Meat eater here,
I am kind of getting sick of this hypocrisy.
If you care about an animal enough to not want them to suffer, you should also care about an animal enough to not see them die.
Taking any other position because of your feefees is insanely stupid and makes you look like a useful tool.
Animals either have NO RIGHTS, or FULL RIGHTS TO PRESERVE THEIR PERSONHOOD.
I am on the side of "No Rights", personally, because I am an egoist.
>B-but they don't live as long in the wild!
Animals barely ever reach their average age in the wild before getting slaughtered, but let's follow that argument really quick. You want to preserve animal welfare?
Then don't half-ass it. Let them live a happy life on a pasture, and have them die to age-related issues. Sure, this would collapse the meat industry, but you DO care about animals, right?
>B-but what about pets??
The value of a pet is determined by your personal relationship with that individual animal, not the entire species.
The species itself, e.g. dogs, people should be able to consume it with no moral or legal repercussions.
>S-so you are okay with animal torture and rape??
Firstly, animal torture isn't even always a bad thing if we consider science/ medical experiements to be torture.
If you are concerned about animal torture creating psychopaths, you can argue for outlawing it. Just don't use empathy as an argument.
As for rape, I don't really give a fuck what you do behind closed doors. That being said, laws regarding animal rape (and even drawings) are extremely laughable, especially when the dog or horse or whatever doesn't even mind that much.
Serious replies only, if you're not willing to engage with my arguments because you think I am being contrarian or hyperbolic, then do me and yourself a favor and just hide this thread so no one's time gets wasted.
>humane slaughter conditions
good thing they're animals
You actually wrote all of that shit. Get someone to talk with in real life.
Animals should have no rights. Animals should have welfare laws to protect their wellbeing, which they have.
Animals should have a good life before they die. And eating them isn't wrong or immoral.
What a pointless post. You haven't said anything, maybe put down the weed.
Maybe learn to read.
Nice rebuttal, bro. Let's keep obfuscating.
That's a big word for someone who can't read. Well done.
Wait for lab grown meat to phase out factory slaughterhouses.
Some animals have souls and are not food
Other animals have no souls and are food
Morality is invalid without a god. Either your religion told you both that suffering is bad and animals can suffer or you made it up on both counts. Scientifically you can not even prove humans suffer and there is no right and wrong, only successful and dead.
You can prove that you yourself can suffer.
"I think, therfore I am."
I can not prove that you think. I nor anyone else knows what in the brain makes you truly self aware but we do know something that isnt can claim to be. Maybe I’m one of the chosen people and you’re human cattle? I’m post adamic souled man and you are not? You’re a hylic with no divine spark?
Believing that you are as special as me would be a massive leap of logic also requiring faith in some nonsense. So I just dont give a fuck and fall back on the fit and the dead. I assume you are a person because it benefits me. This ends when it stops benefitting me. Hence the death penalty for awful people.
I think it's pretty reasonable to assume that people with the same neurological equipment as yourself are very likely to have a consciousness the same way you do.
I'm not saying it's 100%, but it's infinitely more understandable than an omnipotent creator.
That said, I can still make my personal morals, regardless. My morals don't have to depend on consciousness and "true suffering", but can depend on "surface suffering", wherein the only difference is that you can't know whether a human can experience "true suffering".
Do you even know consciousness is neurological? It’s a faithful assumption as much as anything else. Be honest then and admit you act on your feelings. It’s more respectable than being a preacher without a god. Larping as a prophet without the schizophrenia.
>successful and dead
why dog/cat eating dies out in most places. it’s wasting meat to create less meat and because they were bred to evoke empathy its a psychopathy test. the only places that eat cats and dogs are places that encourage low empathy individuals to reproduce and become wealthy. in the rest of the world we eat hideous, apparently mindless animals that can turn garbage into food, and then high functioning psychopaths invented corn and soi subsidies and the American diet so they could feed them grain and beans instead.
for everyone’s reference, cattle in nz are killed with a bullet to the brain in front of each other and they very rarely understand what is happening. we have largely bred the self awareness out of them because we are a high empathy race. their future is being a glob of meat without a brain. we torture chickens to shit because we can not recognize them as having feelings because they are reptillians and pigs evoke a disgust response by embodying every vice and disease humans instinctively hate so people actually want them to suffer.
the only time the cow experiment was done on dogs, after the first shot the dogs were either running away or attacking the gunman. cats i suppose would run away if they saw one or two cats magically drop dead first.
