What is your excuse for not being vegan?

[420MuNkEy]

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.

Were you trying to make a relevant point, because I don't see it.
Are you talking about Bangladeshi livestock? I'm talking about the west. I really don't give two fucks about the rest of the world.

 

[Teax]

I'm talking about the west. I really don't give two fucks about the rest of the world.

Your definition of cruelty sort of resonated with me but now you lost me... Isn't human rights what is keeping slavery out of the west?

Otherwise, what is your reasoning about how slavery is economically unfeasible, because that's the only reason why the free market would not favor slavery.

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 guess that might be the central disagreement here. Yes I do believe that the free market is capable of regulating itself on it's own terms, i.e. choose whatever is economically most beneficial. But if you are implying that the free-market, by doing so, automatically chooses the most efficient and cruel-free way of doing things, I'd disagree.

 

[420MuNkEy]

Your definition of cruelty sort of resonated with me but now you lost me... Isn't human rights what is keeping slavery out of the west?

Otherwise, what is your reasoning about how slavery is economically unfeasible, because that's the only reason why the free market would not favor slavery.

It's not America's business policing the world. I don't speak their languages and don't know their circumstances, what's important to them, etc. If asked, I'd offer them my basic notions of liberty, but I would not force it on them. I really don't care what they're doing to each other, because I'm in no position to. People claim to care, but they don't. You can't. You wouldn't be able to function with all the horrific shit constantly occupying your mind that you're powerless to do anything about. I don't virtue signal and pretend like I care because I know I really actually don't.

What/where we care about is localized to regions we (or loved ones) occupy, whether we can admit that to ourselves or not.

I guess that might be the central disagreement here. Yes I do believe that the free market is capable of regulating itself on it's own terms, i.e. choose whatever is economically most beneficial. But if you are implying that the free-market, by doing so, automatically chooses the most efficient and cruel-free way of doing things, I'd disagree.

Not the most cruel-free way, but it certainly doesn't incentivize cruelty. Conditions could be better, but then costs would go up. Conditions as they stand now (in the west) are not, by my definition, cruel.

 

[bvanevery]

It's not America's business policing the world. I don't speak their languages and don't know their circumstances, what's important to them, etc. If asked, I'd offer them my basic notions of liberty, but I would not force it on them. I really don't care what they're doing to each other, because I'm in no position to. People claim to care, but they don't. You can't. You wouldn't be able to function with all the horrific shit constantly occupying your mind that you're powerless to do anything about. I don't virtue signal and pretend like I care because I know I really actually don't.

So what do you care about? What do you do about it? For what do you make the choice of saying "I can" instead of "I cannot" ?

 

[Teax]

Your definition of cruelty sort of resonated with me but now you lost me... Isn't human rights what is keeping slavery out of the west?

Otherwise, what is your reasoning about how slavery is economically unfeasible, because that's the only reason why the free market would not favor slavery.

It's not America's business policing the world. I don't speak their languages and don't know their circumstances, what's important to them, etc. If asked, I'd offer them my basic notions of liberty, but I would not force it on them. I really don't care what they're doing to each other, because I'm in no position to. People claim to care, but they don't. You can't. You wouldn't be able to function with all the horrific shit constantly occupying your mind that you're powerless to do anything about. I don't virtue signal and pretend like I care because I know I really actually don't.

Healthy attitude, but wait, in that context I was talking about the west specifically. What is your reasoning on, the free market, without the help of the human rights bill, still preventing slavery in the west?

 

[420MuNkEy]

Wait, in that context I was talking about the west specifically. What is your reasoning on, the free market, without the help of the human rights bill, still preventing slavery in the west?

I don't believe I made the claim the free market is responsible for that (though some have made the argument that slavery would have gone away because of the free market, I don't really have an opinion one way or the other). State recognition and defense of natural rights is what's doing that, by and large. Also social stigma.

edit: going back and re-reading exactly what I wrote, my point was more that the free market and free people were correlated with each other, though not necessarily causal of each other.

 

[420MuNkEy]

So what do you care about? What do you do about it? For what do you make the choice of saying "I can" instead of "I cannot" ?

I care about western liberty and I speak about it because I have the ability, knowledge, and desire. I couldn't/wouldn't just strike up a conversation with an average Afghani about the aspects of liberty that could benefit their life. I don't know their language, to start, don't know what their life is like, don't know their local politics much beyond Americas involvement, don't know the origin story of their nation, etc. To them, I'm just an ignorant outsider trying to push my way of life on them, which is a totally justified perception.

 

[Teax]

]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.

[...]

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.

This sounds too good to be true, how little and overlook-able could a bias possibly be if it's a result of financial incentive?

I don't trust any of these parties (I guess that's why I haven't put much stock on this entire topic yet), because the real free market self optimizes in such a way as to wage informational war on the consumer.

I heard that meat is only so cheap because it's (directly or indirectly trough corn) subsidized by the government. This makes it possible for meat prices to look low on the shelves, while the brunt of the cost is paid by the consumer indirectly. Without informational transparency, this free market thing looks like a joke to me. I wouldn't base my conviction about treatment of animals based solely on it's principles.

Hence even sort of agreeing with your definition of cruelty, I don't see enough reason to believe that the bar of cruelty has not been reached.

 

[bvanevery]

I heard that meat is only so cheap because it's (directly or indirectly trough corn) subsidized by the government. This makes it possible for meat prices to look low on the shelves, while the brunt of the cost is paid by the consumer indirectly.

I see no evidence of this as a consumer. I am poor. I'm on food stamps and shop carefully. Even when I wasn't, I saw no evidence. When I had a substantial income I got taxed on it. I don't find it credible that a significant percentage of my taxes were going to farm subsidies that would be terribly expensive compared to what I spent on food.

