@BrockyD I thought that was a very simple point I made; it means the people that are so casual about taking life and think that its funny shouldput themselves in that position and I bet it would give them another perspective! I dont take killing anything lightly, human or animal and THAT is what makes me different than the people Im referring to!
CAN YOU GET MORE BACON OUT OF A POT BELLY PIG. BECAUSE I LOVE BACON ON ALL MY SANDWICHES. WRAPPED AROUND PORK ROAST, ON HAMBURGERS ON TURKEY. JUST FOOD FOR THOUGHT. MY PROTEIN LEVEL IS HIGH TODAY.
hey dick-face andrew; you talk about eating meat as being natural; there's nothing funny about killing an animal for survival...we do it but anyone who thinks it's funny is a bitch who deserves to be killed, eaten and laughed at themselves!
At least she's honest and not disconnected from the meat she eats. You have to admire that. Most people are in a total state of denial and have no philosophical qualms about having somebody else do their dirty work for them.
I went vegan, after a lifetime of eating meat. Good riddance.
@ANDREWEHUNT the fuck, you became a vegan?! what a completely retarded way to needlessly torture yourself. seriously, meat is THE tastiest meal on this whole damn planet and to be honest, its pretty hilarious to eat the meat of some animal that hopped happily around a while ago.
besides, humans are omnivores, we are designed to eat both meat and fruit/vegetables so you are going against nature. its not like wild animals arent butchering the living crap out of each other for food anyway.
This woman IS a little creepy in the way that she expresses herself,with the ceremony etc.
Still, it is true that whenever you raise your own animals for food is a really wonderfull thing.Not that it is nice when you kill them(death is always sad)but you should'nt forget that these animals are born to feed us.But if we want to eat meat we should at least give them a nice life where they can be outside, in the fields and have the life. Then whenever they are ready, we eat them without guilt
How exactly does humor and directness translate into "creepy"? She's a breath of fresh air, frankly, compared to all the sanctimonious morons pushing their food-related agendas these days. I like Pollan for the same reason.
its called growing your own food. for all you haters, GET REAL. its a FARM. a woman that wants to tend to her farm what the hell do you think your GREAT GREAT grandfather did to eat huh? don't be freakin stupid.
uh how 'bout without beating and terrifying it in a factory where the closest thing it sees to sunlight is through exhaust fumes and through holes in the truck siding and watching it scream and gargle up blood as its rolled into a giant steam-cooker to remove its hair or feathers, sometimes before its even stopped moving?
typical family farmer. nothing wrong here, nothing weird or creepy. what is creepy are the alternatives; industrial ag, and vegans on the warpath. ask any athabaskan, proud hunter gatherer in alaska for the last 10000 years.
totally ad hominem on my part -- but does anyone else find Novella's personal demeanor to be extremely creepy? what she's saying is creepy -- loving and bonding with a being the way you would with a dog or cat and then choosing to painfully (without drugs there is no painless slaughter) kill them just cause you feel like eating them. that's a creepy position. but in addition i find her creepy on a personal level. it's hard to picture her experiencing basic feelings of empathy or compassion.
It probably does seem odd to an outsider, but treating my chickens/ducks as well as I would pets allows me to have a clean conscience when I do process them. They are also dead within seconds with my method (branch clippers)
"They got their eyes on the side of their heads..."
"Those are animals that have been raised, over thousands of years, to be food for us."
Just goes to show that you need not be religious/creationist to be completely ignorant of evolution. I'm guessing when this woman sees a picture a picture of a Tyrannosaurus she thinks "that was food for me!".
You are a fucking idiot. The T rex, as well as most other reptilian predators, have eyes on TOP of their heads that face forward, despite *appearing* on the sides of their heads. You are right about one thing, you don't have to be religious to be ignorant of evolution, you just have to be a contrarian moron
Sounds like the perfect way for vegetarians to ethically get back to a healthy diet. Edible pets are way better than factory farms. Denying that goes against everything animal rights stands for.
Chimps are omnivores. They also are incredibly vicious. Friends witnessed a chimp murder on safari. They kill & eat colobus monkeys,& other small animals. There is one in Gombe who killed a baby, which is why the park has a lower age limit. We're omnivores. Look at our teeth.
However, there are a billion Hindus who eat dairy, but not animal flesh.
Vegetarianism is a noble choice, but please don't operate on a misinformed notion of vegetarianism being "natural" for us. It is not.
Yes, chimps kill, but rarely eat other animals (Jane Goodall observed it happen once a month). Most chimps are strictly vegan.
True omnivores include bears, dogs, and raccoons. Do you think our teeth are comparable? In fact, our teeth have almost exactly the same structure as those of horses, cows, and giraffes. A future alien civilization looking only at human dental structure would be forced to conclude that we were strictly herbivores.
Vegetarianism is not just natural, but most healthy.
This is one of those polarizing issues where the truth lies in the middle. The truth is, we evolved to eat meat but Americans in particular eat much more than we need to. The result, far greater evils known as factory farming and obesity. Sure it sucks to kill an animal you raised yourself, but millions of tons of shit being poured into the Mississippi river every year, and heart disease far outweigh that sort of thing.
