What is your excuse for not being vegan?

[MEDICaustik]

I could live without it if supplying protein didn't boil down to some absurd answer like eat more beans.

That's a low bar to set for absurd, lol.

Ask yourself- where does my meat get protein? Bulls don't eat meat- I daresay they get enough protein.

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.

I've killed a fish in the process of trying to feed myself. I couldn't eat it. Participating in the killing and prepping eliminated my appetite completely.

Could I kill an animal if necessary? For sure. I would have no problem killing an animal in my own defense, or in a survival scenario. But I am pretty sure I would still feel bad about it.

That being said, I'm sure I would enjoy the hunt. I can see the merit in tracking an animal, sneaking up on it and relying on a skill like archery or marksmanship to get the kill. I appreciate a good adrenaline rush as much as the next guy. But I can get those kinds of highs elsewhere.

 

[Intolerable]

That's a low bar to set for absurd, lol.

Ask yourself- where does my meat get protein? Bulls don't eat meat- I daresay they get enough protein.

I find it relevant to point out that animals can usually digest things we could only dream of.

I do not think a human could eat the diet of a bull, for example. Maybe but not to live and tell about it.

I've killed a fish in the process of trying to feed myself. I couldn't eat it. Participating in the killing and prepping eliminated my appetite completely.

Could I kill an animal if necessary? For sure. I would have no problem killing an animal in my own defense, or in a survival scenario. But I am pretty sure I would still feel bad about it.

That being said, I'm sure I would enjoy the hunt. I can see the merit in tracking an animal, sneaking up on it and relying on a skill like archery or marksmanship to get the kill. I appreciate a good adrenaline rush as much as the next guy. But I can get those kinds of highs elsewhere.

When I said disconnected I intended to mean emotionally. You'll never feel better about killing an animal until you are starving to death. That disconnect exists in both of us and billions of others. This need to kill in order to survive ended for our species long before either of us were born.

 

[MEDICaustik]

I find it relevant to point out that animals can usually digest things we could only dream of.

I do not think a human could eat the diet of a bull, for example. Maybe but not to live and tell about it.

Thank whoever discovered fire. Cooking food makes it a lot easier to chew and digest. instead of spending our entire day chewing on leaves like Gorillas, we get all of the calories and many hours of our lives back.

My point is that all those vital nutrients that we need, most other mammals need, ie. B12, calcium, Omega 3's etc. We typically think of B12, Calcium, and Omega-3's coming from animal sources.. but those animals get those nutrients from plant matter, bacterias, fungi. We can effectively remove the middle man. There's no evidence that suggests we need to run our nutrients through other animals as a middleman.

Everything a human needs from a nutritional standpoint is available from non-animal sources. Perhaps more difficult to get, but certainly within reach.

When I said disconnected I intended to mean emotionally. You'll never feel better about killing an animal until you are starving to death. That disconnect exists in both of us and billions of others. This need to kill in order to survive ended for our species long before either of us were born.

Ah, true.

 

[Teax]

This is all in your head.

Always a valid point. Craving meat is all in yours.

What you're willing to do, depends on your circumstances and how dearly you will hold on to life.

No objections, survival comes first. But we weren't talking about starvation and exceptional situations like these. (Until you brought it up.)

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.

So you tend to get annoyed hearing the truth? sounds like some vegan pissed you off man

I heard that you can't just switch to pure veganism overnight. The body's microbe balance supposedly has to shift in favor of those that digest plant matter. Whatever the case, switching is a difficult topic but obviously you can't dismiss the vegan diet based on a hard switching process.

 

[Intolerable]

Thank whoever discovered fire. Cooking food makes it a lot easier to chew and digest. instead of spending our entire day chewing on leaves like Gorillas, we get all of the calories and many hours of our lives back.

My point is that all those vital nutrients that we need, most other mammals need, ie. B12, calcium, Omega 3's etc. We typically think of B12, Calcium, and Omega-3's coming from animal sources.. but those animals get those nutrients from plant matter, bacterias, fungi. We can effectively remove the middle man. There's no evidence that suggests we need to run our nutrients through other animals as a middleman.

Everything a human needs from a nutritional standpoint is available from non-animal sources. Perhaps more difficult to get, but certainly within reach.

Indeed. It's almost unreal when you consider that since fire we've figured an innumerable number of concepts to make our lives even easier. I know for a fact that greens steam perfect in 7 minutes on my stove.

Try eating 100lbs of grass in a day like a Bull does. Give me a month and maybe, maybe I can do it.

It does raise an interesting question. Given the discovery of prep how little could we get away with consuming? I've had these discussions before over powder supplements. I suspect part of what made us so efficient a species was combining prep with a minimalist diet. We should definitely pursue that!

 

[bvanevery]

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're talking psychological luxuries in a cush society where food is processed and provided for you. Watch one of those survival shows like "Naked And Afraid" and then tell me if you'd just let yourself die rather than go get your needed protein.

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.

Scientific consensus says that people can live on some version of a "balanced" diet just fine. People argue about the versions but plenty of people live to be ripe old ages as omnivores. I'm just not sure what kind of scientific denial you seek to impose here.

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.

What's your version of "well rounded" ? Sure you can make basic mistakes like only eating rice or something. My sister knew of some high school girls made some basic mistakes like that and got very ill.

 

[bvanevery]

Always a valid point. Craving meat is all in yours.

At least craving meat is "in my head" as a basic biological instinct, like not wanting to be burned by a stove. I suppose your revulsions to "foods that don't look right / seem to have something wrong with them" might be a biological survival instinct as well. Certainly, if it smells foul you're not going to just dig in. But I wonder how much of your own revulsions are a learned behavior, and also the way you amplify such thoughts. What I learned, is that when you cook stuff it kills things and then it can't harm you. So there is nothing to fear there. I haven't had weird issues about eating stuff since I was a child. Then in my case it was just picky bullshit kid stuff, I grew out of it.

I heard that you can't just switch to pure veganism overnight. The body's microbe balance supposedly has to shift in favor of those that digest plant matter. Whatever the case, switching is a difficult topic but obviously you can't dismiss the vegan diet based on a hard switching process.

My personal experience is even the vegetarian switching process is totally impractical. I actually have no reason to believe there's light at the end of the tunnel.

 

[Teax]

What I learned, is that when you cook stuff it kills things and then it can't harm you.

There's a difference between not causing harm and seeing something as a pleasant everyday meal.

and also the way you amplify such thoughts.

huh? All I said is one tiny post about how not all humans share the same sense of what's a good day-to-day meal, you were the one that blew up with tales of starvation and survival.

At least craving meat is "in my head" as a basic biological instinct,

If it were a biological instinct, vegans would have it too all the time. So you cannot use that as a logical premise to infer that eating meat is necessary.

I suppose your revulsions to "foods that don't look right / seem to have something wrong with them" might be a biological survival instinct as well.

Plausible... and I definitely think that "what causes revulsion" is learned behavior except direct sensory input like smell(sulfur) and taste, that's preprogrammed.

 

[xbox]

no i never said we have a digestive tract similar to a lion. i think the only cool thing about being vegan is that it opens ur options to a world of foods that u wouldnt have eaten if u werent vegan. id be a temporary vegan bc of that. im already a part time vegetarian. i dont like too much meat in my diet, but i still think we need its nutrients for the nitty gritty biochemistry purposes. watever man i actually dont care what people eat or do wiht their bodies im just here because im bored

 

[bvanevery]

huh? All I said is one tiny post about how not all humans share the same sense of what's a good day-to-day meal,

Look, I grew up being told that you have to thoroughly cook chicken and pork or dire bad things were going to happen to you. I've followed those rules and can't think of a single instance where I got into trouble because of it. I really have no idea how many parasites, either visible or micro sized, are in the average piece of grocery store pork. I've always assumed it can make you very sick if you don't follow the rules, that bad stuff is always in there. Haven't really heard of people eating raw pork as their regular diet, whereas people do it with some kinds of fish, and it's not unknown with beef.