Also for all the vegan claptrap, what I actually see at the store, is places like Whole Foods selling very expensive value added vegan products, i.e. veggie burgers. They have managed to find a way to make it cost as much or more than the meat it is supposed to replace, while providing inferior nutritional value. Maybe it tastes good and minimizes the killing of animals, but the sustainability / cost arguments look like baloney to me. I'd say vegans buying value added products are just as much First World factory guzzlers as the rest of us.

 

[Cherry Cola]

anyone who in this day and age thinks that a free market doesnt come with major drawbacks such as it not being fair at all since in practice it results in major exploitation and the removal of freedom from most people affected by it, as well as the steady destructing of the fucking planet is a fucking idiot and should stfu

if ur gonna be all capitalism wohoo then you really have to admit that you care a lot about some people over other people and that you dont give a fuck about things long term

of course pretty much none of the free market duuuh wohooo muh freedom ppl are willing to admit that, fucking ppl and their need to live in some fairy tale to avoid cognitive dissonance, and yes im talking about 420munkey, but also all the other ppl doing this crap

like srsly, its always so depressing looking at some obviously intelligent person with a capacity and ability to reason being completely blind to reality because he or she has yet to indentify, recognize and deal with the irrationalities of their own human psyche, not that it can ever be completely dealt with

but when youre on the level of denial thats being displayed in this thread, which really most ppl are, then you should have your mouth taped shut and be sent to meditate alone on some mountain for 10 years or something til you develop some capacity to see the degree to which your cognition has chained itself

 

[bvanevery]

I don't think such people should have their mouths taped shut. I think everyone has to learn the world anew, for themselves, in every generation of human beings. Nobody is born with a cogent understanding of multinational capitalism. Watching the slowness of some people's learning curve is disappointing though. Then again, I've made my own mistakes in assessing the validity of foreign wars, and I knew I put as much of my brainpower as possible into those questions at the time. Sometimes people have to see something happen, and live with the consequences of it, before they're going to get it.

That's the most disturbing thing about 420munkey's current point of view. He advocates willful ignorance of foreign affairs. So I think he would probably contribute indefinitely to Third World problems, doing whatever he feels like within his First World bubble. Hope the light bulb of internationalism turns on for him at some point.

 

[420MuNkEy]

like srsly, its always so depressing looking at some obviously intelligent person with a capacity and ability to reason being completely blind to reality because he or she has yet to indentify, recognize and deal with the irrationalities of their own human psyche, not that it can ever be completely dealt with

Probably better than being in my position and constantly seeing idiots like yourself.

 

[420MuNkEy]

That's the most disturbing thing about 420munkey's current point of view. He advocates willful ignorance of foreign affairs. So I think he would probably contribute indefinitely to Third World problems, doing whatever he feels like within his First World bubble. Hope the light bulb of internationalism turns on for him at some point.

You know what would do that? Free trade. Something no mainstream candidate seems to be for (except the doomed). It's all about protectionism these days.
If I have no reason to care, I won't. Morality or feels isn't a reason to me.

 

[Teax]

I don't find it credible that a significant percentage of my taxes were going to farm subsidies that would be terribly expensive compared to what I spent on food.

The fact that farms are being subsidized is no secret, and I don't see where else the money could be coming from...

Also for all the vegan claptrap, what I actually see at the store, is places like Whole Foods selling very expensive value added vegan products, i.e. veggie burgers. They have managed to find a way to make it cost as much or more than the meat it is supposed to replace, while providing inferior nutritional value. Maybe it tastes good and minimizes the killing of animals, but the sustainability / cost arguments look like baloney to me. I'd say vegans buying value added products are just as much First World factory guzzlers as the rest of us.

True, "vegan" is a buzzword that generates profit just like any fad. But vegans who are not explicitly buying value added products do exist.

 

[redbaron]

Were you trying to make a relevant point, because I don't see it.
Are you talking about Bangladeshi livestock? I'm talking about the west. I really don't give two fucks about the rest of the world.

The point is that when it comes down to purely economical reasons, the free market in majority doesn't prioritize ethical or humane treatment of anyone or anything so long as they have a way of getting away with it - if corporations can't employ actual slaves, the next step is to source all their products as cheaply as possible, i.e. from slaves.

You can extrapolate this to where meat and dairy companies source their products from - typically, as cheaply as possible. So then you just have to ask basic questions:

Is it cheaper to provide more or less space to animals?
Is it cheaper to provide or not provide anaesthetic to the tens of thousands of animals that require surgery?
Is it cheaper to provide or not provide adequate and professional veterinary care to animals (bearing in mind that veterinarians are very expensive)?
Provide food that will actually keep them healthy?
If we can give chickens growth hormones to swell their size and get more produce in a shorter period of time out of them, is it cheaper?

It's totally naive to think that mere free-market economic pressure would prevent stuff like this happening. Most corporations don't even treat people like sentient beings if they can get away with it, what makes you think they're going to extend that courtesy to animals.

Any extra expenses that affect the bottom line of monthly P&L report is going to come under close scrutiny. Corporations are all about that bottom line. If they can find any kind of way to maximize profit, even if it's at the expense of some person or animal - they will. It's the entire MO of a corporation: productivity and profit.

And economic pressure doesn't prevent any of that. The only reason it does nowadays is because humans can take people to court, we have media and industry watchdogs. But cows can't take people to court, so it's not unbelievable that corporations would be profiting at their expense.

Economic reasons being what prevents the mistreatment and cruelty towards livestock is surely the most naive one I've heard yet.

 

[420MuNkEy]

The point is that when it comes down to purely economical reasons, the free market in majority doesn't prioritize ethical or humane treatment of anyone or anything so long as they have a way of getting away with it - if corporations can't employ actual slaves, the next step is to source all their products as cheaply as possible, i.e. from slaves.

