What is your excuse for not being vegan?

[charliepoo]

People do things that make them unhappy all the time. People have greater needs than just happiness.

Like ... eating steak tacos!

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

I think by default, you've admitted your error of reasoning.



Upon attaining it, you will be happy. The happiness of others has promoted the survival of the human species.



You haven't proven it's a delusion in any way at all. When asked to prove anything, you ducked and covered. I suspect that basically you're just miserable and frustrated and want others to join in your club, because you don't know how to get to the happiness club. Your invite is not tempting.



Then you need to go over your basic biology classes again and remember what a neuron is. If you don't have a good grasp of the physical basis of reality, you're going to have a lot of trouble with all kinds of 'delusions'.

I had a friend of mine going on about some nonsense about existence, somewhat but not exactly like you. So I grabbed his wrist and put it in a very painful lock. It was an unkind move on my part, and I don't think we had quite enough trust in our friendship for that to have been an entirely appropriate thing to do. But I made my point, I think. He stopped wallowing in nonsense about experience, at least at that juncture of conversation.

Maybe you need someone to smack you in the face with an iron bar? Or maybe you could just run yourself into a brick wall, to remember what experience is.

So you believe in absolute morality?

How did a mindless universe create absolute morality?

Come on, what is happy? The ultimate good, the meaning of all existence?

You have the meaning of life?

Are you a Utilitarian, bro?

People do things that make them unhappy all the time. People have greater needs than just happiness.

bvanevery here believes that only happiness matters, and everything else should be subjugated to it.

So your "greater needs" are just slaves providing a pathway for the happy.

Mind enlightening us, Grayman?

 

[Sly-fy]

How did a mindless universe create absolute morality?

Isn`t it presumptuous to dismiss even the possibility of intelligent design?

 

[PaulMaster]

Isn`t it presumptuous to dismiss even the possibility of intelligent design?

I agree with this. We dont know. We cant know. The answer is beyond our capacity for understanding.

There are certain frequencies of light we cant see. Certain frequencies of sound we cant hear. Gasses we cant smell...its not a stretch at all to say there are realities we cannot understand. We've developed and evolved as specialists on this particular planet.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

I agree with this. We dont know. We cant know. The answer is beyond our capacity for understanding.

There are certain frequencies of light we cant see. Certain frequencies of sound we cant hear. Gasses we cant smell...its not a stretch at all to say there are realities we cannot understand. We've developed and evolved as specialists on this particular planet.

Thanks to the invention of science, we can now detect these frequences.

And thanks to the invention of LSD, we can now detect these realities.

 

[PaulMaster]

Thanks to the invention of science, we can now detect these frequences.

And thanks to the invention of LSD, we can now detect these realities.

Good point about scientific instruments, but LSD and other psychedelics do not create anything. Rather they destroy the "walls" that separate sensory equipment in the brain. At best it allows for a different way of thinking, a varied perspective maybe. But we dont get any new hardware. The software just runs differently. Attributing extra sensory detection to drugs like LSD is like attributing extra meaning to dreams or daily thoughts.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

Good point about scientific instruments, but LSD and other psychedelics do not create anything. Rather they destroy the "walls" that separate sensory equipment in the brain. At best it allows for a different way of thinking, a varied perspective maybe. But we dont get any new hardware. The software just runs differently. Attributing extra sensory detection to drugs like LSD is like attributing extra meaning to dreams or daily thoughts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eA3XCvrK90

Geez, how much MORE meaning could dreams have...?

Tap into the collective unconscious with your archetypal downloads!

 

[PaulMaster]

Geez, how much MORE meaning could dreams have...?

Dreams are nothing more than your own thoughts. We apply whatever meaning we like to everything, including thoughts and dreams.

So I dont know...how much more meaning do your dreams have?

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

Dreams are nothing more than your own thoughts. We apply whatever meaning we like to everything, including thoughts and dreams.

So I dont know...how much more meaning do your dreams have?

Behind the world... the world of what see... is a flame.... burning.... burning endlessly...