Chicken and pork are perfectly good day-to-day meals for most of us, regardless of what you can get to crawl out of them with some experiment. I'm not sure how you've developed the mental attitudes towards these meats that you have. I learned as a kid that they're fundamentally dangerous and that you must do things about it. And that if you follow the rules, you're fine.

Washing hands after handling raw chicken, not spattering chicken blood all over your counter tops, yadda yadda.

If it were a biological instinct, vegans would have it too all the time.

Who says they don't? How many have you asked?

 

[Tannhauser]

In the wild, only a selection of plants are edible and have nutritious value. Whereas with meat, you can kill about anything and eat it as long as you cook it. It's more natural to eat only meat rather than only plants.

 

[Teax]

watever man i actually dont care what people eat or do wiht their bodies im just here because im bored

Same

In the wild, only a selection of plants are edible and have nutritious value. Whereas with meat, you can kill about anything and eat it as long as you cook it. It's more natural to eat only meat rather than only plants.

Interesting premise but wouldn't it imply "more practical" rather than "more natural"? I mean natural is pretty much "exists in nature".

Look, I grew up being told that you have to thoroughly cook chicken and pork or dire bad things were going to happen to you. I've followed those rules and can't think of a single instance where I got into trouble because of it. I really have no idea how many parasites, either visible or micro sized, are in the average piece of grocery store pork. I've always assumed it can make you very sick if you don't follow the rules, that bad stuff is always in there. Haven't really heard of people eating raw pork as their regular diet, whereas people do it with some kinds of fish, and it's not unknown with beef.

Chicken and pork are perfectly good day-to-day meals for most of us, regardless of what you can get to crawl out of them with some experiment. I'm not sure how you've developed the mental attitudes towards these meats that you have. I learned as a kid that they're fundamentally dangerous and that you must do things about it. And that if you follow the rules, you're fine.

Washing hands after handling raw chicken, not spattering chicken blood all over your counter tops, yadda yadda.

Don't get me wrong, its not universal bad.

Humans are extremely susceptible to cognitive bias. To break the bias, I posted the video to help people like you to understand how others might perceive something you perceive as perfectly natural. And it totally backfired on me

So I take it you wouldn't feel anything when trying to eat a bug? I am aware, when you know what you're doing, they're full of protein and harmless to eat. But do you consider bug-loaf a nice day to day meal? If not, then I have just made you feel the way half of vegetarians feel about meat-loaf.

If it were a biological instinct, vegans would have it too all the time.

Who says they don't? How many have you asked?

Quite a few, but whatever, we can just use this forum as a sample source here's the poll: link

I think you'll be surprised how many people actually completely forget about meat in their day to day lives, or the fact they're vegan/vegetarian unless explicitly confronted. I hope MEDICaustik throws in a word.

 

[bvanevery]

So I take it you wouldn't feel anything when trying to eat a bug?

I'd want to cook it, because I don't trust that they are going to taste good and cooking may help that. I've learned that in the case of a scorpion, it won't help, it'll taste horrible no matter what. Fortunately I am not required to eat scorpions. Anyways the shape of a bug isn't going to bother me. The taste could, and that's going to depend on the bug.

Many world cultures eat bugs. We just don't happen to do it in the USA. Eating bugs would be about the most ethically consistent method of getting protein as you're going to come up with, as agriculture generally kills billions of bugs. If you care about the lives of insects then you're not going to be able to buy produce from anyone, and good luck figuring out a home farming practice that doesn't kill bugs.

I have basically no experience eating bugs. There's an insectivore movement in the USA, very fringe. I got as far as identifying the web page of some vendor at a farmer's market in Asheville. I don't know what she charges for her wares, and if it's more expensive than regular food, that's a dealbreaker for me right now. Also I'm still on food stamps and if someone doesn't take 'em, then I'm not eating it. Since I've never been to this farmer's market, I seriously doubt that I'm going to rely on this supplier as opposed to the many grocery stores I'm used to going to.

If I had land, I could try farming my own bugs. But I don't, and I decided I'm not willing to have a bug farm in my car. If nothing else, I simply don't have the room. Also I'd need to find some damn tasty bugs to even consider living that way.

I've worried about how to execute the bugs humanely, as IMO they do suffer. What is the point of going through the whole exercise if you're just going to cause yet another thing to suffer?

But do you consider bug-loaf a nice day to day meal?

I don't see any conceptual problem. The primary issue is taste. A secondary issue may be texture.

If not, then I have just made you feel the way half of vegetarians feel about meat-loaf.

Frankly half of meat eaters have bad feelings about many a meat loaf. It's a challenge to find a good one.

I had irrational issues about what I consumed as a child. I got over them. I was a late comer to shrimp, pizza, and Coke. Wouldn't touch 'em until I was about 10.

 

[QuickTwist]

Err... even dogs and cats that are relatively speaking not super high up in the cognitive department do not feel pain like a human feels pain. Since pain is by medical definition an undesirable emotional reaction to physical stimulus one can then reason that animals that do not have as in depth emotions as humans do not experience pain the same way that a human does. So when you squash a bug, that bug doesn't really "feel" it like a human would.

 

[Fukyo]

Am I the only one who thinks these exclusionary, highly specific diets like gluten free, carb-free, keto, plaeo, veganism are bullshit? What happened to having a regular balanced diet where all food groups are consumed in moderation?

Worst of all, all people on these diets have highly charged opinions and substantiate their claims with scientific studies and findings that contradict each other yet all claim their science is the correct one.

 

[420MuNkEy]

(Pointlessly delayed response. I apparently stepped on some feels somewhere)

Likewise

Where have I misrepresented you, specifically? At most you could claim my generalizations about human psychology are somehow talking about you (indirectly), if you want to completely ignore the fact that a generalization doesn't necessarily include you. You, however, have misrepresented me, directly (and repeatedly).

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.

I never made the claim eating meat (in the quantities that we do, produced using the methods that we do) was/is necessary. Again, another direct misrepresentation of what I've said. What you've quoted in a nuanced point that seems to have gone over your head. The necessity, in that sentence, is the prioritization of humanity, not eating meat. Does meat have nutritional value (doesn't matter if it can be gotten elsewhere)? If yes, my point remains valid. Do (a non-negligible percentage of) people enjoy eating meat (I quoted you my point about the hedonic value of meat earlier in a failed attempt to avoid having to spell this out for you)? If yes, then my point remains valid.

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.

This is your own fault for constructing an army of strawmen. You don't have to fact check against claims I never made.

Logically consistent from an uninformed position, perhaps.

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

Again, this is something I've already addressed.
Your source assumes indefinite dependence on fossil fuels. I do not. It's really that simple.
I'll quote myself:

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.

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

I don't give a shit about anyone's feels. They're completely irrelevant to my position unless, in aggregate, the negative feelings about the production and consumption of meat are negative and pervasive enough that they outweigh both the nutritional and hedonic value of doing so (again, in aggregate). If this situation were the case, it would be difficult to sell meat in the first place, because people (in general) wouldn't buy it and would avoid being a customer of any/every business complicit in the despised activity/business. Meat production wouldn't go away entirely (so long as demand exists), but it would be a niche market (which it is not).