I didn't say that it did prioritize it welfare as a general rule, just that in the particular case of meat production it happens to turn out to be more cost efficient to not be cruel (without even accounting for social pressures involved in a free market which is responsible for all the nonsense "gluten-free" labels you'll see on a tin of peanuts, the whole anti-gmo market, etc). You go on to provide a list of questions that are, frankly, irrelevant.

Clearly we have different definitions of cruelty, something that I've explicitly tried to point out a couple times now. It's clear you've just got a bone to pick with the free market and just want to misrepresent what I've said while refusing to clarify your own position so we can actually move into a productive area of this discussion. I really don't feel like repeating myself. If you want to know my position, go back and read what I've already written, but actually read it this time.

 

[xbox]

people who became vegan later on weren't vegan for the biologically developmental yrs of their lives. i doubt ur mothers were vegan while u were being formed in the womb. being vegan is a slightly privileged result of modern times. were early humans vegan? pretty sure they ate berries and stuff but they also ate meat. these days u get capsule forms of supplements, and hot dog flavored tofu, but i doubt early humans had that available. we kinda need meat and/or animal by products to survive. if u threw a vegan on a deserted island, 1 week later they would be devouring fish or something.

 

[redbaron]

I didn't say that it did prioritize it welfare as a general rule, just that in the particular case of meat production it happens to turn out to be more cost efficient to not be cruel. You go on to provide a list of questions that are, frankly, irrelevant.

The questions are hugely relevant, because they're directly related to the nature of the claims of animal cruelty.

Providing veterinarian care is expensive, so if corporations can get away with not giving it - it's more than likely that they won't provide it. Not providing animals with the basic treatments necessary to live comfortably/healthily is animal cruelty as far as I'm concerned.

You also still haven't defined at all how it's more cost efficient to not be cruel. You haven't actually quantified anything and you're now trying to make out that relevant questions (that relate to the economic feasibility of farming animals for produce) aren't related.

The argument that, "animal cruelty surely isn't widespread because it's not economically feasible in a free market" is just delusional.

Clearly we have different definitions of cruelty.

Probably, I don't think they're all that different though. I think you're just choosing to dismiss evidence based on ideology.

It's clear you've just got a bone to pick with the free market and just want to misrepresent what I've said while refusing to clarify your own position so we can actually move into a productive area of this discussion.

Nope, I don't have any problems with free market. I have problems with slave-labour and animal cruelty. If parts of the free market support or enable those things, I have problems with those parts of the free market.

Your own position is one of puritanical ideological naivete. Basically denying the fact that corporations are responsible for animal cruelty on the basis that the evidence doesn't come from a source you think is credible (because it's not independent).

The thing is I actually agree, independent review is (ideally) the best way to go about things - but independent reviews are often done really poorly. The people doing the review aren't necessarily privy to where and what to look for, or the parties doing the review have their own vested interest. I mean are you telling me you just accept things as true if it's in an independent review?

Independent reviews are often just dodgy as fuck. So even if animal activists have an agenda, I don't dismiss all the evidence they come up with as just blatantly false because they have an agenda. Taken with a grain of salt, just like I take independent reviews with a grain of salt.

 

[420MuNkEy]

The questions are hugely relevant, because they're directly related to the nature of the claims of animal cruelty.

Providing veterinarian care is expensive, so if corporations can get away with not giving it - it's more than likely that they won't provide it. Not providing animals with the basic treatments necessary to live comfortably/healthily is animal cruelty as far as I'm concerned.

Doesn't matter. Kill it instead (or don't). That's free. It's not cruel. The definition I have given does not necessitate the health or happiness of the animal, only a reasonable limiting of suffering.
WE HAVE DIFFERENT FUCKING DEFINITIONS AS I KEEP GOD DAMN FUCKING SAYING.

I have made this very very very very fucking clear. How are you not getting this?

Seriously, fuck the rest of your post. There is no reason to engage with you if you're not willing to understand what I've already told you repeatedly.
It has nothing to do with evidence or ideology, but rather morals.

 

[redbaron]

Doesn't matter. Kill it instead (or don't). That's free. It's not cruel.

Sure, except the animals aren't being killed promptly like you say. They're just left to suffer in an unhealthy state.

The definition I have given does not necessitate the health or happiness of the animal, only a reasonable limiting of suffering.

How is looking after an animal's health and happiness not related to suffering?

Suffering: the state of undergoing pain, stress or hardship. Poor health causes pain, stress and hardship, no? Animals under pain, stress or hardship will be less happy, no?

Also, what's reasonable?

WE HAVE DIFFERENT FUCKING DEFINITIONS AS I KEEP GOD DAMN FUCKING SAYING.

I have made this very very very very fucking clear. How are you not getting this?

It's not that we have different definitions per se, it's just that yours are inconsistent, unrealistic and absurd. You draw a line between the health of animals and limiting their suffering and say that you're concerned with one and not the other, when the two are inextricably linked - that's very very very very obvious - how are you not getting this?

I really don't care what they're doing to each other, because I'm in no position to. People claim to care, but they don't. You can't. You wouldn't be able to function with all the horrific shit constantly occupying your mind that you're powerless to do anything about. I don't virtue signal and pretend like I care because I know I really actually don't.

Who says that everyone's capacity to deal with horrible things and still function is the same or that people can't genuinely have empathy for people or animals that they don't personally know?

You're just projecting your own lack of empathy onto others to try and justify it.

 

[420MuNkEy]

Sure, except the animals aren't being killed promptly like you say. They're just left to suffer in an unhealthy state.

Still not a problem.

How is looking after an animal's health and happiness not related to suffering?