We see, we are, we never were more than what we will be in time...

Ah, but step into the world of the mind and you will find, what there is...

If meaning is what we make it, what we make it mean when we can make it mean what we -really- mean... well, you know what I mean.

I can't lie. It's all on you.

 

[bvanevery]

So you believe in absolute morality?

You are changing subjects, which is a debating dodge. I guess being wrong is too painful for you to deal with.

 

[bvanevery]

Isn`t it presumptuous to dismiss even the possibility of intelligent design?

Where is the evidence? Complexity is not evidence. The basic problem with a belief in intelligent design is it's not falsifiable. I bring up radio carbon dating, you can claim that an intelligent designer just made everything look that way. There's no way to test anything in the presence of such a devious designing being. Fortunately, if you look at people's social / cultural patterns you can see a lot of circumstantial evidence that people make shit up in order to be right and hold power. That's all your intelligent design actually is, it's nothing we can presently observe.

Do we need intelligent design to explain how we all got here? No, we don't. That's important, the lack of necessity of this explanation.

Could something in the universe have been intelligently designed? Sure, somewhere. After all, we're editing the DNA code of organisms right now. But there's no observable evidence for intelligent design for our own origin, right here, right now. Maybe some aliens on the other side of the universe got designed by some other aliens, who knows. We can't observe the whole universe, or all events that have occurred in time. But we know what we're working with presently.

 

[Reluctantly]

I'm not a fan of meat-eating because I find it gross for the most part. I do cook bacon on occasion though (and eat pepperoni on pizza); it's very good if cooked right. I saw a thing on pigs being tortured in meat factories to make our bacon, so I suppose I should care and stop eating it, but I don't.

I also eat milk and eggs; technically vegans aren't supposed to eat milk and eggs, anything that's an animal by-product or product, and I don't see anything wrong with that. I'm probably closer to a vegetarian than anything else, minus the bacon part.

 

[420MuNkEy]

As obvious as it may sound, the breakdown here seems to be around whether or not harm to a non-human is morally and/or ethically equivalent to harm to a human.

I'm of the opinion that humans, first and foremost myself, are more important than any other living thing and that the only reason to care about other species is in how their existence affects us. Prioritization of one's own species is necessary (it seems to me) for a species to flourish.

Was the smallpox genocide "unethical"? How about pesticides (which, by the way, commercially grown "organic" crops still use)? This prioritization of humans over other life is pervasive and seemingly inconsistently applied by vegetarians. Plants are alive too and have chemical responses to being damaged.

Life is sustained by death and is a competition between species. If you truly think all life is equal - never take antibiotics, wash your hands, swat a mosquito (not only despite the fact that it may be carrying malaria or zika, but because of it), etc. This is an untenable position.

The real question here seems to be whether or not producing meat for consumption is as beneficial to sustaining and improving the quality of human life, to which I'd answer with a resounding "Yes".

 

[PaulMaster]

As obvious as it may sound, the breakdown here seems to be around whether or not harm to a non-human is morally and/or ethically equivalent to harm to a human.

I'm of the opinion that humans, first and foremost myself, are more important than any other living thing and that the only reason to care about other species is in how their existence affects us. Prioritization of one's own species is necessary (it seems to me) for a species to flourish.

Was the smallpox genocide "unethical"? How about pesticides (which, by the way, commercially grown "organic" crops still use)? This prioritization of humans over other life is pervasive and seemingly inconsistently applied by vegetarians. Plants are alive too and have chemical responses to being damaged.

Life is sustained by death and is a competition between species. If you truly think all life is equal - never take antibiotics, wash your hands, swat a mosquito (not only despite the fact that it may be carrying malaria or zika, but because of it), etc. This is an untenable position.

The real question here seems to be whether or not producing meat for consumption is as beneficial to sustaining and improving the quality of human life, to which I'd answer with a resounding "Yes".

Hell yea, fuck animals. I'm hungry.

 

[Grayman]

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/bambi-or-bessie-are-wild-animals-happier/

@Yellow

I found the above to be a good read and strongly related to your argument, although in opposition to your argument.