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?

This was another generalization grounded in science that indicates it to be generally true.

The un-bolded text is yet another (direct) misrepresentation of what I've said. You don't have to personally know a living being to have empathy for it. I never made the claim that you did, only that relative proximity (not just in the physical sense) is a major factor in how much empathy you're likely to have for it (see citations above). Imagine your neighbor 6 doors down that you've never met has their house blown up. You're probably going to care more about your neighbor than if some random Afghani who lives 7500 miles away has their house blown up.


Go ahead, build some more strawmen.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

What happened to having a regular balanced diet where all food groups are consumed in moderation?

I think people still mostly rely on the balanced died, except they aren't as vocal about their choice. It becomes increasingly obvious how engineering demand on goods includes funding research and advertising trends in favour of particular diets or habits. It's trendy to be at least vegetarian if not vegan, it gives one limited bragging rights and serves as a nice topic of conversation among the more hipster peers, I also realise that many choose to follow vegetarianism based on their system of beliefs or researched conviction and I respect that.

New product lines and brands require entire lifestyles to cater to and those lifestyles first need to be sold. Science serves its purpose when it convinces the consumers that their choices are right, or at least 'correlate' with decreased cancer risk or other fear-factor.

Worst of all, all people on these diets have highly charged opinions and substantiate their claims with scientific studies and findings that contradict each other yet all claim their science is the correct one.

It's not only a matter of diets, people do tend to hold strong opinions on topics they know relatively little about or topics that aren't very definitively scientifically understood.

 

[QuickTwist]

Most people would puke if they knew what they were eating and how it was "prepared".

 

[redbaron]

Okay so 420MuNkEy, the only argument you've made for factory-farming is that it allows hedonic consumption of meat by humans, and since humans are the most important, their hedonism is more important than the suffering of lesser animals.

You accept that factory-farmed meat is less healthy for humans to consume, but hedonic factors outweigh health factors. It's also a highly unsustainable practice (and no, it's not just because of energy requirements) but that's also outweighed by hedonic factors.

I never made the claim that you did, only that relative proximity (not just in the physical sense) is a major factor in how much empathy you're likely to have for it (see citations above). Imagine your neighbor 6 doors down that you've never met has their house blown up. You're probably going to care more about your neighbor than if some random Afghani who lives 7500 miles away has their house blown up.

Sure, the fault lies in that way you used this general principle as a way to somehow demean the points of others in the thread. It might generally be true, but who's to say anyone here doesn't have more empathy? You're speaking on a forum with at most a few dozen people participating in this thread - what's the point of trying to impose some general principle on a sample size so small that it's essentially meaningless?

Go ahead, build some more strawmen.

Only if you promise to keep backpedaling from making any meaningful points

I mean, I just raised that factory-farmed meat raises health concerns.
Your response: "that's a strawman"

I then raised that it has sustainability issues.
Your response: "that's a strawman"

So we now know that when you're talking about what's, "necessary" for humans - you're not really using the standard definition of the term, "necessary" - you're just talking about whatever they enjoy.

I mean I don't want to strawman you, I hate when it happens to either myself or others, so if you could stop using ambiguous language that'd be great.

So basically you don't care about the health or sustainability issues raised by factory-farming meat. At least you're not denying that they do raise health and sustainability issues, it's just that you don't care. Fair enough. I think that's pretty stupid but if you just don't care, not much else to say.

And since you've literally just accused me of strawmanning you when I brought up the health and sustainability concerns of factory-farming meat, as well as talked about your lack of empathy for things removed from your personal space - if you now do a 180 and try to pass off that you really do care about the human health and sustainability issues raised by factory-farming, then you're a great big lying piece of shit.

 

[bvanevery]

Err... even dogs and cats that are relatively speaking not super high up in the cognitive department do not feel pain like a human feels pain.

And your proof for that is what exactly?

Actually I think the statement is quite stupid. People with experience with dogs and cats know they're pretty smart, and are emotionally developed. If you kick 'em they scream like they're in pain, same as we do. The only real difference I can observe with them, is they hide their pain as much as they can, so as not to appear weak in a hostile predatory environment. This unfortunately means they can develop terminal illnesses before you know it has happened.

Since pain is by medical definition an undesirable emotional reaction to physical stimulus

Whose medical definition, and why should we accept that? I really don't think there's anything emotional about my spinal cord jerking my hand away from a hot fire. Pretty sure the nerve impulses don't even go all the way to the brain, we have the survival advantage of not needing to make the full trip to act on the stimulus. But I haven't learned about that sort of thing since I was a kid.

We certainly experience emotions as a result of pain.

 

[QuickTwist]

We certainly experience emotions as a result of pain.

Would you stake your life on this statement?

 

[bvanevery]

Am I the only one who thinks these exclusionary, highly specific diets like gluten free, carb-free, keto, plaeo, veganism are bullshit? What happened to having a regular balanced diet where all food groups are consumed in moderation?

I believe some of them are bullshit and others aren't, i.e. there's actually a correct way to eat, based on our evolution. I am a proponent of a fat emphasizing, carb and sugar minimizing diet. This is grounded in the idea that before the Agricultural Revolution, we didn't have abundant carbs from crops available. That said, I've wondered about fruits in tropical climates. Sounds like a pretty good theory in a temperate climate though.

It's not that difficult to eat a fat emphasizing diet cheaply. So, it's not exclusionary, nor all that restrictive. Unless you believe you're supposed to stuff your face with candy as one of the four food groups, then yes, indeed it's a diet. I'm not an angel, I go through periods of eating a lot of sugar, then no sugar. Sort of a swing cycle, and I'm not certain if I'm motivated enough to be a teetotaler about sugar.

Worst of all, all people on these diets have highly charged opinions and substantiate their claims with scientific studies and findings that contradict each other yet all claim their science is the correct one.

If you think by "highly charged" I think my opinion is both informed and correct, yes, that's true. Although if we took the more common meaning of emotionalism and combativeness, no, not really. You're going to believe what you want, and you have to do your own homework. Without personal investment in the knowledge, you'll just say "all research is equal". It isn't, but determining that is a lot of homework. I can't be certain that I've done enough homework to be absolutely foolproof sure of my current belief, but my provisional belief is good enough and I act on it.

To wit: gonna go eat the plain Cabot 10% milkfat yogurt now. It's the single biggest empirically observable health change I've made in the past year. Although, the big probiotic dose is surely a huge part of that. I have IBS when I don't eat right, so I can actually feel how dietary things affect me.

High fat consumption regulates glycogen level and thereby eliminates sugar cravings. Learned that back in weightlifting. Craving a candy bar? Eat some cheese.

 

[bvanevery]

Would you stake your life on this statement?

What about the statement implies that a life-or-death gamble would be necessary? You seem to be offering a non-sequitor. Of the sort our grade school teachers chided us about, how when we're being mugged in a dark alley, the mugger is going to demand THIS answer from you, so be prepared!

Anyways my body is going to react to pain faster than my brain is. That's just how our biologies work. So I'm not sure what you mean by "stake your life", as pain response is usually not a conscious choice. Martial training and some ascetic practices might change that, but eh, still not seeing the "stake your life" relevance.

 

[bvanevery]

Most people would puke if they knew what they were eating and how it was "prepared".

At least half the human race probably cooks for itself, so I have no idea what you're talking about.