Fuck it, I'll just quote myself:

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.

Just to preempt the misunderstanding I see brewing in your brain: Inaction is not action. Doing nothing in the face of suffering is consistent with my definition.

Related post as to why meat?

Spoiler

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.

Again, this ground has been well covered. You can't seem to see it or don't understand it (as well as basic psychology, it seems)

 

[redbaron]

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.

Just to preempt the misunderstanding I see brewing in your brain: Inaction is not action. Doing nothing in the face of suffering is consistent with my definition.

Like I said: inconsistent, unrealistic and absurd justifications.

So mistreating people or animals, no matter how poor - is fine, as long as it's not done with the express purpose of discomforting or harming them?

Just because you're ignorant of the suffering caused by your actions or you didn't mean it (or were "well-intentioned") doesn't mean your actions are automatically excusable - which is why the law of negligence applied to just those circumstances.

That said, I wouldn't expect someone with a lack of basic empathy to understand the detriment of negligent behaviour. Negligence is a form of abuse, and is actually defined as one of the worst forms of abuse because it's harder to identify and therefore correct.

It's cruel for the one who receives the negligence, regardless of the intentions of the one doing the neglecting. Well intentions don't excuse negligent behaviour.

"Inaction is not the same as action" is the weakest and most pithy argument you could possibly raise against this.

At the least though, I understand how you don't see it as cruel. Fine, forget the term cruel and we'll just roll with negligent now because that's the core of this issue. You don't see negligence as cruelty, which is why you don't think the treatment of animals is cruel.

 

[420MuNkEy]

So mistreating people or animals, no matter how poor - is fine, as long as it's not done with the express purpose of discomforting or harming them?

Yes (with exceptions being made for humans because of human rights. A point I've already explicitly made)
edit: also, don't forget the "needlessly excessive" part of the definition. Haven't you ever seen animal research? It's often horrifically uncomfortable for the animals, but absolutely necessary and, when not done excessive to the need of the research, totally fine.

Your mind is clearly full of fuck, so this is the only thing I'm going to respond to, because the rest of it seems to be circling around the idea that you're making a salient rhetorical point here.

Like I said, it's down to morality. Ours differs. It's really not that complicated.

 

[redbaron]

Haven't you ever seen animal research? It's often horrifically uncomfortable for the animals, but absolutely necessary and, when not done excessive to the need of the research, totally fine.

Who says I'm against animal research? Animal research is indeed absolutely necessary, whereas the scale of meat consumption that is produced by livestock, is not absolutely necessary. Crappy analogy.

Your mind is clearly full of fuck, so this is the only thing I'm going to respond to, because the rest of it seems to be circling around the idea that you're making a salient rhetorical point here.

Sick Ad Hominems bro.

Like I said, it's down to morality. Ours differs. It's really not that complicated.

I agree, our morality differs. Yours is inconsistent, unrealistic and absurd. It's built your faith in a number of shaky assumptions and your own projections that you've pieced together.

At the core though, is what I said before:

You don't see negligence as cruelty, which is why you don't think the treatment of animals is cruel.

Added in the caveat that you don't believe animals deserve similar rights to humans and we have the whole picture.

It's not cruel in your mind because of the combination of your lack of ability to empathise with the negative outcomes of neglect (especially when related to animals), plus the belief that animals aren't deserving of treatment to the same ethical standard as humans.

 

[420MuNkEy]

Who says I'm against animal research? Animal research is indeed absolutely necessary, whereas the scale of meat consumption that is produced by livestock, is not absolutely necessary. Crappy analogy.

I don't know, who is? It's certainly not me.
Quit fucking misrepresenting everything I am saying.

I agree, our morality differs. Yours is inconsistent, unrealistic and absurd. It's built your faith in a number of shaky assumptions and your own projections that you've pieced together.

No, it's completely consistent, but you can't seem to comprehend the words I am saying or are intentionally misrepresenting what I am saying. Seriously, every single post of yours in this exchange has been significantly off the mark.

Added in the caveat that you don't believe animals deserve similar rights to humans and we have the whole picture.

Again... I have already fucking addressed this in this thread
Here's the quote:

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".

I really shouldn't have to go over every fucking thing I say 2-3 times and then again with a highlighter and a fucking laser pointer for the meaning to get through your thick skull.


As you may notice from the bolded text, I establish that I do not value all human life equally. Everything I've said is logically consistent. You may not share the view, but to deny that it's logically consistent is to misunderstand what I've said or to simply be lying.


Also, quit trying to tell me about me. I know what I'm saying and what I've said, you clearly don't. I am the definitive authority on my own thoughts and motivations.

 

[Teax]

people who became vegan later on weren't vegan for the biologically developmental yrs of their lives. i doubt ur mothers were vegan while u were being formed in the womb. being vegan is a slightly privileged result of modern times. were early humans vegan? pretty sure they ate berries and stuff but they also ate meat. these days u get capsule forms of supplements, and hot dog flavored tofu, but i doubt early humans had that available. we kinda need meat and/or animal by products to survive. if u threw a vegan on a deserted island, 1 week later they would be devouring fish or something.

Some people, like nomadic tribes, sustained themselves by hunting, that is true. But there always existed vegan mothers, and people existed who for generations lived on a fully vegan diet.

If your point was that our biology dictates us to eat meat, then consider this: Compared to herbivores and carnivores on our planet, we have herbivore teeth and a herbivore digestive tract.

 

[Teax]

trying to wrap my head around it:

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.

[...]

also, don't forget the "needlessly excessive" part of the definition. Haven't you ever seen animal research? It's often horrifically uncomfortable for the animals, but absolutely necessary and, when not done excessive to the need of the research, totally fine.