Thanks for the reasoned comment, Magellan'sUnderwear.
I'm not sure what you mean that waste in the Mississippi and heart disease "far outweigh" animal treatment. Are these somehow mutually exclusive concerns? Are you aware that animal farming is responsible for more greenhouse gas than all of transportation pollution combined? Do you know that a major contributor to heart disease is eating too much meat?
Also, can you justify your statement that "we evolved to eat meat"?
The structure of our teeth and the levels of protease and lipase in our digestive systems are indicative of an omnivorous diet. I would wager the desire to eat meat is also an indicator, but there's no way to determine that. My point was the American disconnect with the food supply is the real evil here because it leads to the environmental disasters we now face. The disconnect leads to eating far too much meat, which creates factory farms, which is much worse than eating the family "pet".
The structure of our teeth and digestive system is like that of our closest animal kin, chimps. Chimps north of the Congo river eat almost only fruit, and chimps south of the river are completely "vegan". So I think you're quite mistaken about our naturally selected diet.
Regular meat intake is an extremely recent addition to human culture. Evolution takes millions of years, not thousands, to go from vegan physiology to omnivorous.
Factory farms are also cruel. So where do you buy your meat?
Chimps are omnivorous, Bonobos are mostly frugivores.
The fact we even can eat meat is a sign we evolved to do so. A horse didnt evolve to, so it cant. We are spear-using omnivores, some human populations did and do live entirely off of meat.
Dont confuse can with should, or 'natural' with 'right'. We can also (and evolved to) kill other humans, but we dont.
Yes, chimps eat meat, but infrequently (Goodall observed a chimp would eat a fist sized amount of meat per month).
That we eat meat does mean we evolved to do so in the tautological sense that whatever we *do* we thereby evolved to do. However, eating meat contradicts our dental structure, acidity and enzymes in our saliva, stomach pH, intestinal structure, time spent sleeping, and the fact that regular meat intake is linked to heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and osteoporosis.
Many populations of humans live almost entirely on a diet of meat (reindeer or what have you). This is not nearly the same as a horse or such. The fact we are even capable of it shows that it is a part of our evolutionary history.
Goodall also observed Chimps going to war with eachother. They are also very skilled and complex hunters. watch?v=WDFh5JdYh7I
This is irrelevant to the morality of it, knowing that we can, or have, or evolved to, doesnt tell us that we SHOULD. Naturalistic fallacy.
It's interesting that you ignored my earlier comment about health in the context of what's natural. I won't repeat it here. But I have read Moore's Principia. I am familiar with the naturalistic fallacy.
Vague, fluffy deductions of what is 'natural' by comparisons to chimps or examination of teeth structure. This kind of arguments always go nowhere. Empirical data on the actual health of humans is what you should look at if you want to use the health argument.
In the studies ive read, Vegetarianism is generally healthier for humans. Veganism, on the other hand, is generally not.
Comparison of chimp physiology to humans gives us an immense amount of information about our own physiology. Just think of lab experiments and testing on animals. To deny this makes it hard for me to take you seriously.
Veganism is also objectively healthier than vegetarianism. What studies are you reading? Despite dairy industry propaganda, humans tend to be significantly better off without dairy. Same for eggs. Vitamin B12 can be gotten from bacteria on leafy surfaces.
Scientific studies are useful, mental masturbation on the internet by comparing teeth is a waste of time. Actual studies on human health is the most useful though.
Ive a friend who ended up aneamic from a vegan diet (anecdotal, yes). I dont contend that you cannot be healthy on a vegan diet, merely that it is much more difficult, you must pay a lot of attention to balancing your diet to ensure adequate nutrition.
I cannot really speak to the practical applications of everyone doing this.
I agree that being vegan might be difficult (if only at first). However, no one said following our moral imperatives would always be easy. Aren't bravest of men those who align with the moral imperative despite the ease of the alternative?
I do not think the systematic adoption of vegan diets by the entire society will raise the health of the society. People do not spend enough time caring for thier health at current, and a vegan diet is more difficult. For those who wish to spend the time carefully watching their diet, it may be healthy for them.
A vegetarian or meat-restricted diet is easy and may help with the current obesity problems, but veganism is not some convenient panacea.
@mavaddat What studies have you been reading? The idea that dairy is "bad" or unnatural (for us to consume) seems like something you try and prove as a vegan. How heavily processed was the dairy used? What did the animals eat? Let me put it to you another way, Iceland has one of the highest qualities of life in old age, a huge number of people over 100, the highest average lifespan outside of Japan. 245 pounds of fish, 180lbs of meat, copious amounts of dairy and little or no veg.
There are lots. See, for example, "Should dairy be recommended?" by Lanou, AJ.
Lanou finds, "Osteoporotic bone fracture rates are highest in countries that consume the most dairy, calcium, and animal protein. [S]tudies of fracture risk provide little or no evidence that dairy products benefit bone. Accumulating evidence shows that consuming dairy products may contribute to the risk of prostate and ovarian cancers, autoimmune diseases, and some childhood ailments."
