4 ms·

It's just the circle of life. Live in a remotely rural area with animals around and you're going to see pretty regular death. For instance foxes are beautiful,

It's just the circle of life. Live in a remotely rural area with animals around and you're going to see pretty regular death. For instance foxes are beautiful, extremely intelligent, and amazing animals. They'll also systematically and sadistically kill literally every single chicken inside a henhouse, one by one, if they get in. In another instance a dog I loved more than anything as a child to young adult was killed by a wild boar - tusk straight into the lungs. The same, by the way, applies to vegetarian stuff. The amount of critters being killed to keep them away from the veggies would probably shock you, especially in the rather inhumane way its sometimes done in industrial farms. Shooting, for some baseline, is considered one of the most humane ways of dealing with large pests. I simply see nothing wrong, at all, with eating meat. It's a natural and normal part of life and also, by far, the easiest way to ensure you hit all your necessary nutrients without going overboard on calories - especially if you live an active life and/or are into things like weight training.

addicted 2y ago
Murder is also part of the “circle of life”, whatever that may mean, given that it’s pablum that means nothing. As is disease. We rightfully find these immoral and don’t engage in them. That’s not a defense of the immoral act. It’s just words to describe the immoral act.
- amanaplanacanal 2y ago
  Try this then: every animal eats other living things to survive. We have been doing it for a billion years. Is a basic drive built into it DNA. After that, is just a question of which living things you are going to eat.
  - 42772827 2y ago
    The key difference between humans and every other animal that has ever existed is our ability to reason about systems and the morality of actions. Some birds will abandon weaker chicks to focus on the ones most likely to survive. Others will allow siblicide. That these behaviors exist and have existed for billions of years is a fact orthogonal to morality because birds don’t have the capacity to reason about systems and the mortality of actions. “Living things” is a sleight of hand, logically. When it comes down to it, everything is just atoms in the end. So why not murder? Why not steal? Why not exploit the poor? Reductionism leads us down some very dark paths indeed.
    - slothtrop 2y ago
      Morality is arrived at through value judgement. We have a social contract with each other, not animals. People generally dislike gratuitous pain and cruelty, hence we're seeing a push for cage-free hens and the like. They don't oppose slaughter in and of itself.
      - 42772827 2y ago
        What people generally oppose today is a function of their consciousness and ability to access alternatives. They don’t oppose slaughter because they don’t think there’s an alternative, the same way that a person who is on the verge of starvation will steal food. They also don’t oppose slaughter because it’s hidden away from them, and done by others. Slavery is an excellent cognate to this. It’s a slippery slope, isn’t it? If you’re not careful with your compassion, you’ll end up having it for all sorts of beings you’ve come to see as like yourself.
        AlexandrB 2y ago
        > Slavery is an excellent cognate to this. No it's not. I always find the idea that humans are not in some way special (at least to other humans) off-putting. Even animals treat members of their own species generally better than they treat other species. I love animals, I think we should treat them with dignity and respect as much as possible. At the same time I would not hesitate to kill an animal for food or if it endangered another human.
        42772827 2y ago
        The cognate here is about how attitudes about systemic actions can change due to a shift in consciousness and access to alternatives. Many people saw black people as not their own kind, and saw no reason — beyond economic imperative - to treat them with compassion. You said yourself: >I think we should treat them with dignity and respect as much as possible. It becomes more possible to treat animals with more respect and dignity every day. For vast portions of the population (Not all! Not yet!) the slaughter of animals for food is becoming less and less necessary. So the question becomes, given that you believe we should treat animals with as much respect and dignity as possible, do you believe you have a moral imperative to take advantage of these systemic advances?
  - erfgh 2y ago
    That's factually incorrect. You don't have to kill a plant to get the fruit and/or the seeds it produces.
  - paulcole 2y ago
    Do you follow every basic drive built into DNA?
- slothtrop 2y ago
  You skipped a step. Immoral acts are immoral because we deem them so. Animal slaughter in itself is not generally thought as such. Unless you think aboriginal / hunter-gatherer tribes who maintain their traditions are immoral for not modernizing.
- sigzero 2y ago
  Killing is part of the "circle of life". Murder is not. They are two very different concepts.
erfgh 2y ago
Ease cannot be used to ethically justify an action. But even so, you ignore that, according to research, people who eat meat have worse health than people who don't.
- slothtrop 2y ago
  It's not that simple. High consumption of animal saturated fat can raise total blood cholesterol, but animal consumption in and of itself does not necessitate that. Notwithstanding, with a balanced diet high in vegetables and fiber, omnivores do not fare any worse than vegans in acm.
  - aziaziazi 2y ago
    While that’s true in theory, we don’t observe a sufficient fiber intake for most human omnivore. That is Erfgh point : the classic diet don’t meet nutrients goals when studied on the field by researchers.
    - slothtrop 2y ago
      > we don’t observe a sufficient fiber intake for most human omnivore. This has no bearing on the argument. That is just as true of vegans who purchase boxed products. It's also fairly US-centric. If you observe countries with the longest lifespan, lowest CVD incidence and overall best health outcomes, they consume a more varied whole-foods diet with animal products. > the classic diet This is the Americanized diet of ultra-processed foods. Whole foods are the solution, which is in no way shape or form contingent on whether animal products are included (unless the diet is "carnivore" which is not representative, and even there you can find traditional societies who fare ok even if not completely optimally).
      - aziaziazi 2y ago
        I agree that a whole food diet is better than the “boxed” one but I have no comparaison point for the US. I’m from France and many people value whole food, “good products” and cook at home however even those gets diabetes, intestinal and blood cancers and other problems that would be easily avoided with more vegetable consumption. The fact is meat is often the central peace of the dish, second the carbs and then salads, cabbages and roots. People say they loves them but when they are on the plate it’s more a decoration that a portion.
sneak 2y ago
> It's a natural and normal part of life So is dying of smallpox. Wikipedia: > Smallpox is estimated to have killed up to 300 million people in the 20th century and around 500 million people in the last 100 years of its existence. Completely natural, and completely normal. That doesn’t mean we should be engaging in it in 2025. The naturalistic fallacy is not justification for killing living things.