>Morality is invalid without a god.
Divine command morality is invalid without a god. There are other forms of morality though, like care ethics. It depends on what you mean by "morality" whether it needs supernatural assumptions or not. If you care about other people because you don't want them to suffer, you don't need any special assumptions.
You don't need to prove that other people/animals are conscious before you worry about them. You just need to have enough evidence that it's likely enough that they're conscious for it to make a difference in your decision making. If I'm 50% sure you're conscious, then I'll give you half of the concern that I would give myself.
You have the same neural machinery that I do, so I'm about 99% sure you're conscious. Same for other mammals and most other vertebrates, less certain for invertebrates. Very certain that plants aren't conscious of anything.
Other forms of morality range from egoism (i like it better that way morals) and a union of egoists (we have all agreed we like it better that way).
Neither is what I would really call morals. There is no objectivity, no stability, and the person with the most power will always be the most right. Divine command morality and metaphysical morality are beyond man and objective. The god is held to be real and great so he has the might to make right, or, the universe itself is judgemental, and no mind can change how it works. Explain that second one how you want. Hinduism or WH40k warp dimensions or “have faith, plus it seems likely so why not?”
you forgot soi morals
>it is self evident that this is objectively wrong/right
>because it just is ok
aka the low iq NPC received morals from someone else but doesnt know how they made them in the first place scenario
most vegans fall here
>the universe itself is judgemental, and no mind can change how it works
Right, no mind can decide that suffering feels good. By definition it wouldn't be suffering anymore if it didn't feel bad. So we don't get to decide that suffering is bad for us, it just is. It's part of the objective nature of the universe.
Masochists enjoy suffering
Furthermore suffering can be an abstraction on its apparent symptoms without being necessary for them, as an ancestral and automatic “get away from danger, other organisms” response. Such a creature would not suffer. It would just scream but it would not feel or experience anything.
Furthermore, what basis is there for inflicting suffering being bad? If the creatures opinions have no bearing on you, do what you gotta do. Or you believe in god/gods/karma? Or you just dont like it? Or other people don’t like it and ask that you don’t so you can receive their help? Here our god says eat cow and no one who matters thinks it matters if a cow lives in a field and dies.
>Masochists enjoy suffering
Not in the sense we're discussing. They enjoy a form of stimuli that would cause typical people to suffer. Same as how some people like Hispanicy food and others don't. If you stimulated the right place of the masochist's brain directly with electrodes, you could make them feel pain like an ordinary person, which would cause them to suffer too.
>Furthermore suffering can be an abstraction on its apparent symptoms without being necessary for them
That's not what we're discussing either. It's possible for an actor to pretend to be suffering, but that doesn't mean that when people are suffering for real that they're just acting.
>Furthermore, what basis is there for inflicting suffering being bad?
It's bad for the one who experiences it. That isn't their opinion or your opinion. Nobody gets to decide whether it's a bad thing for them or not. It just is.
>right place in the brain
>that’s not what we’re discussing
It is. Suffering is not necessarily occurring in an animal because it requires subjective experience. The outward signs you interpret as suffering could just be a primitive warning signal that humans inherited and added suffering to.
>its bad for the one that’s suffering
Ok, but i have no reason to care, and it probably isn’t experiencing anything and has no concept of bad, good, or anything. Tell me why I should even care if a cow suffers before I turn it into food.
>Tell me why I should even care if a cow suffers before I turn it into food.
If you had to experience what the cow was experiencing, would you still do it?
It's true that you don't have to experience what the cow is experiencing. However, neither do you experience what your future self is experiencing. Your future self is separate just in the same way the cow is.
Do you only care about the current moment that you can experience right now?
I am my future self. I am a single uninterrupted stream of thoughts, even in my sleep. I am self aware. I am myself now and until I am not. I reject the notion that my future self is separate because I am predictive and always moving into the future. Every time you think of your future self you are also becoming your future self.