Ok so a PhD, not an MD, a Vegan for ethical reason. I don't see this as an unbiased source. Do you? That said she concludes "that high-fat, high-calorie dairy products actually play a key role in America's obesity epidemic... Milk is the single largest source of saturated fat - a leading contributor to coronary disease " Two words "French Paradox". They eat twice as much cream and whole milk as Americans. No where near the same rate of heart disease, or obesity. I don't think it's the milk.
MD's are relatively ill-placed to make judgements on nutrition. In North America, MD's (including family doctors) do not take more than one upper level class on diet or nutrition, and further study is not required. Only dietitians and nutritionists are academically qualified to recommend healthy eating plans.
The source I cited is science based, not biased. France and U.S. consume almost equivalent amounts of dairy product, but the U.S. consumes twice the beef and poultry. Do the math.
@mavaddat I'd also point out the claim that "Osteoporotic bone fracture rates are highest in countries that consume the most dairy, calcium....." deliberately sets aside anomallys that the scientific community can't figure out. Like the low rates of osteoperosis in Iceland. They aren't the highest, or even close. However they eat 250lbs of fish, 140lbs of lamb and massive amounts of diary, per capita. So if the link was there they'd have to be the worst. They aren't.
In fact, it seems you are simply wrong about low rates of osteoporosis in Iceland. For example, Kanis JA, Johnell O, De Laet C, et al. report in "International variations in hip fracture probabilities" that the highest risk of hip fractures due to osteoporosis are seen in Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Denmark and the U.S.
Even if it were true that this correlation deliberately set aside anomalies, that is the nature of statistical correlation anyway! You draw trends from the most common case.
The most precious thing you can do for an animal you plan to eat is to give them a loving and good life first. It also means more when we are spiritually connected to our food. Five stars.
Gosh this has really brought out the militant vegetarians hasnt it.
It is impossible to live and NOT kill animals. Farming of grain kills mice, spraying of crops kills thousands of insects. But insects arent cute enough to care about? And bacteria, dust mites? What about plants- they are alive. Isnt it wrong to kill plants?
As a human being you fuel yourself off of the death of other organisms. Deal with it.
Animals feel pain and emotion, that's why it's wrong to kill them.
Agreed, it is impossible to not kill animals in some way or another. However, that doesn't give us licence to kill them in every way and the other. It also doesn't mean we shouldn't try to minimize the animals we harm. Don't you agree?
These are separate issues.
Consider a parallel argument: Global economics entails that some people will be made poor to the point of starvation. Therefore, we don't need to minimize starvation?
She is minimizing pain, she is minimizing harm. She keeps these animals in a happy, healthy enviroment, kills them humanely and has an understanding of the exact effects eating these animals has both emotionally and enviromentally.
Go criticize dehumanized factory farms and buying meat that comes in trays from the supermarket. Not this woman.
Thanks for the thoughts, Saktoth. I understand that *IF* you are committed to eating meat, then she is raising and killing animals in the least painful way. But it is far from painless.
In reality, those animals will feel profound pain and terror when butchered in the prime of their adult life (they are killed by beheading or jugulating without anaesthesia). Farm animals (especially pigs) also have amazingly complex social structure and mourn each other.
Crop spraying and combine harvesters and deforestation and the massive enviromental displacement required for growing grain and vegetables leads to the death of thousands of animals. Screw the pigs, they wouldnt even exist if we werent eating them, what about all the wildlife?
Yes, deforestation and methane due to beef farming does more damage, but this woman cant be blamed for that. Are you a vegetarian because of the enviromental impact, or because you are squeamish about the poor piggies?
I'm "vegan". My reasons include compassion for animals, environmental concern, and personal and societal health. I find it disturbing that you refer to caring about other sentient animals as mere "squeamishness", as if it were a silly fear.
Pigs wouldn't exist if we weren't eating them? Actually, pigs make great pets. But that is beside the point. The question is whether it is ever justified to kill an animal strictly for food. The fact that they feel human-like pain and emotion suggests not.
"gently killing them with love" - murder is not a gentle act! i highly doubt that the animals being slaughtered think so either.
as sentient beings, animals certainly do feel emotion/pain. part of the problem is humans have the sense of being superior which creates separateness. there is therefore no thought it taking the life of an animal.
the resources used to raise animals for food is a potent issue. how is it just that some shall have the luxury of eating meat while others starve?
This woman understands what it is to take an animals life in a way we never will. People who buy sausages at the shops, that is creating separateness.
We eat too much meat, our farming practices are not sustainable. But the fact remains that humans cannot eat grass, and that not all land is appropriate for growing wheat or vegetables. The small scale farm where animals are raised on the land rather than fed on soy and antibiotics is the solution to this problem, not the cause.
You are comparing apples and oranges. It wouldn't be cost effective to keep bugs off crops without killing them. Plants don't have brains, or a nervous system. Neither do bacteria.