Makes sense, especially since little beyond what is necessary would be done because it would screw up the data of the animal experiment. But here's what bothers me, this is true as far as I can tell:

the animals aren't being killed promptly like you say. They're just left to suffer in an unhealthy state.

Well even if it weren't true... hypothetically then... with our definition of cruelty, wouldn't that qualify as excessive?

Or maybe I misunderstood your definition (because, surprise, I'm biased ) in such a way: I understood it that economical reason are not part of what constituted necessity, so since killing animals is the primary reason for a cattle farm, how is it not cruel by definition to allow them to suffer at all, beyond the moment of suffering at the moment of killing. I'm talking about both, the suffering during unclean killing procedures or during the entire lifetime of the animal.

 

[420MuNkEy]

Well even if it weren't true... hypothetically then... with our definition of cruelty, wouldn't that qualify as excessive?

Or maybe I misunderstood your definition (because, surprise, I'm biased ) in such a way: I understood it that economical reason are not part of what constituted necessity, so since killing animals is the primary reason for a cattle farm, how is it not cruel by definition to allow them to suffer at all, beyond the moment of suffering at the moment of killing. I'm talking about both, the suffering during unclean killing procedures or during the entire lifetime of the animal.

No, it wouldn't be excessive as doing nothing is not an action. Is it cruel to not adopt as many children and animals as you can afford to feed and shelter? Is it cruel to not donate every spare penny you have to charity? Is it cruel to not spend your time in the woods looking for wounded animals to give aid to? Is it cruel to not randomly visit nursing homes and talk to those who have no one to care about them? Is it cruel to fire an incompetent employee, knowing full well that they won't be able to pay their rent? I could go on, but I think you get my point.

Essentially everyone cares more about their time and money, to varying degrees, than most other living things. It's just a matter of to what degree do you care about that specific living thing. Selective apathy is a requirement for life. If you don't think it is, sign your donor card and kill yourself (or murder other people signed up for organ donation). The organs will almost certainly save and improve more than just 1 life.

It's not cruel because those are the circumstances required to allow you to function and achieve your goals. It's no different with a business.

Also, as an aside, from what I've seen, there's essentially no pain caused by execution with a captive bolt gun (as opposed to the one that just stuns, which may or may not be pain free).

Spoiler

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nr00arV2XIw
this one is just a stunner, but it's very similar to the lethal one

 

[Teax]

No, it wouldn't be excessive as doing nothing is not an action. Is it cruel to not adopt as many children and animals as you can afford to feed and shelter? Is it cruel to not donate every spare penny you have to charity? Is it cruel to not spend your time in the woods looking for wounded animals to give aid to? Is it cruel to not randomly visit nursing homes and talk to those who have no one to care about them? Is it cruel to fire an incompetent employee, knowing full well that they won't be able to pay their rent? I could go on, but I think you get my point.

Agreed, it's not cruel to do nothing while some animals wander onto the rail-road tracks somewhere in the world. But let me put a twist on it:

What about doing nothing about that animal on the rail-road tracks if you were the one who put it there? Without the farm, those animals wouldn't have been brought into existence in captivity, doomed to be killed the first place. Without the farm, the conditions wouldn't potentially be such that would make the animals hurt each other or warrant any drug treatments.

I'm suggesting that meat farms do not qualify as "doing nothing" since we've already did something to explicitly create this situation, for the very purpose of hurting the animal. So any discomfort imposed by our artificial environment/prison, during the animals lifetime, would qualify as discomfort linked with the purpose of killing the animal.

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 specifically by this definition of cruelty, I'd say that making animals lives comfortable enough to such a degree that they don't hurt is the only non-cruel thing to do. (regardless whether that is the case in reality or not, I'm just trying to gage the implications of this definition of cruelty)

EDIT: aww you got sacked and I was looking forward to your reply.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Does anyone really care about animal suffering or is it just a token of moral vanity?

Let's not complicate this matter by quibbling over a phoney mirage called "animal rights" when there is a tangible, intersubjectively valid environmental argument to be made in favor of the exact same practical position and direction of reform.

 

[The Gopher]

Does anyone really care about animal suffering or is it just a token of moral vanity?

We should take a poll. I don't, and I don't care about people dying in third or first world countries. I only care about my own personal bubble.

 

[Brontosaurie]

We should take a poll. I don't, and I don't care about people dying in third or first world countries. I only care about my own personal bubble.

Doesn't your personal bubble inflate when you advertise it so well?

 

[The Gopher]

Doesn't your personal bubble inflate when you advertise it so well?

Well duh, so in order to get me to care about things it needs to.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Well duh, so in order to get me to care about things it needs to.

Your bubble will go out of style as its increasing popularity undermines the exclusive reputation that constitutes its market value. Beware.

 

[redbaron]

I don't know, who is? It's certainly not me.
Quit fucking misrepresenting everything I am saying.

Likewise

No, it's completely consistent, but you can't seem to comprehend the words I am saying or are intentionally misrepresenting what I am saying. Seriously, every single post of yours in this exchange has been significantly off the mark.

Except it's not really consistent at all because you're uninformed and making fallacious links between factory-farming and its necessity to human life. Such as:

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.

It doesn't logically follow that abuse of animals is necessary for humans to survive. It's not, "necessary" for us to eat large quantities of factory-farmed meat for the species to flourish. So if this is your argument for why factory-farming and negligent behaviour towards animals is necessary - it's logically inconsistent and uninformed.

Excerpt from this article: Health detriments to consumption of factory-farmed meat.