A cow is a different entity and species that most likely doesn’t experience anything inside its head. If it suffers my present self eats steak and my future self is well fed. It also might not suffer at all.
You are somewhat like me, dangerous, useful, and an inefficient food source. If I hurt you, whether you are an automaton or not, I do not benefit.
Which things should I logically care about?
Yourself 20 or 100 years from now is a physically distinct object from you reading this. That's just a fact. You say you identify with your future self, but Future You might no longer identify with you now. Do you identify with your dad's sperm? Would you identify with your corpse?
There's nothing objective about which things are "truly" you or not. There are just experiences. You care about Future You because Future You has similar experiences to you now. If Future You was an alien that didn't experience anything, would you still care about it? Probably not.
>Which things should I logically care about?
If you care about things because they have similar experiences to you now (like Future You), you logically should care about a cow, to the extent that you have evidence supporting the hypothesis that a cow experiences things in a way similar to you.
I am and will be my future self. I know what will happen to me due to my own actions. I know how I will most likely feel. A cow is separate. I will never be a cow. It is not that complicated. In fact it is not like anything to be a cow. To apply ethics to a cow is like respecting the rights of a robot that screams when it hits a wall.
You are mixing some justified and unjustified claims.
>I am and will be my future self.
This is true, by definition. You are defined to be the same person as whatever ends up being called "you" in the future.
>I know what will happen to me due to my own actions.
Nope. You don't know what's going to happen to you. In fact, you don't even know what your actions are going to be in the future.
>A cow is separate. I will never be a cow.
This is true.
>In fact it is not like anything to be a cow.
I don't think so. Take a look at the "The Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness" for an alternative view. If you agree that your consciousness is based on your brain, then you should probably think that cows are also conscious of pain/pleasure/fear/etc.
>To apply ethics to a cow is like respecting the rights of a robot that screams when it hits a wall.
Only if the cow is like the robot. But if it has experiences similar to you, then applying ethics does make sense.
The cow does not have experiences like me. It has no self concept and no subjective experience. It is like this until proven otherwise. Furthermore the creator of the universe has informed all human beings that they are the only self aware creatures on earth.
And even furthermore, there is no reason to act consistently or have principles. If you have no divine command or metaphysical machination to appeal to, the concept of morality as anything but a situational means to an end is wholly invalid.
>you should treat the cow like yourself because it is like your future self in some way
Because? It is not my future self. No further explanation is needed. Come back when having a simple principle and following it consistently is somehow needed. No god ever told me to be principled like that. Perhaps it is actually because the cow screaming bothers you and nothing more. To me it’s just a robot mindlessly sending out a distress call, a response that evolved because a parent that screams when hurt will startle its children away from danger.
My real belief is in god and his commands. My other belief is that without him only egoism holds any weight and all other systems are nefarious egoisms.
>Come back when having a simple principle and following it consistently is somehow needed. No god ever told me to be principled like that.
It's needed for getting good things and avoiding bad things. After all, "good" is more important than "god" yes? You only care about god because you think god is a good being.
>My other belief is that without him only egoism holds any weight and all other systems are nefarious egoisms.
I think I agree with you. Is it a "nefarious egoism" if you care about a cow's suffering only because you don't see any difference between its suffering and your suffering? I guess that is a kind of expanded egoism. But it also seems a lot like morality.
Good and bad are either defined objectively by a higher power or force or they are subjective and arbitrary things that orbit your subjective and arbitrary goals. Without a god I can say that you claim consistently following carefully worded reductive principles is good so you can control others so they do not do things you just don’t like. It is arbitrary, and nefarious.
>caring about a cow
It’s caring about your mistaken empathy response towards the cow. Ultimately. There is no cow. I don’t see it as suffering , and it is not myself. It is not a person. It will never be any of those things, it turns grass into cow and dies. And then god comes along and says “this thing you may eat”. I don’t see how it’s theoretical suffering being in some ways similar to the future suffering of myself or other people matters. It is also god-given food, and more useful dead than alive, while man is gods chosen, the sole conscious species, and more useful alive and happy than dead.