 

[Grayman]

Hell yea, fuck animals. I'm hungry.

http://intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=22905&highlight=bestiality

Hey man I agree! Cum hang with us on the bestiality thread!

 

[ruminator]

Forgive me if this has been covered in the thread, but even assuming that meat is necessary for human health, would not the meat consumed in excess of our nutritional requirements be unjustifiable with that argument?

For example, we are recommended to eat meat 2-3 times a week. Then are people who consume it daily acting unethically for the remaining 4-5 days?

 

[Grayman]

This is a good article that addresses the future of our environment. So even if you don't care about animals, if you care about humans then this is a good case to support going vegan.

http://www.onegreenplanet.org/animalsandnature/eat-for-the-planet-meat-and-the-environment/

Side thought: I am in support of a huge tax on meat that can then be used to subsidize the cost of plant food.

 

[bvanevery]

Forgive me if this has been covered in the thread, but even assuming that meat is necessary for human health, would not the meat consumed in excess of our nutritional requirements be unjustifiable with that argument?

For example, we are recommended to eat meat 2-3 times a week. Then are people who consume it daily acting unethically for the remaining 4-5 days?

I did go through a meat minimalism phase once. I thought liverwurst was special and ate a very small amount of it over time. Eventually I decided that liverwurst was not in fact special and had no more efficacy for holding my brain together than any other kind of meat. Eventually my ceremonies and rituals didn't seem very compelling. I find it hard to keep up the moral pretense that I'm somehow a better person for eating a smaller quantity of meat than I might otherwise eat on average.

Similar feelings about how much water I could conserve and make minimal use of, if I was in a camping situation, vs. civilization with unlimited treated water. It's hard to keep caring.

 

[bvanevery]

Side thought: I am in support of a huge tax on meat that can then be used to subsidize the cost of plant food.

Do you really believe that any government would ever direct the funds the way you say? I don't. My experience with government is they raid the cookie jar for whatever projects they want to pay for. Especially, your vegan party isn't in power this election cycle. So the funds are appropriated for something else.

Also, experience with huge taxes on cigarettes, is if you do too much of that, you create smuggling. There is only so much money that citizens will allow the government to take, when the costs are egregious and punishing, and the citizens don't see any direct benefit for having their wallets lightened. I've never been made aware of cigarette taxes going to anything in particular that most people care about.

 

[Grayman]

Do you really believe that any government would ever direct the funds the way you say? I don't. My experience with government is they raid the cookie jar for whatever projects they want to pay for. Especially, your vegan party isn't in power this election cycle. So the funds are appropriated for something else.

Also, experience with huge taxes on cigarettes, is if you do too much of that, you create smuggling. There is only so much money that citizens will allow the government to take, when the costs are egregious and punishing, and the citizens don't see any direct benefit for having their wallets lightened. I've never been made aware of cigarette taxes going to anything in particular that most people care about.

Yes, as more awareness programs come out concerning the evils of the animal industry, cancer from too much meat, heart disease, global warming co2, and the effect on our land people will support such things.

Cigarette use has been reduced by 50% in the last 30 years.

The greatest wall toward success is the conservative party which is losing power.

 

[Sly-fy]

Forgive me if this has been covered in the thread, but even assuming that meat is necessary for human health, would not the meat consumed in excess of our nutritional requirements be unjustifiable with that argument?

For example, we are recommended to eat meat 2-3 times a week. Then are people who consume it daily acting unethically for the remaining 4-5 days?

Although your point is valid, it has nothing to do with the question at hand, of being vegan or not being vegan.

But to indulge your point, I will outline the predictable consequences:

If we only consumed meet less than half the time we do, then the population of farm animals living at any given point would be less than half of what it is today. Even though the population numbers of farm animals are irrelevant to the issue of ethics, it would make all the consumed meet more than twice as expensive as it is now, since a lower supply would lower the availability and increase the demand. Such a drop in consumption doesn`t guarantee better treatment conditions for the animals that are left and would therefore only result in impractical and undesired results on the economy and the richness of human life. There is no conclusive study that shows that eating meat every day is detrimental to human health.