Do you mean most people would puke if they had to deal with the slaughtering of animals? I know I wouldn't. I volunteered to help with the post processing of a chicken slaughter at a friend of a friend's farm, so that I could face my prey. I didn't approve of the way they did the killing and I said so. I won't get into details but I think the chickens suffered unnecessarily as they died. If I had my own farm I'd come up with a better way.

I proved that no amount of guts in the world could disturb me though. I picked through a whole wheel barrel of discarded guts, looking for valuable food for my dog! What a shame they weren't planning to use all parts of the animals. I hope my example of scrounging for gizzards, livers, and lungs made them think differently about that, but who knows.

A fair number of people fish. That involves the fish struggling, bopping it over the head to kill it, then cleaning and scaling it. Haven't heard of any fisherpeople pukeing for having to do all of that. Seems pretty easy really.

Some people hunt. I haven't gone up that learning curve, like how to field dress stuff, but I have watched videos on how to prepare squirrels. I don't see what's such a big deal about it. Not any harder than sculpture.

Plenty of people eat crabs and other shellfish if they can afford them, or catch them. Nothing hard or distasteful about picking apart a dead crab at all, to get at the stuff in it. Only difficult part would seem to be slaying it somehow.

Are you laboring under the delusion that "guts" are a big mystery that lots of people don't know how to solve, and don't have any experience with? Seems like a rather sheltered point of view.

 

[QuickTwist]

What about the statement implies that a life-or-death gamble would be necessary? You seem to be offering a non-sequitor. Of the sort our grade school teachers chided us about, how when we're being mugged in a dark alley, the mugger is going to demand THIS answer from you, so be prepared!

Anyways my body is going to react to pain faster than my brain is. That's just how our biologies work. So I'm not sure what you mean by "stake your life", as pain response is usually not a conscious choice. Martial training and some ascetic practices might change that, but eh, still not seeing the "stake your life" relevance.

Your brain reacting to physical stimuli is not the same as pain. Honestly think about this: when you pull your hand from the fire, and no doubt do so because of a reaction, when do you know it hurt you? Was it at the moment that you pulled your hand away or was it after?

There are people who have been trained to not emotionally react to unpleasant physical stimuli. I met one such person, probably 2. One guy was in the army, the other a navy seal. My judo sensei was teaching pinching techniques. Sensei demonstrated on the the army guy and the army guy didn't bat an eye. Tried it on someone else and they squirmed like a worm on a hook. Point being, with the right training, a person doesn't feel pain the same as most people.

 

[QuickTwist]

At least half the human race probably cooks for itself, so I have no idea what you're talking about.

Do you mean most people would puke if they had to deal with the slaughtering of animals? I know I wouldn't. I volunteered to help with the post processing of a chicken slaughter at a friend of a friend's farm, so that I could face my prey. I didn't approve of the way they did the killing and I said so. I won't get into details but I think the chickens suffered unnecessarily as they died. If I had my own farm I'd come up with a better way.

I proved that no amount of guts in the world could disturb me though. I picked through a whole wheel barrel of discarded guts, looking for valuable food for my dog! What a shame they weren't planning to use all parts of the animals. I hope my example of scrounging for gizzards, livers, and lungs made them think differently about that, but who knows.

A fair number of people fish. That involves the fish struggling, bopping it over the head to kill it, then cleaning and scaling it. Haven't heard of any fisherpeople pukeing for having to do all of that. Seems pretty easy really.

Some people hunt. I haven't gone up that learning curve, like how to field dress stuff, but I have watched videos on how to prepare squirrels. I don't see what's such a big deal about it. Not any harder than sculpture.

Plenty of people eat crabs and other shellfish if they can afford them, or catch them. Nothing hard or distasteful about picking apart a dead crab at all, to get at the stuff in it. Only difficult part would seem to be slaying it somehow.

Are you laboring under the delusion that "guts" are a big mystery that lots of people don't know how to solve, and don't have any experience with? Seems like a rather sheltered point of view.

You could lose the attitude.. dude.

You are dealing with the exception to the rule as much as I am. I doubt that the farm you went to" to make eyes at your prey" was anything like what most of the "farms" are actually like when dealing with animals to eat. I know you know what I'm talking about too. You're just being a troll though; not much I can do about that.

And I am fully aware of how to fillet a fish, I have the scar to prove it too. And you can't be seriously thinking that fish feel pain the same way that we do, really?

 

[bvanevery]

You accept that factory-farmed meat is less healthy for humans to consume,

I don't, BTW. This sounds like a really bad line of reasoning, which would invalidate any further arguments along such a line.

Examples: legumes contain plenty of anti-nutrients, that will make minerals unavailable to you. Getting rid of the anti-nutrients is not easy, you can't just cook them off. Fermentation might be the only way to do a thorough job of it, and who takes the time to do that?

High glycemic load foods like potatoes, rice, and bread spike your insulin and can lead you to diabetes and Alzheimer's. The latter has been called "diabetes of the brain".

Rice takes up arsenic.

Red meat may still be bad for you, but not due to the saturated fat and cholesterol which have been demonized. One theory is a bacteria eats the carnitine and that somehow does the actual artery damage. Of course one doesn't have to eat lots of red meat, when eating meat.

One of the worst things you can eat is a shark, because it lives a long time, eats lots of prey, and thus accumulates lots of mercury. Nobody factory farms a shark. Small fish like sardines don't have time to accumulate the toxins, so that's a much better idea for eating seafood. The risk level of seafood depends on where it is caught. I won't touch anything from S. Korea anymore because it's right next to China and the most polluted body of water on Earth.

 

[bvanevery]

You could lose the attitude.. dude.

My only attitude is you could stand to elaborate some of your statements, rather than just writing 1 vague sentence about them, which you've done a few times.

You are dealing with the exception to the rule as much as I am. I doubt that the farm you went to" to make eyes at your prey" was anything like what most of the "farms" are actually like when dealing with animals to eat.

You could have been specific about what kind of processing you were talking about.

I know you know what I'm talking about too.

No actually I'm not a mind reader. I don't know you personally, and I've known a lot of vegans with seriously cockamanie ideas about food. Plenty of people project their own emotional values and difficulties onto the rest of the human race, how do I know you aren't one of those?

You're just being a troll though; not much I can do about that.

Arguing with you, and gainsaying you, doesn't make anyone a troll. A troll isn't simply anything you don't like or don't enjoy dealing with.

And I am fully aware of how to fillet a fish, I have the scar to prove it too. And you can't be seriously thinking that fish feel pain the same way that we do, really?

Fish, I don't know. Most people have empathy problems dealing with fish. They don't scream or cry out, and they don't have faces or expressions like ours. So, not as much to go on, if you feel like playing "Jack the Ripper" with one of 'em. They certainly thrash around a lot when something they don't like happens. I'd have to read up on their biologies.

The painful lives of clams and mussels are even more of a mystery.

 

[QuickTwist]

My only attitude is you could stand to elaborate some of your statements, rather than just writing 1 vague sentence about them, which you've done a few times.

Choose to elaborate things that have beaten to death to the point that we both know there will be no end to this? I don't think so.

You could have been specific about what kind of processing you were talking about.

Could have? You know I know you didn't visit an actual factory where chickens are processed into something that nowhere resembles a chicken. You left that part out and its rather dishonest of you as well. You think going to a family farm is the same thing as where thousands of chickens are killed daily, its no where near the same thing and that is what is dishonest. dishonest arguments do not make your arguments stronger, but weaker.