You gave examples of things that either:
We can't avoid killing, or
Don't value their own lives
I'm all for eating meat, and killing for it. But don't kid yourself. It's not necessary for your survival. It's a luxury.
Organic farming doesnt spray crops, though i agree its not very cost effective.
All living things value their own lives. It is an intense struggle for survival out there, if you arent fighting you're dead. So they dont have a central nervous system or a 'conception' of what it is to be alive. So what. This is just a line in the sand dwarn between fluffy moocows and creepy locusts. Most meat eaters just draw the line further up- between Humans and Non-Humans.
So what? So having a nervous system means that they can feel pain and emotion, that's what. The part of the nervous system responsible for pain and emotion is exactly the same in cows as it is in humans. To think that this is a trivial matter or an arbitrary "line in the sand" is to seriously mistake a matter of physiology.
If causing unnecessary harm in animals is not wrong, there is no reason to think it is especially wrong in humans. Show compassion!
So its alright to murder people if you anesthetize them first? Basing your ethical framework on whether or not something can feel pain is morally bankrupt and unworkable, it is for the emotionally squeamish.
Have you ever killed a plant with your bare hands, ripped it from the ground and felt it wilt and die, and struggle to live? Show compassion!
You can not afford the same rights to animals as you do people. Otherwise we'd have to keep most of them in prison for pooping everywhere.
I agree that pain *alone* does not make a moral framework. But it's certainly a necessary consideration!
Anaesthesia is not sufficient to warrant killing anyone; however, if the killing is not forced, anaesthesia would be necessary. You understand the difference between "necessary" and "sufficient" conditions?
I find it amazing that people compare animals that feel pain with plants. Incredible.
Yes, we'd banish animals from the city who pooped everywhere. That's exactly what we do already.
You have not offered any argument that we should not kill animals other than that they feel pain. Its the only criteria you have set forth. Offer a proper ethical argument.
I am not joking when i talk about plants. It doesnt matter whether it feels pain or not, when you take a life to feed yourself you better be concious of what it is you are doing. The fact you havent even stopped to think about this is frankly shocking.
I'm always shocked when people compare plants to animals. If this were an argument about cruelty to dogs you would call someone an idiot for saying that it's no different than cutting grass. Please stop treating all people who read this like idiots- anyone who has passed middle school biology knows this distinction, and most people realize instinctively that animals are different because they have a central nervous system which makes them capable of suffering.
Who said I hadn't thought of the plants' lives that I eat? You assumed that from thin air.
By comparing plants to animals, you suppose a nervous system is irrelevant to how we ought to treat life forms. This is a grotesque assumption made ridiculous if carried to conclusion. Why treat humans differently than plants?
I appeal to the ethical proposition that we ought, so far as we don't contradict other imperatives, prevent inflicting unnecessary pain. If you disagree, please justify yourself.
On the issue of displacement of animals: We dont, and cant, banish birds. What about animal reproductive rights? What about disease carrying rats? We cannot hold them to the same standards.
What happens when there is no more habitat left for a species? We are not talking about keeping pets and killing them here, we are talking genocide. Not just killing one animal, but displacing them and killing their entire species.
Vegan or not you are responsible in a small way for all of this.
Saktoth, may I recommend a brief video of mine titled "The Grounding of Moral Facts: Shelly Kagan [...]"? Professor Kagan does a good job of describing why it doesn't make sense to hold animals morally accountable in the way you are asking. Briefly, animals aren't capable of ethical reasoning, so it doesn't make sense to say what they do is morally wrong.
However, that is very far from saying we have no ethical obligations toward them. To deny this is to confuse moral worth with moral agency.
So you agree that we cannot treat Animals the same as we treat humans.
What about mentally handicapped humans? What about dangerous or destructive animals, such as hippos, mosquitos.
Even a flatworm has a central nervous system, what about the dust mites you kill every day?
You say that the minimization or elimination of pain isnt sufficient ethical criteria, i agree. So what IS the ethical criteria you use to tell when it is right to kill an animal (and you do kill MANY).
Yes, I agree we cannot treat animals the same as we treat humans.
Value is the criteria to decide worth.
I believe we need a graduated, scaled ethics of concern so that we may recognize value in other lifeforms (as opposed to having a black-and-white conception of worth). Thus, we will value animals in proportion to their valuable characteristics (e.g., cognition, capacity for pain, emotion, social structure, even beauty, helpfulness, etc.) instead of disregarding them if they're not human.
Value is an assigned characteristic. Instrumental values are always towards an end, an inherent value, but the inherent value is itself is still assigned rather than being 'inherent' in the same way as 'heat' is. Agreed?
The value of cognition and social structure is more a manifestation of personal bias as we ourselves possess these characteristics. You value these things merely because you possess them. You value it in others merely because they are 'like you'. This is a form of bigotry.
Saktoth, you are here guilty of a genetic fallacy: The source of our values (in your case, likeness to us) tells us nothing about whether they are justified or not.
The question is not "where do our values come from?", but rather "what do we (you and I) in fact value?"