 

[420MuNkEy]

Forgive me if this has been covered in the thread, but even assuming that meat is necessary for human health, would not the meat consumed in excess of our nutritional requirements be unjustifiable with that argument?

For example, we are recommended to eat meat 2-3 times a week. Then are people who consume it daily acting unethically for the remaining 4-5 days?

Not in hedonic terms. Pleasure can be a benefit to humanity.

 

[420MuNkEy]

This is a good article that addresses the future of our environment. So even if you don't care about animals, if you care about humans then this is a good case to support going vegan.

http://www.onegreenplanet.org/animalsandnature/eat-for-the-planet-meat-and-the-environment/

Side thought: I am in support of a huge tax on meat that can then be used to subsidize the cost of plant food.

Instead of doing that, how about more/better/different nuclear reactors? I'm not willing to sacrifice when there are better alternatives that would make much more of a difference.

 

[bvanevery]

cancer from too much meat, heart disease,

My belief is various government backed dietary regimes are completely wrong, and there are well researched books, particularly those of Dr. Pearlmutter, explaining how they got it wrong. There's never going to be a society where everyone is willing to receive scientific claims simply as argument from authority. After all, if nothing else, the actual scientists have to come from somewhere and they don't all agree on such things. Particularly when a domain is complicated, like human biology.

To actually know whether something is right or wrong, and not simply receive the authority of some expert, you have to do a LOT of homework to reach a valid conclusion. Far more homework than most people are going to manage to put in. Even if they might want to do that kind of homework, there's like 10..20 other competing things in Life vying for that kind of intellectual investment. No one is capable of being an expert on all of it.

Dietarily, what I actually believe right now, is SUGAR is the #1 thing that is bad for people, that they consume way too much of. Fat chance of getting that regulated out of existence though. Once saturated fat and cholesterol were demonized, the food manufacturers all added sugar to compensate! They can't simply run out of things that give food a taste. First the policy flip-flopping about what is good or bad for you has to end.

global warming co2, and the effect on our land people will support such things.

That's another one of those "argument from authority" propositions. Have you personally done enough hands on global warming research to understand and believe all their claims about how awful CO2 is supposed to be?

Cigarette use has been reduced by 50% in the last 30 years.

Reduced is not eliminated, and there comes a lower limit beyond which 'Prohibitions' are not acceptable to people, at least not in the USA. As a nation we've been there and done that.

The greatest wall toward success is the conservative party which is losing power.

Not in the USA. It is now conceivable that Trump could be our next President. That said, I don't think he's all that conservative in the scheme of things.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

You are changing subjects, which is a debating dodge. I guess being wrong is too painful for you to deal with.

I'm not trying to debate a thing, Redshirt.

I'm searching for the fucking Holy Grail.

 

[ruminator]

Although your point is valid, it has nothing to do with the question at hand, of being vegan or not being vegan.

But to indulge your point, I will outline the predictable consequences:

If we only consumed meet less than half the time we do, then the population of farm animals living at any given point would be less than half of what it is today. Even though the population numbers of farm animals are irrelevant to the issue of ethics, it would make all the consumed meet more than twice as expensive as it is now, since a lower supply would lower the availability and increase the demand. Such a drop in consumption doesn`t guarantee better treatment conditions for the animals that are left and would therefore only result in impractical and undesired results on the economy and the richness of human life. There is no conclusive study that shows that eating meat every day is detrimental to human health.

It has to do with an argument meat-eaters constantly offer. The argument is obviously invalid.

So, since my point is valid, does that mean from now on, no one can use the "health" argument for meat-eating anymore? The point I just gave counters that.

And yet I still see people debating it..

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

Look ok, I care about this issue, I really do.

I just want to know this:

You see all this propaganda from PETA companies and shit with all these inhumane conditions for farm animals everywhere in most cases, and with psychopaths and shit, it's easy to believe.