No actually I'm not a mind reader. I don't know you personally, and I've known a lot of vegans with seriously cockamanie ideas about food. Plenty of people project their own emotional values and difficulties onto the rest of the human race, how do I know you aren't one of those?

Just a guess, but I think you have actually heard a lot of these same arguments before so we are effectively just going through the motions.

Arguing with you, and gainsaying you, doesn't make anyone a troll. A troll isn't simply anything you don't like or don't enjoy dealing with.

I associate dishonest arguments to be trollish.

Fish, I don't know. Most people have empathy problems dealing with fish. They don't scream or cry out, and they don't have faces or expressions like ours. So, not as much to go on, if you feel like playing "Jack the Ripper" with one of 'em. They certainly thrash around a lot when something they don't like happens. I'd have to read up on their biologies.

The painful lives of clams and mussels are even more of a mystery.

I'm not a vegan nor vegetarian. I'm just playing devil's advocate.

 

[bvanevery]

Your brain reacting to physical stimuli is not the same as pain.

Are we having a definitionally challenged discussion? If you are saying that pain isn't a physical stimulus, that makes no sense. If you are saying that pain is a physical stimulus, that your body reacts to it before your conscious awareness, and then your consciousness catches up, then we are on the same page.

Honestly think about this: when you pull your hand from the fire, and no doubt do so because of a reaction, when do you know it hurt you?

That depends on whether the fire was hot enough to sear your nerves instantly. You may not know you had a third degree burn.

This isn't thought experiment stuff. This is evolution stuff. Our ancestors that had these muscle jerk reactions to pain, avoided damage and passed on their successful genes to us. Same reason your eyes quickly close when something brushes across them. Ancestors who didn't get their eyes poked out, had a survival advantage over blind ancestors.

There are people who have been trained to not emotionally react to unpleasant physical stimuli.

A number of things are possible with training, but they are not within the scope of Evolution or the bulk of human and animal experience.

Tried it on someone else and they squirmed like a worm on a hook.

Not all of those phenoms are due to training. As an ectomorph I seem to have a high tolerance for arm / joint twisting and not experiencing the nerve pains quite so badly. Takes longer for me to "tap out".

I'm told that in contrast, muscle bound people experience a lot of pain from these maneuvers, because their muscles press more strongly on their own nerves. Sometimes we'd have new guys in the dojo, I'd do some grip on them that was no big deal to us regulars, but someone would squeal. Someone who "looked" tougher on first glance, like who looked like they could overpower or clock me easily enough.

I'd also hazard a guess that we regulars were far more flexible than the new people, as that was a big part of our training. Tense muscles and tendons surely take more damage and pain than relaxed and stretchy ones. I suppose that's physical training, but it's not mental training.

 

[bvanevery]

You left that part out and its rather dishonest of you as well.

Hey, you seem to have a problem with thinking people are "lying" to you when they say something. That's your own problem, not mine, or anyone else's frankly. People think differently and come at things differently than you do. All I can say to that is, get used to it. Or keep calling people liars and see how well it goes.

 

[QuickTwist]

Hey, you seem to have a problem with thinking people are "lying" to you when they say something. That's your own problem, not mine, or anyone else's frankly. People think differently and come at things differently than you do. All I can say to that is, get used to it. Or keep calling people liars and see how well it goes.

This is where I pass.

 

[bvanevery]

You're probably going to care more about your neighbor than if some random Afghani who lives 7500 miles away has their house blown up.

There's more than proximity in that equation. What is the narrative of that Afghani, vs. my neighbor? Did I get a blip of a news ticker about it, or a fairly involved story?

"6 doors down" is a proximity for personal danger, not just my probability of knowing them. Whenever someone tells me about a local shooting, I always want to know the motive! If it's just a lover's quarrel I rest easy. Happens all the time, simple public safety answer for that. Don't stick your dick in the wrong woman. I worry about people who go nuts, or are nuts, and therefore shoot innocent bystanders. A lover's quarrel isn't a threat to me; a random shooter is.

The reason for the death, can greatly increase or decrease my empathy. What if some Afghani woman dies because someone poured battery acid all over her, or gang raped her to death, or threw her on a funeral pyre with her dead husband? I have more empathy for that than, say, my neighbor 6 doors down made a homemade firework and blew his own face off with it. The latter just gets a Darwin Award.

A more realistic example might be my neighbor dying from carbon monoxide poisoning, from running a gas generator indoors or something stupid like that. Although I'd consider the local event a tragedy, I'd have more sympathy for the Afghani woman. She has been victimized by forces beyond her control, in a society pining away for her death. Whereas an asphyxiation is a story of profound ignorance. Was our educational system a failure? Our immigration system? The real life example happened with some Vietnamese family in the Seattle metro area during a major power outage.

I did change from the word "empathy" to "sympathy" in that last example.

 

[redbaron]

I don't, BTW. This sounds like a really bad line of reasoning, which would invalidate any further arguments along such a line.

Wasn't referring to you, but anyway.

Factory-farmed as opposed to grass-fed has clear nutirtional disparities. The argument doesn't need to be exclusively meat vs. vegan and the discussion that was being had between myself and 420MuNkEy wasn't necessarily in that light.

Health detriments to consumption of factory-farmed meat.

Low meat consumptions correlated with higher life expectancy

 

[420MuNkEy]

Okay so 420MuNkEy, the only argument you've made for factory-farming is that it allows hedonic consumption of meat by humans, and since humans are the most important, their hedonism is more important than the suffering of lesser animals.

I've made no argument for factory-farmed meat specifically. This is yet another misrepresentation of what I've said. Meat, factory-farmed or not, has nutritional value. Whether the "factory-farmed" stuff has as much as the free range stuff is completely irrelevant to my points. But, yes, even if there were no nutritional value (which there is), the hedonic value alone is enough to justify the industry.

My position applies equally to hunted meat, free range meat, small-local-farm meat, factory-farmed meat, etc.

Sure, the fault lies in that way you used this general principle as a way to somehow demean the points of others in the thread. It might generally be true, but who's to say anyone here doesn't have more empathy? You're speaking on a forum with at most a few dozen people participating in this thread - what's the point of trying to impose some general principle on a sample size so small that it's essentially meaningless?

Ingroup preference is so universal in humans that it's not worth mentioning the autistic outliers (not having it would be akin to not having sexual desires, which is very uncommon). What one perceives ones groups to be, however, varies between individuals. Speaking to 100 people, I would expect them all to have group biases.

Only if you promise to keep backpedaling from making any meaningful points

I'm not backpedaling, you're just reading far more into what I've said than what I've actually said (or deliberately trying to troll). If after I've unfucked your interpretation of what I've said you have no objection/response, don't respond. I'm not going to allow myself to be cornered into a new position you've created by misrepresenting what I've said just to satisfy your desire to argue. I will, however, clarify. I've already said all I have to say about this topic. The only thing I've been doing for the past 12 or so posts is clarifying what I've already said to a, frankly, absurd degree.

I mean, I just raised that factory-farmed meat raises health concerns.
Your response: "that's a strawman"

Ironically, this is a misrepresentation of my response. A strawman.
My calling your post a strawman then was not related to any point made about factory farming and its health concerns (as detailed in the first part of this post).

I then raised that it has sustainability issues.
Your response: "that's a strawman"

Fuckin' hell, man. This is another misrepresentation of what I've said. Another fucking strawman.
I never said your sustainability point was a strawman, I said I had already addressed it, which I then reiterated.

So we now know that when you're talking about what's, "necessary" for humans - you're not really using the standard definition of the term, "necessary" - you're just talking about whatever they enjoy.