Unless you are saying you really don't value anything, I think we can have a productive conversation about acting in consistency with your actual values without ever pondering the genetic explanation for those values.
What you present is really two ideas, one is that the traits in common with humans are 'valuable', this seems partly as a way to support the worth of humans (humans are at the top of the scale in all the things you value, no surprise).
The second is that those traits that are useful to humans should be preserved, a sort of utilitarian rational-self interest.
So, your ethical framework still strikes me as ultimately human centric. Some people just draw the harsher line to remove ambiguity.
No, my ethic is not solely human centric. Being like humans is only one part of what I value. I'm a value pluralist. Have you read W.D. Ross?
I'm not so interested in providing an irrefutable foundation for ethics as much as I am interested in evaluating what we actually value and considering whether we are living in harmony with that.
If possible, is it better to preserve an animal with an ability to think or not? If possible, is it not better to prevent excess pain than to allow it?
Im a utilitarian moral relitivist. My goal is to come up with a single foundational value that most people will agree with which leads to an ethical structure i can follow. At its simplest my rule is that human life and happiness is valuable. Its bigoted though, if you think about it.
I think viewing the rights of animals as disconnected individuals can be problematic. If we preserved all animals that thought, we would run out of space quickly. Inaction has similiar moral weight to action.
Thank you for the constructive conversation, Saktoth. You are a rare breed of YouTuber.
My suggestion is not to preserve all animals who think. My suggestion is that we not actively eliminate those who do think.
"Ought" implies "can". We cannot save every animal, so that cannot be our obligation.
So let me ask you: On your theory, is it ever wrong to abuse a non-human animal? If so, when and why (i.e, on what principle)? If not, does such a theory not seem grotesque?
Action and inaction blur into eachother when you are talking about ecosystems. We fundamentally change the ecosystem by our mere preasance, by urbanization, land-clearing, roads, mining, etc. The cane toad cant help being posionuous, but it is. Sometimes systematic eradication is the only choice.
Define 'abuse'. Pain for its own sake is wrong. Negligence can be wrong but is sometimes unavoidable. Inflicting pain as a byproduct of another end is in my mind justifiable.
Is this woman for real? Gently killing them with love?! Obviously, she doesn't find anything wrong with it: she's not the one being "gently" butchered with "love." Has anyone asked the pigs is they're OK with being slaughtered? Of course, not.
I've considered giving my dead body away to a giant barbeque party when I die. Strictly speaking, it's more moraly ok eating my dead body (with my consent), then what it is eating a tortured and killed pig. Somehow I think there would be some laws against it.
Good point! If other animals do it, it has to be alright for humans to do it. Makes sense! So I assume you don't mind if I chase you down and tear your throat out with my bare teeth. While I'm at it, I assume you don't mind if I rape your mother too, right? After all, wolves do it all the time. Remember: Your logic, not mine.
"I assume you don't mind if I chase you down and tear your throat out"
No I don't mind at all, it would give me a legally acceptable reason to use my pistol.
The ironic point being you overlook savagery from other animals but then turn around and claim they feel "love" and "pain" more vividly than humans(almost implying they are more noble somehow). A travesty of reason in the purest sense. Your argument is clearly based on emotion yet you cloak yourself in false reason, out of shame perhaps.
studio7manga, I'd rather have a conversation that be condescending, so I'm going to take your points seriously. Behind the insults you hurl, you seem like an intelligent person.
Obviously, you recognize that what happens commonly in other species doesn't give warrant for humans to do the same. Right? So why does it matter that other animals eat each other? Surely a difference between us and animals is that we can reflect and so decide how to live.
studio7manga, I don't deny my argument relies on emotion. Logic alone never tells you what's right or wrong. Invoking some kind of value is necessary for that. The value I hope we share is a sense of compassion for beings that feel pain.
It seems obvious that you recognize that what happens in other species does not give warrant for humans to behave likewise. So why does it matter that wolves eat meat? We are capable of reflection and so should think about the consequence our actions, no?
I suspect haven't studied philosophy because you use "logic" in its colloquial sense as in "reasonable". I mean "logic" as in using the axioms of implication, disjunction and conjunction.
In fact, logic is a way of communicating. Logic only ensures that you are being consistent. It does not tell you what to do. It does not prescribe action, cannot resolve conflicts, cannot tell us anything about any value whatsoever, let alone objective ones.
Someone who eats their pets is by far more detestable than one who eats "anonymous" animals that they never saw.
I would far rather sit at the table with a person ignorant of the source of their meat than one who knows the terror and pain that slaughtered animals endure, but thinks it's morally acceptable.
Anyone acclimated to killing and eating an animal she loved is a scary, repulsive person.
I don't buy this justification. This woman says her life is worth more than other lives. She is trying to justify her rational and behavior by taking the elitist paradigm. She'll let cats sleep on her bed, but treat pigs like food. Again, there is a fundamental difference in humans; Those who have selective ethics and those that have universal ethics. I'm from the latter.
She seems to think it's alright to kill the animals so long as she loved them before.