So question, IS IT TRUE?

Is it true, that the animal we eat, has essentially lived a life of constant torture, completely outside of what its genetics dictate for it to live in line with how life is supposed to be lived?

More generally: are we promoting torture and death? Why? (SORRY TO GENERALISE THINGS TOO FAST )

 

[420MuNkEy]

Look ok, I care about this issue, I really do.

I just want to know this:

You see all this propaganda from PETA companies and shit with all these inhumane conditions for farm animals everywhere in most cases, and with psychopaths and shit, it's easy to believe.

So question, IS IT TRUE?

Is it true, that the animal we eat, has essentially lived a life of constant torture, completely outside of what its genetics dictate for it to live in line with how life is supposed to be lived?

More generally: are we promoting torture and death? Why? (SORRY TO GENERALISE THINGS TOO FAST )

Complete and absolute nonsense. Look at the work done by Temple Grandin.

When it gets right down to it, it doesn't make economic sense to treat your livestock like shit, because, big shock, they don't like it, fight against it, and you end up with a worse quality product that took more labor to get.

The PETA bullshit (let's call it what it is) also fails to put into context things like post-mortem muscle contractions and they routinely use footage of dead animals flailing around. While this looks horribly abusive, the animal is dead.

Just to cover my bases and say what shouldn't need to be said: I'm not saying that abuse doesn't exist in the industry - it certainly does, but it's the exception, not the rule.

Go visit a farm that raises chickens for the retail market if you don't believe me, They're not shy about what they do and will almost certainly let you see how they raise chickens if you just ask. Lest you think they're just going to clean up their act for just the duration of your visit, remember, this is a business and they have thousands of animals. They're not going to move them or clean them up just because some random person is coming by. That would take an insane amount of work that, again, wouldn't make financial sense.

Are the conditions you'll see ideal? No, probably not, but it will be a far cry from the torture and cruelty you paint as the norm.


Edit: Sorry, I misread the 2nd to last question as a statement starting with "It is true". Fucking lysdexia.

 

[Sly-fy]

Fucking lysdexia.

olo I mean lol!

BTW PETA kills the most animals each year, look it up...

 

[Grayman]

Are the conditions you'll see ideal? No, probably not, but it will be a far cry from the torture and cruelty you paint as the norm.

What do you view as torture and cruelty? Your definition is likely different than PETA.

Anyways, the US has implemented Anti-Terrorist security requirements for food industries and that has made accessibility a little more difficult. Even if you can get in, you are very limited to where you can go.

This isn't the case with small organic free-range farms but they aren't the real problem.

 

[Sly-fy]

What do you view as torture and cruelty? Your definition is likely different than PETA.

Anyways, the US has implemented Anti-Terrorist security requirements for food industries and that has made accessibility a little more difficult.

That made me connect some dots, the liberals should oppose Islam because the halal meat requirements involve cruelty toward animals.

 

[420MuNkEy]

What do you view as torture and cruelty? Your definition is likely different than PETA.

Anyways, the US has implemented Anti-Terrorist security requirements for food industries and that has made accessibility a little more difficult. Even if you can get in, you are very limited to where you can go.

This isn't the case with small organic free-range farms but they aren't the real problem.

My view of torture/cruelty is that which is needlessly excessive to serve the purpose or a situation where discomfort of another living creature is the primary or sole purpose of the action.

For example, if you need to detain someone you could easily physically overpower without the aid of a tool (and without extra danger to yourself), it would be cruel to beat that person repeatedly with a blunt object.

 

[Teax]

My view of torture/cruelty is that which is needlessly excessive to serve the purpose or a situation where discomfort of another living creature is the primary or sole purpose of the action.

So based on that, capturing an enemy spy and torturing him for information isn't cruel at all.

makes.... sense.....

 

[420MuNkEy]

So based on that, capturing an enemy spy and torturing him for information isn't cruel at all.

makes.... sense.....

It is cruel because torture has been demonstrated to be an ineffective means of gathering information. Also, human rights. Non-humans don't have human rights.