"Not all beef is created equal. The difference between “factory-farmed” beef and organic pastured beef, for example, may be quite pronounced. The former comes from animals raised on mixtures of genetically modified corn, chicken manure, antibiotics, hormones, and ground-up parts of other animals; the meat is densely marbled with fat and most of this is of a saturated variety. The latter comes from animals raised on grasses and other vegetation; the meat is lower in fat and much is of an omega-3 polyunsaturated variety. The quality of the fat in these 2 kinds of beef is different, not just in molecular make-up but also in overall composition: one is a storage site of hormonally active industrial chemicals derived from unnatural diets, whereas the other is a storage site of fat-soluble vitamins and various phytochemicals derived from plant grazing. It is not hard to imagine that these 2 different types of beef could potentially have different implications for health."

Low meat consumptions correlated with higher life expectancy

Please note the acknowledgements section where both articles state: "the authors had no conflicts of interest" - I sure hope these one meets your standards of, "independent review"

I really shouldn't have to go over every fucking thing I say 2-3 times and then again with a highlighter and a fucking laser pointer for the meaning to get through your thick skull.

Likewise, I really shouldn't have to be the one fact-checking the things you say just to have you provide consistent reasoning for what you're arguing over. A little self-regulation would go a long way.

As you may notice from the bolded text, I establish that I do not value all human life equally. Everything I've said is logically consistent. You may not share the view, but to deny that it's logically consistent is to misunderstand what I've said or to simply be lying.

Logically consistent from an uninformed position, perhaps.

Sustainability of meat-based diets - worth noting that strict vegan diets are also ultimately not sustainable

Also, quit trying to tell me about me. I know what I'm saying and what I've said, you clearly don't. I am the definitive authority on my own thoughts and motivations.

Extend the same courtesy to others then. I mean this following paragraph is just you trying to tell other people about them, no?

I really don't care what they're doing to each other, because I'm in no position to. People claim to care, but they don't. You can't. You wouldn't be able to function with all the horrific shit constantly occupying your mind that you're powerless to do anything about. I don't virtue signal and pretend like I care because I know I really actually don't.

I quoted this earlier and asked how you could so readily dismiss other people's empathy - you didn't respond.

Who says that everyone's capacity to deal with horrible things and still function is the same or that people can't genuinely have empathy for people or animals that they don't personally know?

Karma's a bitch I guess.

EDIT: oh he got bent

 

[xbox]

Some people, like nomadic tribes, sustained themselves by hunting, that is true. But there always existed vegan mothers, and people existed who for generations lived on a fully vegan diet.

If your point was that our biology dictates us to eat meat, then consider this: Compared to herbivores and carnivores on our planet, we have herbivore teeth and a herbivore digestive tract.

a lot of herbivores have gut bacteria that dissolve fiber much more efficiently than humans. we dont have a cow's rumen. they have a digestive system made specifically for eating plants and hay all day. we have a similar looking digestive tract of a rabbit, but it functions way differently. it just seems so unnatural to be vegan. vegan people try so hard to not be malnourished by taking supplements that naturally occur in meat products. like vitamin b12 and folate and iron.
i think being a vegetarian is more practical than being a vegan.

 

[redbaron]

Does anyone really care about animal suffering?

Yes.

or is it just a token of moral vanity?

For some, probably.

 

[Teax]

a lot of herbivores have gut bacteria that dissolve fiber much more efficiently than humans. we dont have a cow's rumen. they have a digestive system made specifically for eating plants and hay all day. we have a similar looking digestive tract of a rabbit, but it functions way differently.

Yeah cows are quite efficient at what they do. But that's not an argument against us being descendants of herbivores. Are you saying that our digestive tract has more similarity with a lion than a rabbit?

I heard that what we call "appendix" in the human tract had a similar function as a cow's stomach, of letting plant-matter sit there for a while and be dissolved by bacteria. There's something to be said for our ancestors discovering fire and cooking our meals which maybe made our digestive tract evolve differently and lose its efficiency in processing raw food. None of this logically implies that we were destined to eat meat.

Here's a nice read.

vegan people try so hard to not be malnourished by taking supplements that naturally occur in meat products. like vitamin b12 and folate and iron. i think being a vegetarian is more practical than being a vegan.

It's only true for those who bought into the whole "vegan marketing". Vegan lifestyles existed and flourished long before vegan supplements were "discovered" to be necessary for survival.

We have to take into account that all medical "norms" are taken from people with a socially accepted lifestyle. So if vegans happen to have less of some chemical/hormone in their blood, it will look like an abnormality, especially if that chemical takes part in some important process. Nobody would dare to publish a paper that classifies all meat eaters as having an abnormally high level of that hormone. Supplements are made to make you look healthy on paper.

it just seems so unnatural to be vegan.

Well we're just having fun arguing around a little True, nothing I say can compete with what seems unnatural. Eating is the most intimate thing we do. So please don't read this if you're squeamish:

Spoiler

I'm squeamish about eating meat/milk/eggs. Not just because it's dead flesh, there's also those illnesses and growth hormones and WORMS those animals get that you'd be eating.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqPERDo9kWg

 

[MEDICaustik]

Oh man.. this thread.

I've been a vegan for 7 years. I have often revisited the issue in my own mind.

On one hand, one of my core life philosophical beliefs is to add more value to the world than I take from it. Minimizing my contribution to suffering falls under that umbrella (in my mind). I'll spare you the story of my vegan "revelation", but I came to the conclusion that consuming meat and animal products contributed to more suffering than I would if I abstained.

Now, even eating only plants contributes to suffering. Plenty of habitats are destroyed for the purposes of creating farmland. But I don't think there's nearly as many animals being killed/maimed in that process.

On the other hand, I still wrestle with the overwhelming meaninglessness of the world and our existence. So sometimes I think "Well, we all die in the end, and in death there is no memory of suffering, so what does it really matter?"