Personally, I think it's far and away more grotesque to have no qualms about killing an animal one supposedly "loved" than to just eat whatever "anonymous" meat is put in front of her.
Our lives are worth more. Animals don't create civilization, they don't have culture or knowledge. We are the arbiters of meaning, not them. Go live in the woods.
Of course our lives are "worth more". That doesn't mean we have a right to completely disregard other lives. The black-and-white, special-or-not-special thinking you employ is precisely the problem.
Try having a graduated, scaled ethics and you will see that animals feel pain and love as deeply (if not more deeply) as humans do. If it wrong to inflict unnecessary pain on humans, it is wrong for all pain-feeling animals.
You simply draw an arbitrary line further down the spectrum of what is "ok" and what isn't. Then pretend you have the moral high ground.
"animals feel pain and love as deeply"
Protip: We are animals, and yes the mating rituals of the Mallard (an animal that reproduces purely through gang rape) is breathtaking indeed. As is the method that wolves use to kill deer (primarily by ripping out their intestinal tract ass first with their teeth).
Again, the line between animals that feel pain and those who do not is NOT arbitrary. Do you understand that? It is a matter of an objective fact about physiology. Animals that feel pain have a fully developed nervous system and amygdalae. Does that make sense? Do you understand how that's not arbitrary?
Of course, I know humans are animals. I didn't have enough characters to write "non-human animals". You ignore the point, which is that they feel pain and emotion as we do.
Shut up, fool. They're living creatures that aren't hurting you. Only defensive violence is OK. And animals are necessary for our environment to be healthy. Since 1950, we've killed off 90% of the largest fish populations to the detriment of the sea and the environment. Whether you're in the woods or not, you won't be able to escape the environmental damage you and others are imposing on the rest of us.
Yes, and it's cute trivia. Actually my argument isn't being made from an environmentalist perspective as many environmentalists simply wish they could live like hunter gatherers, or more commonly, would enjoy watching the rest of the world suffer in such conditions.
"eating far less meat"
I don't argue this point, at least from a dietary perspective in countries like the US, my argument is with "ethical" vegans/vegetarians.
So you would say you don't consider yourself an environmentalist? Do you believe we should take care of the environment at all? If so, to what extent (qualitatively)? Specifically, I'm wondering whether you think we have a responsibility to future generations.
Yes, there are good practical and ethical reasons to be vegetarian/vegan. Compassion, environment, and health are the ones most persuasive to me.
Obviously we are the stewards of the environment, but that doesn't necessarily mean regressing society back to a lower energy state. It's how we acquire the energy used to run society, not the amount, that is the issue.
Pain is unavoidable, and I have no problem inflicting it in a method equal to or less severe than what would occur naturally if it means a net benefit to the stake holders.
Who said anything about "regressing to a lower energy state"? Are you thinking of the energy that comes from meat as compared to grain, vegetables, and fruit? Perhaps you're not aware that vegetarian diets can be as energetic as non-vegetarian diets (although not usually as reckless).
Who are these "stake holders" you imagine? All humans? Some humans? You? Why do other people's feelings matter, in your opinion? Does it ever matter how we treat animals independent of whether it benefits humans?
"Who said anything about "regressing to a lower energy state"?"
I was referring to the idea of the noble savage and the technophobia in general. As well as the net energy usage of society.
"Who are these "stake holders""
You're a human you choose the metrics for yourself, any I give can be dismissed by you. Clearly though we are using different metrics to come to our conclusions.
I'm asking what your metric is. I want to know what your *reasons* are. Wasn't it you praising the capacities of reason? Obviously, if you have no reasons, or reason does not matter to you, then this conversation is a complete waste, isn't it? It's no use talking to someone committed to irrationality.
So again, why do other people's feelings matter, in your opinion? Does it matter how we treat animals independent of whether it benefits humans?
No thanks. I'm done with this conversation. I don't feel that there's any more constructive potential here, since you're not honest about your knowledge (or lack) of science and I don't think you really care much about ethics. All in all, you seem more determined to insult and tear down ideas that make you feel the shame you so fear. Of course, this is a culture supportive your apathetic cruelty, which is the only reason you can make such perverse claims without attendant ridicule.
Yeah I'm totally a vegan iRL, let's go eat some bran flakes together sometime and sing kumbaya. Personally we should put all the animals in mansions and serve them because I feel so bad about them suffering. Now starving children, they can go fuck themselves.
Are you familiar with the term 'straw-man' argument? It means arguing with a position that doesn't really exist in order to seem like you're right. In my experience, people conscientious enough to go vegan are usually the first ones trying to help starving children, because we realize compassion goes across artificial boundaries. Incidentally, if we were all vegan, there would be much more food available to the global hungry.
"because we realize compassion goes across artificial boundaries"
All boundaries are constructs of our minds, I already discussed that with someone else, you simply draw an ad hoc line somewhere else and pretend you have the moral high ground.
"...there would be much more food available to the global hungry. "
There already is enough food to feed everyone. But go and tell that to the Maasai tribesmen and see how successful you'll be in convincing them to "go veg".