Well, imagine for a moment that you were someone who took scientific evidence seriously. The empirical evidence is very strong that cows feel pain/fear/pleasure in the same way that humans do, because the parts of our brain that handle reward and emotions are physically very similar and act the same way in experiments.
Now, imagine God decided that after today you would stop having experiences, but your body would keep moving and acting like you were conscious. Would you still care about what happened to your future "self" who acted the same way but wasn't conscious of anything, like a robot?
Maybe you don't buy the idea that you should care about a cow because it has similar experiences as you, but I think you must admit that you care about your future self because of your future experiences. If those experiences stopped, you would stop caring.
The underlying information processing is the same. Cows lack the overlying consciousness. The massive frontal lobes. The well organized spindle neurons. And the divine spark that it does nothing without.
>well what if god…
I do not care about the cow because all word twisting analogies aside it is a cow from beginning to end. My principle is based on it being a cow. Even if it suffered I would not care. And god or no god I have no reason to. Man under god and above all else.
this but my god said only humans and canines had souls
the complaint department is in the underworld and the line is very long. tata fuckers.
It might be true that cows, though acting like they're in pain and showing neurological signs of pain, actually don't experience anything like what we call suffering.
However, it's also quite possible that they do experience suffering. Therefore, if you do care about conscious suffering, there's a good reason to avoid hurting cows since it's possible that you would be causing them to suffer.
I don't know how god fits into this. It's hard to know what god wants. Otherwise, being a prophet wouldn't be a big deal (and prophets wouldn't disagree with each other).
I really don’t care about suffering. I care about human suffering. And god fits into this pretty well. You can read this thing called the holy bible.
Cows do not suffer anyways. We treat them well enough as practice to encourage good habits towards each other but they are still just cows. No minds in those things. No hopelessness or despair, it is and always will be a cow, and if it had a mind to know anything it would know low levels of stress and confusion for reasons that escaped it because the real horror - that it’s slated for death - could only be understood by a man. But it seems that even if you kill cows in front of each other, it doesn’t really register that you are the angel of death. They’re just startled by loud noises.
I've heard that for the same reason, doctors used to think it was unnecessary to give human infants anesthesia...
Human infants are human from birth to death and from death for eternity. Everything that happens to them happens to a human. Humans are the only things on earth that you have a god given moral imperative to be kind to and the only thing properly functioning people have full unconditional empathy for.
Everything else is largely irrelevant. Not to be abused for pleasure, but not to be treated like it’s a human either, because we alone have souls.
Vegans would be better off dropping “animal suffering” because it simply is neither real nor relevant (even if they suffer it is a necessity for how we are using them) and stick to the waste and gluttony angle. You need meat to survive but not that much and if we are feeding the things good grains and beans for pleasure then we are sinning, that is a simple, relevant, and real argument for cutting back on the ridiculous amount of meat farming going on and it would secretly serve your zoophillic disorder because fewer animals would appear to suffer in a way that triggered your disordered animal instincts. But that would require you to be a good and godly person instead of an animal fetishist and self proclaimed enemy of god and humanity.
Lol nobody brought up zoophilia until you did, you filthy degenerate. It's like you're trying to suppress your desires but when it gets too much you start lashing out at other people for no reason.
>you called me a fag huh you must be gay
>Good and bad are defined objectively by a higher power or force
What makes god's opinion objective? What's god's reasoning behind all that crap in the bible? Why should anyone care?
>You can read this thing called the holy bible.
too long didn't read
>I really don’t care about suffering. I care about human suffering.
>Cows do not suffer anyways
It's funny how religious people think godless people can't have morals but it's actually them who use religion as an excuse to do immoral shit
Immoral says who? Name your god. No god? Then your morals are based around you yourself not being offended die to your misapplied empathy. A cow is literally an object. It has no soul. It has no consciousness. It lacks a mind, it has no experience, it only processes and automatically reacts to stimuli. It is given the bare minimum of consideration in the name of good practice and not offending people like you, and I assure you it is all very moral. It’s a meat robot, and you need to understand it is not aware that it is in a cage or about to die. It’s just in a slightly agitated state because its programming is to enter that state and until it seeks an open space and a herd to be there with. But it doesn’t know what’s going on, it’s a cow.