For now, I remain vegan. I ere on the side of caution in this case. Since I can thrive just as well as a vegan as I could when I ate meat/dairy/eggs, then I find it hard to justify returning to that old diet. Beyond that, veganism is an interesting challenge in life, is a constant conversation starter, and has helped me discover so many incredible foods I would never have been willing to try.

Some people will argue that one can't thrive just as well because of B12, and protein, etc. That's a hard case to make. There are plenty of omnivorous people out there who I can lift heavier than, run faster than, get sick less often than, etc. The end point is: I am by all measures a person in very good health. I feel in no way deficient, my annual physical has yet to find any issues with my bloodwork, and I don't suffer for not having meat and animal products.

So yea. That.

 

[bvanevery]

You know what would do that? Free trade.

Faith in free trade, to make things better. LOL! Dream on. Allow multinational corporations to move as much money around internationally as they want, somehow that's going to make the world a kinder gentler place in any way at all.

Something no mainstream candidate seems to be for (except the doomed). It's all about protectionism these days.

Off-topic, but I actually like the idea that Trump is willing to get into a trade war with Mexico in order to keep more jobs in the USA. I think it may be an area of policy where he actually knows what he's talking about and could actually do something positive.

 

[bvanevery]

So sometimes I think "Well, we all die in the end, and in death there is no memory of suffering, so what does it really matter?"

Worrying about the memory of the dead is either irrational or superstitious. Frankly, they're dead. Their imagined thoughts and perceptions do not count for anything anymore.

What does matter, is the ongoing state of living beings in the world. One does ethical things, to contribute to the positive state of those beings in the world. The patterns of their positive or negative existence will continue to reproduce in generation after generation, and only through work will the trajectory be more positive rather than negative. "Positive" in this sense has to mean things like organisms not enduring suffering, torment, stunted lives, domination, abuse, etc. These I believe are universals of our existence, and really the only basis for making moral decisions on anything. If you think it's ok for things to suffer and feel lots of pain, then might as well run a death camp somewhere, because then the universe is only process and the outcomes do not matter.

The attempt to be moral, is the attempt to protect and control something that will be completely beyond one's control after one is dead. Nevertheless we make the effort and generations before us have made the effort. This has often resulted in the world not sucking as hard as it could have, at least for some of us.

 

[bvanevery]

So please don't read this if you're squeamish:

You know the answer to that is cooking, right? Something our ancestors figured out more than a million years ago, if I remember my timelines correctly.

Even water often needs to be cooked. You're not squeamish about that, are you?

 

[bvanevery]

If your point was that our biology dictates us to eat meat, then consider this: Compared to herbivores and carnivores on our planet, we have herbivore teeth and a herbivore digestive tract.

This is just foolishness. We don't. We have an ominivore's dentition and digestive tract, and there are other omnivore species we can compare ourselves to. Furthermore, our encephalization was driven by consuming meat. Look it up. You get to sit here thinking all these nice vegan thoughts, because your ancestors killed anything they could find.

 

[Teax]

You know the answer to that is cooking, right? Something our ancestors figured out more than a million years ago, if I remember my timelines correctly.

Even water often needs to be cooked. You're not squeamish about that, are you?

Cooked tape worms? Yummy. I believe cooking something does not automatically make it worthy of a dish. E.g. cooked toilet water. I'd even avoid touching it. And phrase it as you might, technically you're chewing on a disinfected corpse.

This is just foolishness. We don't. We have an ominivore's dentition and digestive tract, and there are other omnivore species we can compare ourselves to. Furthermore, our encephalization was driven by consuming meat. Look it up. You get to sit here thinking all these nice vegan thoughts, because your ancestors killed anything they could find.

I don't doubt they did, I'm just saying, we don't have to.

I should have said omnivores, my mistake, thx.

 

[bvanevery]

Cooked tape worms? Yummy.

What's your problem? If it's dead it's extra protein.

I believe cooking something does not automatically make it worthy of a dish. E.g. cooked toilet water.

Botulism toxin requires more cooking "than usual" to kill. There are some microorganisms that can survive boiling, at least certain stages of the organism. But they can all still be killed by sufficient conditions, i.e. pressure cooking. This is just food safety stuff and it's all pretty well known by now, stuff you can just go look up.

I'd even avoid touching it. And phrase it as you might, technically you're chewing on a disinfected corpse.

There's this show, Fat Guys In The Woods, where they ate scorpions. It is apparently one of the worst things you can eat, taste wise. That show included a helpful tip if you vomit up nutrition that you desperately need to survive. You can bake your vomit into a cake and reingest it. What you're willing to do, depends on your circumstances and how dearly you will hold on to life.

Anyways pork with cooked parasites in it doesn't taste bad. This is all in your head. Mastering fire is one of the most important things we did, and we had a lot of good reasons to do it.

Just cook your meat "well done" if you're that worried about parasites. It's overkill but at least you'll know you're fine. Water doesn't typically need to be boiled either, it's actually a big waste of energy in parts of the world where the fuel for that is scarce. Someone invented a reusable wax capsule with a known melting point to assist with that problem. When water boils, you know what temperature it got to, that's the main benefit of it as a process. The wax capsule gives the same clear cut feedback at a lower temperature.

 

[MEDICaustik]

Furthermore, our encephalization was driven by consuming meat. Look it up. You get to sit here thinking all these nice vegan thoughts, because your ancestors killed anything they could find.

If you are an American, you enjoy being a global superpower in large part to the economic success of the 19th century, much of which was built on the backs of slaves.

That's not a justification for slavery in today's world. Nor is the necessity of killing animals by our ancestors a justification for doing so today.

Here's the real question when it comes to veganism- if we could artificially create an exact replica of meat in terms of taste, texture and nutritional value, would there be any ethical defense of continuing to kill animals for the purposes of harvesting their flesh for food?

