals? Decayed dead animals and plants? (dirt) Something. I don't subscribe to a moral theory that makes ones own existence immoral, nor a moral theory that makes every other animal's existence immoral. So eating other previously living things is itself not fundamentally immoral. If you want to say how we do so matters, then I don't completely disagree. There certainly exist people and groups of people who behave immorally in all sorts of ways and that includes being cruel or wasteful with all different kinds of natural resources, including animals. So these people are behaving immorally and badly. But I do believe, on my own observations, that the overwhelming majority of meat farming in the developed nations is not cruel. It sometimes isn't pretty, but it isn't cruel or immoral - it's a job and a crop. No more immoral than growing wheat just to cut it down. When I buy 1/2 of a pig that my neighbor butchers, that I watched grow up running around in the pen next door, there's nothing wrong with that. In fact I have a lot more respect for that then people who know nothing about agriculture or animals pretending that, on the basis of some moral theory, they know better how the rest of us should behave and believe.
  - myshpa 4y ago
    > Not about deforestation or extinction, etc. If you do something, and you're not forced to do that, it's just your choice to do it, and it leads to the extinction (ad absurdum), is it a moral (or logical) thing to do? > the problem is just flat out too many people not what they choose to eat ??? > No more immoral than growing wheat just to cut it down You're driving a car, too fast, and in a moment have to choose ... will you kill few lambs or destroy few rose shrubs ? If you choose lambs, ask your kid what you should do ... he'll know instantly. > those are not convincing arguments ditto
    - fargle 4y ago

by fargle 4y ago

myshpa 4y ago

> I despise cruelty to animals and the people who inflict it. I just don't think that for example, separating calves, is necessarily cruel > I raise animals, I love animals, and yet I still eat some. I have no issue with that https://www.farmforward.com/issues/animal-welfare/animal-welfare-issues/ https://www.farmforward.com/issues/animal-welfare/animal-wel... Gary Comstock, professor of philosophy at North Carolina State University. "People used to justify eating meat for biological reasons: we are omnivores, our incisors are designed to eat meat, this is a natural thing for us to do. The problem is there are many natural things that are not right for us to do, and the biological features are irrelevant to the question of how we ought to live our lives. "Evidence seems to be building that the shoe's on the other foot now; that those who want to kill animals and eat them ought to justify their view. It shouldn't be the other way round." --- Tell your descendants that you truly love animals, when they'll ask you why are wild mammals, all elephants, giraffes and tigers extinct, and why is the earth in such a bad shape. They'll surely understand why you couldn't give up meat & dairy. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/mar/18/a-wake-up-call-total-weight-of-wild-mammals-less-than-10-of-humanitys https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/mar/18/a-wake-u... - ‘A wake-up call’: total weight of wild mammals less than 10% of humanity’s https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320356605_Agriculture_production_as_a_major_driver_of_the_Earth_system_exceeding_planetary_boundaries https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320356605_Agricultu... - Agriculture production is a major driver of the Earth system exceeding planetary boundaries

fargle 4y ago
While I appreciate your ability to make appeals to authority, particularly those who agree with you, those are not convincing arguments. The conversation is about whether there is a Moral Paradox involved in eating animals while believing you are a moral person. Not about deforestation or extinction, etc. If you ask me, by the way, the problem is just flat out too many people not what they choose to eat. Every living thing eats something. Plants? Other animals? Decayed dead animals and plants? (dirt) Something. I don't subscribe to a moral theory that makes ones own existence immoral, nor a moral theory that makes every other animal's existence immoral. So eating other previously living things is itself not fundamentally immoral. If you want to say how we do so matters, then I don't completely disagree. There certainly exist people and groups of people who behave immorally in all sorts of ways and that includes being cruel or wasteful with all different kinds of natural resources, including animals. So these people are behaving immorally and badly. But I do believe, on my own observations, that the overwhelming majority of meat farming in the developed nations is not cruel. It sometimes isn't pretty, but it isn't cruel or immoral - it's a job and a crop. No more immoral than growing wheat just to cut it down. When I buy 1/2 of a pig that my neighbor butchers, that I watched grow up running around in the pen next door, there's nothing wrong with that. In fact I have a lot more respect for that then people who know nothing about agriculture or animals pretending that, on the basis of some moral theory, they know better how the rest of us should behave and believe.
- myshpa 4y ago
  > Not about deforestation or extinction, etc. If you do something, and you're not forced to do that, it's just your choice to do it, and it leads to the extinction (ad absurdum), is it a moral (or logical) thing to do? > the problem is just flat out too many people not what they choose to eat ??? > No more immoral than growing wheat just to cut it down You're driving a car, too fast, and in a moment have to choose ... will you kill few lambs or destroy few rose shrubs ? If you choose lambs, ask your kid what you should do ... he'll know instantly. > those are not convincing arguments ditto
  - fargle 4y ago