addicted 2y ago

Murder is also part of the “circle of life”, whatever that may mean, given that it’s pablum that means nothing. As is disease. We rightfully find these immoral and don’t engage in them. That’s not a defense of the immoral act. It’s just words to describe the immoral act.

amanaplanacanal 2y ago
Try this then: every animal eats other living things to survive. We have been doing it for a billion years. Is a basic drive built into it DNA. After that, is just a question of which living things you are going to eat.
- 42772827 2y ago
  The key difference between humans and every other animal that has ever existed is our ability to reason about systems and the morality of actions. Some birds will abandon weaker chicks to focus on the ones most likely to survive. Others will allow siblicide. That these behaviors exist and have existed for billions of years is a fact orthogonal to morality because birds don’t have the capacity to reason about systems and the mortality of actions. “Living things” is a sleight of hand, logically. When it comes down to it, everything is just atoms in the end. So why not murder? Why not steal? Why not exploit the poor? Reductionism leads us down some very dark paths indeed.
  - slothtrop 2y ago
    Morality is arrived at through value judgement. We have a social contract with each other, not animals. People generally dislike gratuitous pain and cruelty, hence we're seeing a push for cage-free hens and the like. They don't oppose slaughter in and of itself.
    - 42772827 2y ago
      What people generally oppose today is a function of their consciousness and ability to access alternatives. They don’t oppose slaughter because they don’t think there’s an alternative, the same way that a person who is on the verge of starvation will steal food. They also don’t oppose slaughter because it’s hidden away from them, and done by others. Slavery is an excellent cognate to this. It’s a slippery slope, isn’t it? If you’re not careful with your compassion, you’ll end up having it for all sorts of beings you’ve come to see as like yourself.
      - AlexandrB 2y ago
        > Slavery is an excellent cognate to this. No it's not. I always find the idea that humans are not in some way special (at least to other humans) off-putting. Even animals treat members of their own species generally better than they treat other species. I love animals, I think we should treat them with dignity and respect as much as possible. At the same time I would not hesitate to kill an animal for food or if it endangered another human.
        42772827 2y ago
        The cognate here is about how attitudes about systemic actions can change due to a shift in consciousness and access to alternatives. Many people saw black people as not their own kind, and saw no reason — beyond economic imperative - to treat them with compassion. You said yourself: >I think we should treat them with dignity and respect as much as possible. It becomes more possible to treat animals with more respect and dignity every day. For vast portions of the population (Not all! Not yet!) the slaughter of animals for food is becoming less and less necessary. So the question becomes, given that you believe we should treat animals with as much respect and dignity as possible, do you believe you have a moral imperative to take advantage of these systemic advances?
- erfgh 2y ago
  That's factually incorrect. You don't have to kill a plant to get the fruit and/or the seeds it produces.
- paulcole 2y ago
  Do you follow every basic drive built into DNA?
slothtrop 2y ago
You skipped a step. Immoral acts are immoral because we deem them so. Animal slaughter in itself is not generally thought as such. Unless you think aboriginal / hunter-gatherer tribes who maintain their traditions are immoral for not modernizing.
sigzero 2y ago
Killing is part of the "circle of life". Murder is not. They are two very different concepts.

erfgh 2y ago

Ease cannot be used to ethically justify an action. But even so, you ignore that, according to research, people who eat meat have worse health than people who don't.

slothtrop 2y ago
It's not that simple. High consumption of animal saturated fat can raise total blood cholesterol, but animal consumption in and of itself does not necessitate that. Notwithstanding, with a balanced diet high in vegetables and fiber, omnivores do not fare any worse than vegans in acm.
- aziaziazi 2y ago
  While that’s true in theory, we don’t observe a sufficient fiber intake for most human omnivore. That is Erfgh point : the classic diet don’t meet nutrients goals when studied on the field by researchers.
  - slothtrop 2y ago
    > we don’t observe a sufficient fiber intake for most human omnivore. This has no bearing on the argument. That is just as true of vegans who purchase boxed products. It's also fairly US-centric. If you observe countries with the longest lifespan, lowest CVD incidence and overall best health outcomes, they consume a more varied whole-foods diet with animal products. > the classic diet This is the Americanized diet of ultra-processed foods. Whole foods are the solution, which is in no way shape or form contingent on whether animal products are included (unless the diet is "carnivore" which is not representative, and even there you can find traditional societies who fare ok even if not completely optimally).
    - aziaziazi 2y ago
      I agree that a whole food diet is better than the “boxed” one but I have no comparaison point for the US. I’m from France and many people value whole food, “good products” and cook at home however even those gets diabetes, intestinal and blood cancers and other problems that would be easily avoided with more vegetable consumption. The fact is meat is often the central peace of the dish, second the carbs and then salads, cabbages and roots. People say they loves them but when they are on the plate it’s more a decoration that a portion.

sneak 2y ago

> It's a natural and normal part of life So is dying of smallpox. Wikipedia: > Smallpox is estimated to have killed up to 300 million people in the 20th century and around 500 million people in the last 100 years of its existence. Completely natural, and completely normal. That doesn’t mean we should be engaging in it in 2025. The naturalistic fallacy is not justification for killing living things.