Again, another misrepresentation. The prioritization of humans is the necessity, as I already very fucking explicitly explained.

I mean I don't want to strawman you, I hate when it happens to either myself or others, so if you could stop using ambiguous language that'd be great.

Are you sure? It really seems like you're trying to troll via strawman creation here. All language is somewhat ambiguous given its fluidity, that being said, I'm not using particularly ambiguous language, you're just reading far more into it than is actually there. You seem to have prejudged my position and are reading my posts as confirmation of your prejudice rather than I've actually said.

And since you've literally just accused me of strawmanning you when I brought up the health and sustainability concerns of factory-farming meat, as well as talked about your lack of empathy for things removed from your personal space - if you now do a 180 and try to pass off that you really do care about the human health and sustainability issues raised by factory-farming, then you're a great big lying piece of shit.

"Care" would not be the right word. The issue of sustainability is of minor concern (selfish reasons, no empathy required) given that I think the sustainability problem is not inherent to meat production but rather is a global issue that would be better addressed another way.

Regarding health, I'm not advocating an all-factory-farmed-meat diet. It is possible to satisfy all your nutritional needs consuming nothing but the less-than-ideal sources of those needs. It seems to me that you're falsely dichotomizing nutrition here - "It's either the ideal source of x or it's worthless".

Edit: In case it's unclear (as it's left implicit) I am not making and have not made the claim or agreed to the claim that factory-farmed meat is less nutritious (nor am I rejecting such claims). It really doesn't matter to the points I've made whether or not it is. If, however, it comes up again later, I want this to have been explicitly noted so as not to be accused of having changed my position.

 

[420MuNkEy]

There's more than proximity in that equation. What is the narrative of that Afghani, vs. my neighbor? Did I get a blip of a news ticker about it, or a fairly involved story?

Yeah, I know, which is why I linked the twitter study. It would be practically impossible to enumerate and make explicit mention of all the factors that could make one care about another, which is why I isolated just one for a brief example.

 

[redbaron]

Okay so we can now settle on:

Human hedonic value is more important than the concerns of animals because humans are more important - even if that hedonic value affects health and long-term sustainability of the species and results in poor treatment of animals.

The thing is that all of my strawmans have been based on me believing that you're not some thoughtless, borderline sociopath idiot. Guess not. Anyway this argument was me just checking my own bias, because I've had this unshakeable sort of idea that the root argument of nearly everyone who supports the excessive implementation of the meat industry boils down to one very basic phrase:

"I like it."

 

[The Gopher]

Okay so we can now settle on:

Human hedonic value is more important than the concerns of animals because humans are more important - even if that hedonic value affects health and long-term sustainability of the species and results in poor treatment of animals.

The thing is that all of my strawmans have been based on me believing that you're not some thoughtless, borderline sociopath idiot. Guess not. Anyway this argument was me just checking my own bias, because I've had this unshakeable sort of idea that the root argument of nearly everyone who supports the excessive implementation of the meat industry boils down to one very basic phrase:

"I like it."

Hey! Just because someone is borderline sociopath(ic) doesn't mean they are a thoughtless idiot. You can thoughtfully kill heaps of animals after thinking and coming to a different conclusion.

Hmm... In light of this let me reword your statement removing bias.

The thing is that all of my strawmans have been based on me believing that you're not some possibly thoughtful with a different opinion however since my opinion is right you must be thoughtless in the sense of emotional thoughtlessness, borderline sociopath person who did not come to the same conclusion as me. Guess not. Anyway this argument was me just checking my own bias, because I've had this unshakeable sort of dogma that the only argument I can refute easily of nearly everyone (but obviously not everyone because that would be ridiculous) who supports the implementation of the meat industry in a productive way boils down to one very basic phrase:

"I like it." (Man I'm so good at being dramatic when I have the high ground.)

...

To be fair my personal argument is it's cheaper (which lets face it is the real reason for neglect here) I like eating meat and I like being able to afford it. (fish mostly so the hypocrites who only eat fish feel better) and I really don't care about the animals. I experience enough empathy burn out from humans as it is. (Which has been about six months at this point)

 

[crippli]

Is it sociopath to think that one could solve the meat production problem with producing food less efficiently. Like producing better, but less food. As in, less food production equals less meat production?

 

[The Gopher]

Is it sociopath to think that one could solve the meat production problem with producing food less efficiently. Like producing better, but less food. As in, less food production equals less meat production?

Yes all those starving people.

Also that will inflate the price of meat and cheap food so people will pay more and then not be able to afford medicine for their kids. It's a very thoughtless borderline sociopath idiot thing to do.

 

[crippli]

Yes all those starving people.

Also that will inflate the price of meat and cheap food so people will pay more and then not be able to afford medicine for their kids. It's a very thoughtless borderline sociopath idiot thing to do.

Are you saying it's the farmers responsibility to feed all humans? If the farmer instead want to use the land to feed wildlife, shouldn't they be free to do so?

Maybe the farmer likes wild animals better then vegetables?

 

[redbaron]

The thing is that all of my strawmans have been based on me believing that you're not some possibly thoughtful with a different opinion however since my opinion is right you must be thoughtless in the sense of emotional thoughtlessness, borderline sociopath person who did not come to the same conclusion as me. Guess not. Anyway this argument was me just checking my own bias, because I've had this unshakeable sort of dogma that the only argument I can refute easily of nearly everyone (but obviously not everyone because that would be ridiculous) who supports the implementation of the meat industry in a productive way boils down to one very basic phrase:

There a reason you go into pretty much every thread that I have a discussion/debate in and come at me with this kind of passive-aggressive shit?

To be fair my personal argument is it's cheaper

Except it's not.

I like eating meat and I like being able to afford it. and I really don't care about the animals.

Pretty much what I figure for most meat eaters.

I eat meat as well, and the only real reason is convenience and that I enjoy it. There's not a single robust argument for consuming more than opportunistic quantities of meat out there that doesn't ultimately resort to those two facts: easy and tasty.

People go through all sorts of mental gymnastics to try and make out like there's some kind of, "natural" argument or logical, evolutionary justification or some meaningful reason behind it - but there isn't.

Sidenote: this isn't meant to come from a high-horse, I eat meat myself. I'm just not under any illusion that it's due to a lack of empathy and/or that there's some noble or meaningful reason behind the decision. It's just mental and physical laziness.

 

[420MuNkEy]

I eat meat as well, and the only real reason is convenience and that I enjoy it. There's not a single robust argument for consuming more than opportunistic quantities of meat out there that doesn't ultimately resort to those two facts: easy and tasty.

And nutrition...

The problem here is that you have an emotional/irrational bias against this particular type of food. The same arguments could be made against peanuts.

There is no robust argument for producing massive amounts of peanuts for the market other than two facts: easy and tasty. (of course this is an oversimplification and overlooks byproducts created from the industry, much like your summation did).


In essence, the counter-argument to the case for meat is: but muh feels (and then bullshit emotionally related arguments like "but the environment" or "but you don't need that particular thing. Just do what I say instead so I feel better" are fallen back on when people don't care)


And yeah, call me borderline sociopathic if you want. I wouldn't reject the label. That doesn't render my points invalid and it's not insulting.

 

[redbaron]

And nutrition...

Anyone in the year 2016 who's seriously pushing the idea that eating meat in more than opportunistic quantities is important or necessary for nutrition is deluded.

The problem here is that you have an emotional/irrational bias against this particular type of food. The same arguments could be made against peanuts.

No.