If not, then you recognize there is a line to be drawn. Those of us already eating a vegan diet have drawn the line back a little further than most. I daresay we are ahead of the times on this issue.

 

[bvanevery]

If you are an American, you enjoy being a global superpower in large part to the economic success of the 19th century, much of which was built on the backs of slaves.

Slavery is not biological though. The realities of our evolution, should be kept in mind when making health claims about veganism. Let alone incorrect claims about whether we're herbivores, omnivores, or carnivores. Fortunately a poster who made an earlier incorrect claim, later corrected it.

That's not a justification for slavery in today's world. Nor is the necessity of killing animals by our ancestors a justification for doing so today.

I doubt that most of us are any biologically different than our cro magnon ancestors. Some of us may be though. The Agricultural Revolution did happen and Evolution does march on.

I tend to get annoyed with vegans who think their diets are trivial, basically work, are supported by empirical evidence, or are healthy for large numbers of people. I've collected plenty of anecdotal evidence around the internet of people for whom it was not. That is, despite their moral desires, they went back to eating meat and became much healthier for having done so. Maybe they had some biologically limiting factors as I suspect I have.

Especially, vegan propaganda of the sort you find on the street corner newspaper dispenser, i.e. "start veganism now!" doesn't have any useful nutritional information in my experience. I don't think it's in their interest to admit all the things you could be missing by foregoing meat.

Here's the real question when it comes to veganism- if we could artificially create an exact replica of meat in terms of taste, texture and nutritional value, would there be any ethical defense of continuing to kill animals for the purposes of harvesting their flesh for food?

Cost could still be a real argument, particularly in the developing world. As could be control over the food supply, being beholden to a factory somewhere that produces this substance. Personally I would settle for nutritional value and find some other way to deal with taste and texture. So far I don't know of anything.

 

[MEDICaustik]

Slavery is not biological though. The realities of our evolution, should be kept in mind when making health claims about veganism. Let alone incorrect claims about whether we're herbivores, omnivores, or carnivores. Fortunately a poster who made an earlier incorrect claim, later corrected it.

I doubt that most of us are any biologically different than our cro magnon ancestors. Some of us may be though. The Agricultural Revolution did happen and Evolution does march on.

I tend to get annoyed with vegans who think their diets are trivial, basically work, are supported by empirical evidence, or are healthy for large numbers of people. I've collected plenty of anecdotal evidence around the internet of people for whom it was not. That is, despite their moral desires, they went back to eating meat and became much healthier for having done so. Maybe they had some biologically limiting factors as I suspect I have.

Especially, vegan propaganda of the sort you find on the street corner newspaper dispenser, i.e. "start veganism now!" doesn't have any useful nutritional information in my experience. I don't think it's in their interest to admit all the things you could be missing by foregoing meat.

Cost could still be a real argument, particularly in the developing world. As could be control over the food supply, being beholden to a factory somewhere that produces this substance. Personally I would settle for nutritional value and find some other way to deal with taste and texture. So far I don't know of anything.

I'm not sure I would concede that killing animals for food is biological either. I've not ever, to my memory, looked at an animal and been struck with the instinct to kill and eat said animal. Maybe the "killer" instinct is variable in different people. But I've only ever felt like a total shitbag on the few occasions where I hurt or killed an animal.

Further, I think the science on EITHER side is dubious at best. There is no scientific consensus that either diet can be healthy in 100% of the population.

I have similar experience with friends and family who attempted veganism and just couldn't make it work, or suffered from it. In my subjective experience, 100% of those people did a poor job of educating themselves on the diet and the need for well rounded meals.

We can throw that around all day and get nowhere.

As far as cost of producing viable meat alternatives; that very quickly becomes subject to the value you place on an animal's life. If we had to spend $100 to produce the same amount of meat artificially as we could with $1 the old fashioned way.. that's one thing.

But what if it costs $1,000,000?

 

[MEDICaustik]

Double posted >.>

 

[Intolerable]

It's an interesting question given that my life history contradicts the notion of being a meat loving person. I am certainly not. Though it is present in my dish from time to time I like to keep it on a very low priority. As a consequence I'm usually protein deprived ( thinner than I ought to be ).

For me the deal is this. Meat has to be very well seasoned / processed or it sucks. Whereas steamed veggies only need to be organic to be very good. This may just be my inclination however as I need other things to satisfy my lust for it.

Everyone loves a good steak but a good steak is defined by the sauce it was marinated in and how it was cooked. I've had raw meats and unseasoned. It just isn't the same. The processing nature leads my mind to think meat really isn't that good but can be a necessary component of a meal. Raw veggies though are different. I can be completely happy with them the way they are. That sticks to me intellectually as important.

It reminds me of bread. I used to love bread. I ate it whenever it was part of a meal. Even times it wasn't intended to be part of a meal. I think it was a large contributor to my feeling sick for so many years. Digestive problems, inflammation, etc. Too much sugar and too much yeast. Too much processing!

Now of course meals are supposed to be processed but to me the best meals are those that require the least amount of processing. A small amount of processed meat + greens can be a very good plate.

To that end and to answer the question in my own long-winded way I justify my necessity for meat by the need for protein. Though I would say I don't eat much of it. I could live without it if supplying protein didn't boil down to some absurd answer like eat more beans.

I'm not sure I would concede that killing animals for food is biological either. I've not ever, to my memory, looked at an animal and been struck with the instinct to kill and eat said animal. Maybe the "killer" instinct is variable in different people. But I've only ever felt like a total shitbag on the few occasions where I hurt or killed an animal.

You feel like shit because you've been denied the kill in the process of solving your hunger. This has short circuited your development as a hunter. Mine too, by the way.