 

[Andronas]

I'm just curious. Please no TL;DR.

Meat tastes good. It's also cheaper not to be a vegan. Non-vegan food is more accessible.

 

[Grayman]

It is cruel because torture has been demonstrated to be an ineffective means of gathering information. Also, human rights. Non-humans don't have human rights.

It is interesting that that information was only obtained by torturing people.

I wonder what else we can learn.....

 

[420MuNkEy]

It is interesting that that information was only obtained by torturing people.

I wonder what else we can learn.....

We've learned a lot from doing horrible things. The fact that these things were horrible doesn't make the information we learned invalid, nor does it justify inflicting pain and suffering in the speculative pursuit of further knowledge.

It really seems like there's a effort to construct a strawmonster here.

 

[Grayman]

It really seems like there's a effort to construct a strawmonster here.

I didn't put any effort into it.

 

[redbaron]

When it gets right down to it, it doesn't make economic sense to treat your livestock like shit, because, big shock, they don't like it, fight against it, and you end up with a worse quality product that took more labor to get.

How do you figure this?

Feeding lower quality feed, adding growth hormones to food and keeping chickens in tight spaces is certainly more economic than the alternative. It surely takes more money, more time, more space and more resources to feed chickens proper food, let them grow-up in the normal period of time and to have them with enough space to roam/perch normally.

If you're talking about people who're just psychopathic and beat the animals or whatever, then yeah I'd agree that's unlikely to be the biggest issue. It's the terrible conditions the animals are kept in as much as the way they're handled that's torturous.

Go visit a farm that raises chickens for the retail market if you don't believe me, They're not shy about what they do and will almost certainly let you see how they raise chickens if you just ask. Lest you think they're just going to clean up their act for just the duration of your visit, remember, this is a business and they have thousands of animals. They're not going to move them or clean them up just because some random person is coming by. That would take an insane amount of work that, again, wouldn't make financial sense.

Are the conditions you'll see ideal? No, probably not, but it will be a far cry from the torture and cruelty you paint as the norm.

http://www.mercyforanimals.org/investigations

Perdue makes $6billion worth of annual sales and make up 7% of the market, and you'd expect that it's not the only supplier where animals are grossly mistreated either.

More taken from a large dairy farm: http://dairy.mercyforanimals.org/

 

[420MuNkEy]

How do you figure this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9ZM9DaMv-w

I think you're anthropomorphizing a bit much. Food quality, use of antibiotics, and available space don't relate to physical cruelty (which I was I was primarily talking about). Also, perception of food and perception of the acceptability of space isn't going to be the same as it would be for a human. Animals have different psychology. If you overcrowd for them, you'll have problems. The antibiotic thing really doesn't bother me at all because it's not like you feel them. I really don't see how this is cruelty. Perhaps bad practice, but not cruel.

http://www.mercyforanimals.org/investigations

Perdue makes $6billion worth of annual sales and make up 7% of the market, and you'd expect that it's not the only supplier where animals are grossly mistreated either.

Or how about this one: http://dairy.mercyforanimals.org/

I tried, and I just can't take these sources seriously. They wear their bias on their sleeve. Knowing the bullshit animal rights activists pull in terms of editing, outright lying, cherry picking, etc, makes me very incredulous. If, however, these investigations were performed by an independent organization, I'd be much more accepting of the findings.

 

[redbaron]

We can sit here all day and exchange videos where livestock are treated good and bad. The difference is though, I don't deny that handling practices are really good in many cases, possibly even the majority. You're the one denying that bad practice exists to a significant level.

I don't personally look to exaggerate how badly we treat animals, but I'm not naive enough to think it's all fine and dandy either.

​

Food quality, use of antibiotics, and available space don't relate to physical cruelty

...

You're kidding me right? Locking animals up in environments where their basic dietary requirements aren't met, they're forced to ingest hormones that cause their bodies to swell to the point they can't even stand and don't even have the room to spread their wings isn't cruelty?