I don't have any emotional problem with meat. I'd wager that I'd probably be someone who'd slaughter and clean my own cuts before majority of other people. I'm not against good farming practices, but there's a slew of ecological and biological detriments to current farming practices that have nothing to do with, "emotions".

If by emotions you mean that I value the survival of humans in a sustainably enjoyable environment, and that basic empathy for humans everywhere as opposed to just the humans in my own country, then sure, it's emotional.

Emotional doesn't mean wrong

Not to mention that the irony of this coming from you is almost overwhelming, considering that the hedonic argument you're so fond of is a purely emotional one.

I didn't bother pointing it out because I'm aware that an argument isn't null simply by virture of being emotional and that emotions are not an insignificant factor in determining consistent and practical ethics in the modern worrld - but if you're going to deal me that card I'll play it.

 

[420MuNkEy]

Anyone in the year 2016 who's seriously pushing the idea that eating meat in more than opportunistic quantities is important for nutrition is deluded.

Anyone who's pushing the idea that eating excessive amounts of peanuts is important for nutrition is deluded.

You're strawmanning again. Food is food. Nutrition is nutrition. I'm not advocating a particular diet here.

I don't have any emotional problem with meat. I'd wager that I'd probably be someone who'd slaughter and clean my own cuts before majority of other people. I'm not against good farming practices, but there's a slew of ecological and biological detriments to current farming practices that have nothing to do with, "emotions".

If by emotions you mean that I value the survival of humans in a sustainably enjoyable environment, and that basic empathy for humans everywhere as opposed to just the humans in my own country, then sure, it's emotional.

And these practices only exist in meat production, right? It couldn't possibly be that agriculture has shitty practices too? Do you avoid these products too and grow your own crops exclusively?

If meat production stopped today, all the livestock was dead, do you think global global warming be solved? You could demonize computers, cars, phones, movies, music, television, fruits, vegetables, just about everything humans produce and consume for the same reason - it's "unsustainable". What's the metric here? Are we just supposed to reject things you think are bad and ignore the ones you don't? Do we condemn everything? Do we kill off our species?

Emotional doesn't mean wrong

There seems to be a high rate of correlation with emotionalness and wrongness.

 

[crippli]

No. The farmer can do whatever he wants. He is free to like wild animals. That's completely irrelevant. Of course the starving people are free to kill the farmer but hey also irrelevant.

"Is it sociopath to think that one could solve the meat production problem with producing food less efficiently."

This is what I am making fun of. The hilariously short sighted solution of doing things worse to make things better.

So you think it makes things better to feed them? Is that the longsighted solution?

I think it's completely opposite. The short sighted solution is to feed them, but that creates an even bigger long sighted catastrophe. It will definitely create a catastrophe to not feed them also, with possibly the cost of the farmers life. Then one have really fucked it up.

And to the point of the thread. Isn't eating vegetables more efficient? I think I've read those claims. If so, I'd like to know why one should produce more food, when we know that human meat production depends on how much food is available.

The more people, the better. Is that where it's at?

 

[420MuNkEy]

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

Is it cruel to do nothing about that animal on the rail-road tracks if you were the one who put it there? Is it cruel to do nothing about that animal on the rail-road tracks if you put a plan in motion, which, indirectly, put the animal there, but the express purpose of the plan was to put the animal on the tracks? 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 be such that would make the animals hurt each other or warrant any drug treatments.

So by our 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 of whether it is economical or not. (and regardless whether that is the case in reality or not, I'm just talking about the principle)

It depends on the situation. How often are animals ending up on the railroad track? Is it something that could be significantly reduced or eliminated entirely with funds that exist within your budget? How much time, effort, and money does it cost to get that animal off the railroad track? Is it an active railroad track? How much will the fines be for not removing it? Will you serve jail time?

Upgrading your infrastructure to be less "hostile" to your livestock is something that should be done, just as a business expense. Again, I'll cite Temple Grandin. She's shown time and time again that animals that aren't afraid (untreated injuries would factor into this as well) are easier (i.e, cheaper) to work with. There's less labor involved in getting them to do what you need them to.

If you're having animals get injured all the time, they're going to be harder to move and less willing to do what you want. if you can avoid this by changing how you treat them, you should, just as a business decision. If your animals are getting sick, same situation.

It, however, does not make financial sense to take every cow that gets sick into the vet. That's a huge expense that most business models can't handle. They may want to, but simply couldn't afford to do business if they did. You could treat them on an individual basis, but then, again, where do you draw the line? This is what I was getting at with donating all your spare money/time. What percentage are you going to budget to treating sick/injured animals and is that worth it (combination of less profits, delaying business expansion, higher price of product, etc)?

 

[redbaron]

Anyone who's pushing the idea that eating excessive amounts of peanuts is important for nutrition is deluded.

You know, I've been trying to avoid going down the, "you're strawmanning me!"
"no you're strawmanning ME!" path for a while, but you're starting to leave me no choice.

Where have I said that eating excessive amounts of peanuts is important for nutrition? The only point I've made is that the extent to which we factory-farm meat is unnecessary and unethical for the following reasons:

1. Animal cruelty
2. Factory-farmed meat is actually unhealthy for humans
3. It's unnecessary and there are better alternatives
4. Ecological concerns

Where in that set of points do you find, "eating excessive amounts of peanuts?"

You're strawmanning again. Food is food. Nutrition is nutrition. I'm not advocating a particular diet here.

You've said multiple times that factory-farming meat is justified because hedonism. Whether or not you specifically advocate a diet OF factory-farmed meat isn't really relevant - you're supporting it as being better than the alternative of removing factory farming - because hedonism.

You don't get to say, "well it's benefitting the human race because hedonism!" and then backtrack your way out by acting as if you're not by extension endorsing the practice of factory-farming.

You've basically fought tooth and nail in this thread to justify the way we farm the majority of our meat and dairy products, but now you're predictably trying to backpedal out of agreeing to the logical implications of that, being:

1. unhealthier population
2. ecological concerns
3. animal cruelty

And these practices only exist in meat production, right? It couldn't possibly be that agriculture has shitty practices too? Do you avoid these products too and grow your own crops exclusively?

Really wanted to avoid this but...you're actually strawmanning me.

Where did I say I don't condemn

If meat production stopped today, all the livestock was dead, do you think global global warming be solved?

Fallacy and a strawman.

1. I never said that meat production was causing global warming.
2. I never advocated killing all livestock.
3. It doesn't have to stop global warming to still benefit mankind.

You could demonize computers, cars, phones, movies, music, television, fruits, vegetables, just about everything humans produce and consume for the same reason - it's "unsustainable". What's the metric here? Are we just supposed to reject things you think are bad and ignore the ones you don't? Do we condemn everything? Do we kill off our species?

More straw mans and more fallacy.

You certainly can demonize just about anything - and you can also deify just about anything too if you want. What's your point? This doesn't mean anything. Also, who says I support those other things that aren't sustainable?

The metric is interwoven with other ethical concerns. That's probably another thread's worth of debate in itself, but in a nutshell I tend to try and look for the realistic best outcomes for individual humans, humanity as a whole and the ecological mechanisms that govern our environment. I don't consider either one of these categories as necessarily more important than another because they're all related.

Realistic being a keyword - I don't think there's a point stopping all production of meat (and no...I don't think we should be turning the world into a peanut plantation either...)

Do I condemn everything? Obviously not. Some things disrupt ecological mechanisms, but provide a massive benefit to humans. Fine, so be it.