Drawing a line that is a construct isn't ad hoc; now you're presuming intention. The construct of a line makes perfect sense based on the paramaters on which we base our moral system. I realize there's already enough food, but the production of meat drives up grain prices in addition to using the majority of grain that could otherwise be fed to people directly. I'm not sure of your point about Maasai tribesmen. For one thing though, I'm not. I'm telling it to you. :)
That's exactly what I thought, proteanview. I don't know about you, but the concept of "gently" bringing down an axe onto a chicken's neck or "lovingly" slashing a pig's throat until it bleeds to death seems... Orwellian at best.
What does a "humane" death mean, studio7manga? Without excess pain or terror? Are they supposed to use anaesthesia? If not, how is it humane? If so, how can it be eaten with anaesthesia in its blood?
The concept of "humane" killing is nonsense, in my opinion. It's not possible.
The raising of animals for food and the killing of animals for food is cruel, wasteful, and unhealthy. It just makes no sense morally or practically.
But we're addicted to the taste... so we continue.
Boy that is quite a conundrum there mavaddat, as if there were only two options. You see there are these things called firearms and that a shot to the brain virtually guarantees instantaneous death. You might not have been aware of such technological advances.
"humane killing is nonsense"
I agree, it truly is a disgrace that so many plants die for our selfishness.
"unhealthy"
Actually meat intake correlates with larger brain size in our evolutionary history.
I didn't say there are only two options. I was asking a question and suggested two possibilities.
Do you know the pain an animal feels as their brains are blown out? Sure, they die "instantaneously", but that doesn't mean they don't feel an intense pain before dying.
Do you seriously think we can treat animals like plants? Do you understand the issue is having an ability to feel pain?
Vegetarians actually tend to have higher IQ than people who eat meat. Google "Southampton Univ veg".
The animal still has its brain before it dies. Surely you understand that the animal can still feel pain before their brain is blown out. I don't understand why you're being so difficult. If you don't care about reducing unecessary suffering, just say so. Seriously, I'm not being rhetorical. Otherwise, your responses seem absurd (am I supposed to believe you didn't realize I was talking about the animal's pain *BEFORE* it dies?)
Thanks. That's an interesting article. Of course, I'm sure you realize veganism/vegetarianism does not require or even depend on tofu. I hardly ever eat it, myself. I much prefer lentils and rice.
Yes, I agree it's a correlation. I never suggested it was a causation. But humans eating meat when our brains were larger is also a correlation. It is likely explicable by our ingenuity in hunting.
It's referring to protein derived from soy, not just tofu.
While not a consensus yet to my knowledge, a significant portion of the scientific community are of the opinion that increased protein and fat intake were the feedstock for brain growth, without which we couldn't have supported the additional energy requirement. This is a total digression, but whatever, the whole conversation is a kludge.
No, that is not the consensus of the scientific community. Not even close. Again, you confusedly think that eating meat is somehow inherently a more successful strategy. This is false.
Incidentally, it is disturbing to me that people (not just you) invent the science that they find congenial to their way of life as opposed to actually investigating what science finds. Why not actually look it up as opposed to claiming it and hoping it's true?
"Predominant" does not equal "most successful". At least, not for survival purposes. Meat tastes good and is a useful source of food in arid and cold places. There's no reason to think that meat is a statistically better survival strategy. There *are* plenty of reasons to think it's responsible for exacerbating if not causing all our "diseases of luxury" (heart disease, obesity, various cancers, etc.).
You think I invent my science, but the facts speak for themselves. You assert, I research.
I completely agree. The preceding discussion is relevant to the matter of *health*. When we speak of what's "natural" for humans to eat, we tend to have wellbeing in mind.
The inference from "natural" to "ought" is fallacious when not predicated upon a mutually agreed principle of action. In this case, the implicit principle is that we generally ought to preserve health.
Some might disregard health. They wouldn't feel the force of my argument here.
Meat isn't poison, and you're being disingenuous. But you already know that.
Properly controlled deaths are more humane than natural deaths. We control the environment to be free of predators and want much more pleasant than the outside world would provide.
Your arguments are easily countered. And you've already admitted to your position is primarily based on your emotional squeamishness.
"is relevant to the matter of health" "In this case, the implicit principle is that we generally ought to preserve health." "we tend to have wellbeing in mind."
Mmhmm.
What you call compassion, I call an emotional plea from someone who can't make a rational argument.
I fully understand it is difficult (if not impossible) to grasp the weight of compassion when one lacks any ethical sense whatsoever. You would've made a good torture chamber guard, studio. You're still young, why not sign up for a career in the military?
It is precisely the fatuous conception of evil as conscious wickedness sold by Hollywood fiction that blinds you to the ordinariness, the banality of evil.
The most profound evils have never been committed by malicious, saliva drooling monsters or psychotic serial killers. They were committed by people who took it for granted that their ideals were "normal".
As Arendt wrote, "[There is] a strange interdependence between thoughtlessness and evil."