I really don't see how this is cruelty. Perhaps bad practice, but not cruel.

You a sociopath or something?

I tried, and I just can't take these sources seriously. They wear their bias on their sleeve. Knowing the bullshit animal rights activists pull in terms of editing, outright lying, cherry picking, etc, makes me very incredulous. If, however, these investigations were performed by an independent organization, I'd be much more accepting of the findings.

I'm as skeptical of animal rights agencies as the next person, owing to the fact that their bias is indeed plain to see. However the evidence is pretty plain to see in the videos, regardless of editing or not. There's people literally stomping on chickens, animals stuffed into cramped conditions, barely able to walk or move etc.

Dismissing it as though it's totally irrelevant just because the person who made the video is biased towards ethical treatment of animals is absurd. Though I guess that's about the end of the conversation then, close your eyes and block your ears.

 

[420MuNkEy]

We can sit here all day and exchange videos where livestock are treated good and bad. The difference is though, I don't deny that handling practices are really good in many cases, possibly even the majority. You're the one denying that bad practice exists to a significant level.

I don't personally look to exaggerate how badly we treat animals, but I'm not naive enough to think it's all fine and dandy either.

I do so on free market principles. If you don't believe in the free market's ability to regulate itself, that would be require significant discussion and probably its own thread.

I'm as skeptical of animal rights agencies as the next person, owing to the fact that their bias is indeed plain to see. However the evidence is pretty plain to see in the videos, regardless of editing or not. There's people literally stomping on chickens, animals stuffed into cramped conditions, barely able to walk or move etc.

Dismissing it as though it's totally irrelevant just because the person who made the video is biased towards ethical treatment of animals is absurd. Though I guess that's about the end of the conversation then, close your eyes and block your ears.

Like I mentioned concern about the groups having done, you seem to have cherry picked what I said. I brought up multiple issues arising from these types of sources. Bottom line is I don't trust them - at all. They're not above outright lying (including staging things).

I don't deny that cases like this probably do exist to some degree, but that they're almost certainly the vast minority.

 

[redbaron]

I do so on free market principles. If you don't believe in the free market's ability to regulate itself, that would be require significant discussion and probably its own thread.

You actually don't see how it's way more profitable to deny animal's basic privileges that cost companies more money to provide, if they can get away with not providing it?

I don't deny that cases like this probably do exist to some degree, but that they're almost certainly the vast minority.

Based on...what exactly?

 

[420MuNkEy]

You actually don't see how it's way more profitable to deny animal's basic privileges that cost companies more money to provide, if they can get away with not providing it?

If you're stomping chickens to death, you're probably going to get pecked, or have an incident of some kind that costs the company money (in your medical bills, lawsuits, wasting time, etc). It's not a good way to do business.

If, however, you just have a much lower standard for what constitutes cruelty than I do, then there's nothing I can say to change your mind. We'll just never agree. A good metric would be whether or not you think feeding them "poor quality" food or giving them antibiotics as a preventative measure constitutes cruelty. I don't think it does.

One product that is somewhat cruel is veal, but its deliciousness outweighs any level of caring that I have.

Based on...what exactly?

See above

 

[redbaron]

If, however, you just have a much lower standard for what constitutes cruelty than I do, then there's nothing I can say to change your mind. A good metric would be whether or not you think feeding them "poor quality" food or giving them antibiotics as a preventative measure constitutes cruelty. I don't think it does.

Considering that the hormones they're given are often not for purely preventative measures, I'd disagree. Then again, we won't get far in that argument because you've got your little circle. See below.

See above

Okay, so it's circular reasoning. Gotcha.

"I've decided all animal activist sources are unreliable and all data they provide is misleading and/or outright untrue, therefore animal cruelty is a, "vast minority" thing."

Lovely little guilt-proof vest you've built for yourself there

 

[420MuNkEy]

Considering that the hormones they're given are often not for purely preventative measures, I'd disagree. Then again, we won't get far in that argument because you've got your little circle. See below.

Do hormones hurt? If so, how significantly? If not, what's the problem?