Other things disrupt ecological mechanisms needlessly, and provide minimal benefit and/or they simply create artificial demand. E.g. logging half of the Madagascan rainforest to produce, "sustainable" hemp clothing for rich Californians who parade their, "environmentally friendly" clothing proudly, blissfully unaware that their purchases go directly to funding the logging companies they so oppose in morality.

I say this because I think it should be clear that I'm as against buzzword bullshit as you seem to be. Gluten-free, organic, natural and all the other shit labelled on foods that doesn't really mean anything - I don't endorse any of that myself.

If there's a solution whereby we can keep individuals healthy, populations don't suffer and the environment fares better, then we should make an effort to do so. That's about the extend of how, "radical" my point of view gets.

There seems to be a high rate of correlation with emotionalness and wrongness.

I'd be worried about the hedonism argument then if I were you (just dealing the cards you're playing)

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

(fish mostly so the hypocrites who only eat fish feel better) and I really don't care about the animals.

Well, sociopathically speaking, it's a far more noble thing to eat fish and meats coming from organisms with basic, undeveloped brains and simple nervous systems, because they don't experience as much suffering or don't have the conceptual idea of loss like, say, a dolphin does.

Anyway, that's how I rationalise my hypocritical excuse, oh and plus fish is healthy, I've got a slew of articles why kind of thing.

Eating mammals is one step from cannibalism, really, wake up sheeple.

What's more scary is that it makes sense both ways...

Just as bad as Sinny going ahead and wishing death on people but burying it under 5,000 words of exposition so no one notices how low she sinks - but meanwhile let's ban 420MuNkEy for calling people idiots - we can't have that kind of awful herd behaviour guys!!!!

Return to normalcy is an ongoing process, you can't blame the other side for oscillations.
There are really basic binary choices here:
1. Aim to normalise
2. Defend your position by striking back.

Option 1 leads to better discussion, option 2 presents the same binary choice to the other party and potentially plays out in infinite loop.

And there's no denying you've called Munkey an idiotic, unempathetic sociopath in this thread without any real reason to do so. There are no reasonable arguments for stigmatising other participants like that if it's not to further your position.

 

[420MuNkEy]

You know, I've been trying to avoid going down the, "you're strawmanning me!"
"no you're strawmanning ME!" path for a while, but you're starting to leave me no choice.

Where have I said that eating excessive amounts of peanuts is important for nutrition? The only point I've made is that the extent to which we factory-farm meat is unnecessary and unethical for the following reasons:

1. Animal cruelty
2. Factory-farmed meat is actually unhealthy for humans
3. It's unnecessary and there are better alternatives
4. Ecological concerns

Where in that set of points do you find, "eating excessive amounts of peanuts?"

1. Feels
2. "Healthy", in relation to food, is an essentially meaningless word. Does it or does it not contribute to nutritional requirements? Is the LD50 small enough that it could reasonably consumed by accident? It's a food, not a fucking poison. It has nutritional value, whether you think it's "good enough" is irrelevant.
3. Peanuts are unnecessary. There are "better" alternatives. So-saith me, the divine arbiter of truth. I decide what everyone needs and wants and no less-than-optimal solutions are acceptable, only perfection.
4. Oh, well with that verbose explanation and compelling argument, I'm completely convinced.

You've said multiple times that factory-farming meat is justified because hedonism. Whether or not you specifically advocate a diet OF factory-farmed meat isn't really relevant - you're supporting it as being better than the alternative of removing factory farming - because hedonism.

You don't get to say, "well it's benefitting the human race because hedonism!" and then backtrack your way out by acting as if you're not by extension endorsing the practice of factory-farming.

That is a poor representation of what I've said. My position does not discern between factory farmed and local farmed - yours does. I'll grant that my position necessarily includes factory farming, but you're making it the focal point.

I'm not supporting the idea of prohibiting factory farming because hedonism, yes, but also... it has nutritional value. It's not poison and contributes some vital nutrition for humans. It doesn't matter if it can be gotten another way. You're also falsely dichotomizing by implying that the only logical alternative to endorsement is condemnation.

People have different nutritional requirements, access to food, morals/religions, tastes, and get different amounts of pleasure from eating. It's not my place to tell someone "no, you don't need that thing you like, so don't do it". Perhaps the promise of a big juicy steak on Friday is the only thing keeping Bill (hypothetical person) from sticking a gun in his mouth and blowing his fucking brains out. I don't know, I'm not Bill. In that situation, the steak, factory farmed or not, is certainly healthier than the bullet. Same argument can be made for the poison, alcohol.

You've basically fought tooth and nail in this thread to justify the way we farm the majority of our meat and dairy products, but now you're predictably trying to backpedal out of agreeing to the logical implications of that, being:

1. unhealthier population
2. ecological concerns
3. animal cruelty

Saying something is irrelevant isn't the same thing as agreeing. That's not "backpedaling", that's just understanding what has and hasn't been said without injecting assumptions.

1 & 2 are only a concern if you make certain assumptions, which we've already gone over 3 or 4 times.
3. But muh feels.

Really wanted to avoid this but...you're actually strawmanning me.

Where did I say I don't condemn

You didn't, hence the question.
Sure, I phrased it in a less-than-soul-crushingly-explict way, but I figured (perhaps wrongly) that exclusively growing your own crops was a fairly ridiculous thing.

If you are, in fact, against big agriculture as well, where do you get your food (Notice this is a question. I'm not putting words in your mouth)? Or is it like meat, where you're just against it in principle but still consume it? What should people eat if not food?

Fallacy and a strawman.

1. I never said that meat production was causing global warming.
2. I never advocated killing all livestock.
3. It doesn't have to stop global warming to still benefit mankind.

Jesus dude, it was another fucking question. That's what the little "?" on the end means.

I proposed a hypothetical solution (posed as a question so as to not put words in your mouth) that may potentially address your "ecological concerns", which you somehow read as me claiming that you support animal genocide. The death of the animals, in this hypothetical situation, was a removal of variables so as to simplify the situation.

You haven't clearly stated what your "ecological concerns" are, but you've cited sources where that seemed to be the primary concern, so I went with what I had.

More straw mans and more fallacy.

You're really bad at identifying logical fallacies.

You certainly can demonize just about anything - and you can also deify just about anything too if you want. What's your point? This doesn't mean anything. Also, who says I support those other things that aren't sustainable?

I don't know, who is saying that? It's not me. My point was that without a clearly defined metric of "sustainability" you may as well just throw out the argument (of "sustainability" being a reason to not "factory-farm") because it can be used against essentially everything humans produce and consume.

The metric is interwoven with other ethical concerns. That's probably another thread's worth of debate in itself, but in a nutshell I tend to try and look for the realistic best outcomes for individual humans, humanity as a whole and the ecological mechanisms that govern our environment. I don't consider either one of these categories as necessarily more important than another because they're all related.

Realistic being a keyword - I don't think there's a point stopping all production of meat (and no...I don't think we should be turning the world into a peanut plantation either...)

"Best" according to whom? Yourself? Speaking as an individual, forgive me for not caring what you think is best for me. You may think I'm just being a dick here, but this hearkens back to the point I was making earlier about people being different. How do you decide what is "best" for an individual without assuming your opinions to be supremely/divinely correct? Or do you just not care that individuals may have preferences/desires that you don't share or possibly, even understand?

(notice the last 2 things said are questions, not putting words in your mouth)

I'd be worried about the hedonism argument then if I were you (just dealing the cards you're playing)

There's a very large difference between "I don't do this because it makes me feel bad" and "You shouldn't do this because it makes me feel bad".