When I kill a cow with a whisper quiet gunshit and it falls without much of a thud, and the next one in line tries to grab the gun from my hands or starts screaming in terror, tries to get away, or pleads for its life whenever i point a gun at it from then on, then I’ll stop eating cows. But this has never happened. Cows have no minds. God was right. We can eat them. Surprise.
>what makes my creators opinion objective
probably the part where he created the universe and you burn alive in a lake of fire if you disagree
lmao I can't even tell whether this is a troll
>People should be allowed to eat their pets.
Agreed, I believe that if you do this, your pet will live on through you and always be apart of you until the day you die.
You are not a meat eater.
All slaughter is humane.
We should just get a firing squad for every pig and let them keep their uniform. And maybe even let them smoke a fag before you shoot
Bullet in the brain is humane so your post is stupid
Not op. Im a hunter and i eat meat a lot.
Living life in a shitty tiny cage is the inhumane part, not the bullet in the brain.
Yeah alright, maybe I'm not too familiar with the term slaughter conditions
I just meant any situation where an animal is killed for their meat, so farms and hunting
Living life in a shitty tiny cage is also against the law. If it happens, the farmer is breaking the law. (In developed countries)
If you know of a farmer doing this, it is not normal, it is not the standard, it is a crime.
>Living life in a shitty tiny cage is also against the law. If it happens, the farmer is breaking the law. (In developed countries)
That's obviously not the case since it happens all the time in factory farms which produce most of the meat on the market.
It actually doesn't.
Factory farms are just huge indoor farms. Chickens in particular are kept in cramped conditions but rarely in a cage.
The fact you think this is probably due to ARA propaganda. You can't Google factory farm images without having cherrypicked images of illegal factory farms be every single image you see. Of course this is your perception, I'm not blaming for believing that.
It is a lie however.
Post a picture of what a "real" factory farm looks like.
Except it does, when factory farms are not transparent with their practices these cherrypicked photos are literally all we have to see what is going on inside them. Also only a few states passed laws against the confinement of animals and even then it's only against the usage of specific containment methodes such as gestation crates and battery cages and nothing that definitely forbids the cramming if animals such as laws limiting the number of animals per square feet. They are also innefective because factory farmers can just move to states without such regulations.
There are also no laws against the tail docking of cattle, against debeaking.
You say it's a lie but on what evidence do you base your opinion on?
No one is stopping journalists from visiting legal and ethical factory farms. No one is stopping you. I'm saying the things I'm saying because this is my job, I visit local factory farms to essentially make sure they're conforming to standards of health (for humans specifically, but obv I see everything). My local area is the UK, so I don't give a fuck about America, I'm talking about civilised, developed countries.
You say it's true but all your evidence is cherrypicked images and peta articles. I base my opinions on my observations, not someone else's.
>No one is stopping journalists from visiting legal and ethical factory farms. These places are not open to public viewing buddy where I am and I would be surprised if that was the case in the UK.
>You say it's true but all your evidence is cherrypicked images and peta articles
Peta is neither the sole association criticizing nor the only one providing photos about factory farming, there are dozens of them and even some that aren't primarly about animal rights.
>I base my opinions on my observations
You complain about cherrypicking but here you are basing your opinion on the dozens of units you visited among the hundreds in the UK.
Rip messed up the first green text
>>No one is stopping journalists from visiting legal and ethical factory farms.
These places are not open to public viewing where I am and I would be surprised if that was the case in the UK
Don't have to be. If you're so interested then say you're a journalist doing a piece on ethical factory farms. Or you're an ag student doing a paper or some shit. Most places would be willing to give you a tour. And if not, then you're allowed to be suHispanicious.
Peta is the loudest voice and therefore every other animal rights organisation spreading propaganda takes inspiration and front from them in one way or another.
I would argue the number is in the tens of dozens (hundreds maybe?) all over the UK. I focus in Wales and northern England mostly but gave gone to farms all over the UK.