Okay, so it's circular reasoning. Gotcha.

"I've decided all animal activist sources are unreliable and all data they provide is misleading and/or outright untrue, therefore animal cruelty is a, "vast minority" thing."

Lovely little guilt-proof vest you've built for yourself there

You're misrepresenting me here. Those are two separate statements, not a "therefore" statement, hence the vertical whitespace separating the statements.

I don't trust the sources you provided.

I don't deny that cruelty exists, but for economic reasons.

 

[redbaron]

I don't deny that cruelty exists, but for economic reasons.

I think cruelty exists for economic reasons.

All it takes is for the basic individual human greed of the people who run corporations to outweigh their collective moral empathy for the plight of *insert beings here*.

It's really amazing to me that you think it's more economic to treat livestock well than to not. There's a reason we utilize slave-labour and keep people in poor living/working conditions as opposed to prioritizing ethical concerns: it's more profitable for corporations, and corporations are all about profit.

Same thing for animals.

(Wait, you're not about to tell me slave labour is the vast minority as well are you?)

You're misrepresenting me here. Those are two separate statements, not a "therefore" statement, hence the vertical whitespace separating the statements.

I don't trust the sources you provided.

I'm really not. The reason you think they're a vast minority is linked to your mistrust of all animal activists sources - whether you realise it or not.

I brought up multiple issues arising from these types of sources. Bottom line is I don't trust them - at all. They're not above outright lying (including staging things).

I don't deny that cases like this probably do exist to some degree, but that they're almost certainly the vast minority.

The thing is, of course evidence of animal abuse is going to come from parties who are against animal abuse. Where else is it going to come from? What neutral party is going to just go out of their way to spend weeks or months of their time investigating the incidence of animal abuse in livestock?

So yes, there's a credibility issue but outright denying all evidence that comes from, "these types of sources" that warrant caution - but outright denial of them all, purely on the basis of the interests of the party doing the investigations - is absurd.

 

[420MuNkEy]

I think cruelty exists for economic reasons.

All it takes is for the basic individual human greed of the people who run corporations to outweigh their collective moral empathy for the plight of *insert beings here*.

It's really amazing to me that you think it's more economic to treat livestock well than to not. There's a reason we utilize slave-labor and keep people in poor living/working conditions as opposed to prioritizing ethical concerns: it's more profitable for corporations, and corporations are all about profit.

Same thing for animals.

(Wait, you're not about to tell me slave labour is the vast minority as well are you?)

This is a pointless discussion if you're unwilling to define your terms, as I've already explained.

Also, in the places with a free market, slavery is vanishingly small.

I'm really not. The reason you think they're a vast minority is linked to your mistrust of all animal activists sources - whether you realise it or not.

Arbiter of truth, tell me more.
You don't know more about my thoughts and why I think them than me. Full stop.

The thing is, of course evidence of animal abuse is going to come from parties who are against animal abuse. Where else is it going to come from? What neutral party is going to just go out of their way to spend weeks or months of their time investigating the incidence of animal abuse in livestock?

So yes, there's a credibility issue but outright denying all evidence that comes from, "these types of sources" that warrant caution - but outright denial of them all, purely on the basis of the interests of the party doing the investigations - is absurd.

It would come from the same place any credible organization/group gets its information - an independent source. It commissions an organization without a bias (other than the minimal bias introduced with the financial incentive, which is a lot easier to overlook than an ideological bias) to go out, do the research, and publish the findings. This shit really isn't complicated.

 

[redbaron]

Also, in the places with a free market, slavery is vanishingly small.

And what about the places the free-market sources all their goods from, is slavery vanishingly small there too?

A massive portion of cotton clothing we get here in Australia is made in Bangladesh via Foreign Direct Investment. Australian corporations themselves might feature little to no slavery, but that doesn't mean they aren't directly responsible for a great deal of it.

Corporations irresponsibly making unethical and other very questionable investment practices into the infrastructure of the places they directly source their goods from is something they do for economical reasons all of the time.