Read Animal Liberation or The Case for Animal Rights. The rationality has been pretty apparent to me for some time now, if your principles are logic and altruism.
But I may just for the laughs. For the record I've never heard an argument that was cogent. I suspect they'll simply be a rehash of all the "arguments" I hear bandied about the tubes.
Humans are animals with the ability (and thus the responsibility) to behave ethically. There are a lot of people (with any issue) who form arguments based on impulsive emotional responses. I'll grant you that. But a lot of people agree with the positions of Peter Singer and Tom Regan regarding our need to stop using animals at is is simply slavery and mass killing for pleasure (we don't need to do it). Once I get a decent camera I will make a bunch of vids for you to argue with. :-)
Not a vegan, meat eater. I am simply criticizing your use of the naturalistic fallacy. The debate on what is 'natural' is largely irrelevant to what is 'right'.
@BrockyD I thought that was a very simple point I made; it means the people that are so casual about taking life and think that its funny shouldput themselves in that position and I bet it would give them another perspective! I dont take killing anything lightly, human or animal and THAT is what makes me different than the people Im referring to!
RareJavahn 1 day ago
Some people kill their food stock with love, I kill mine with an axe or a gun.
Blackouti386 1 week ago
Comment removed
Blackouti386 1 week ago
CAN YOU GET MORE BACON OUT OF A POT BELLY PIG. BECAUSE I LOVE BACON ON ALL MY SANDWICHES. WRAPPED AROUND PORK ROAST, ON HAMBURGERS ON TURKEY. JUST FOOD FOR THOUGHT. MY PROTEIN LEVEL IS HIGH TODAY.
contreeman 7 months ago
hey dick-face andrew; you talk about eating meat as being natural; there's nothing funny about killing an animal for survival...we do it but anyone who thinks it's funny is a bitch who deserves to be killed, eaten and laughed at themselves!
RareJavahn 1 year ago
@RareJavahn How does that make you any different than the people you are condemning?
BrockyD 3 days ago
meat shouldn't be a casual dalliance...I like this woman's ethos.
LilyISay 1 year ago 4
"You are walking down the street then suddenly picks up an animal and kills it.. That seems Crazy!" HAHAHA
grundkvist 1 year ago
At least she's honest and not disconnected from the meat she eats. You have to admire that. Most people are in a total state of denial and have no philosophical qualms about having somebody else do their dirty work for them.
I went vegan, after a lifetime of eating meat. Good riddance.
ANDREWEHUNT 2 years ago 11
@ANDREWEHUNT the fuck, you became a vegan?! what a completely retarded way to needlessly torture yourself. seriously, meat is THE tastiest meal on this whole damn planet and to be honest, its pretty hilarious to eat the meat of some animal that hopped happily around a while ago.
besides, humans are omnivores, we are designed to eat both meat and fruit/vegetables so you are going against nature. its not like wild animals arent butchering the living crap out of each other for food anyway.
Del249 1 year ago 2
This woman IS a little creepy in the way that she expresses herself,with the ceremony etc.
Still, it is true that whenever you raise your own animals for food is a really wonderfull thing.Not that it is nice when you kill them(death is always sad)but you should'nt forget that these animals are born to feed us.But if we want to eat meat we should at least give them a nice life where they can be outside, in the fields and have the life. Then whenever they are ready, we eat them without guilt
acmulhern 2 years ago
How exactly does humor and directness translate into "creepy"? She's a breath of fresh air, frankly, compared to all the sanctimonious morons pushing their food-related agendas these days. I like Pollan for the same reason.
yewberrypie 2 years ago
its called growing your own food. for all you haters, GET REAL. its a FARM. a woman that wants to tend to her farm what the hell do you think your GREAT GREAT grandfather did to eat huh? don't be freakin stupid.
lilpococonfusion 2 years ago
Comment removed
giaisbomb 2 years ago
uh how 'bout without beating and terrifying it in a factory where the closest thing it sees to sunlight is through exhaust fumes and through holes in the truck siding and watching it scream and gargle up blood as its rolled into a giant steam-cooker to remove its hair or feathers, sometimes before its even stopped moving?
nerdyharry 2 years ago
For an ideal compromise between meat-eating and vegetarianism, find out about mammaltarianism, a diet that excludes most mammal-meat.
Search "Mammaltarian" on YouTube.
Go Mammals!
rlaist 2 years ago
I don't think she's creepy, just one of those extremely calm new-age people.
nerdelicious5 2 years ago
typical family farmer. nothing wrong here, nothing weird or creepy. what is creepy are the alternatives; industrial ag, and vegans on the warpath. ask any athabaskan, proud hunter gatherer in alaska for the last 10000 years.
floydstinkyboy 2 years ago
totally ad hominem on my part -- but does anyone else find Novella's personal demeanor to be extremely creepy? what she's saying is creepy -- loving and bonding with a being the way you would with a dog or cat and then choosing to painfully (without drugs there is no painless slaughter) kill them just cause you feel like eating them. that's a creepy position. but in addition i find her creepy on a personal level. it's hard to picture her experiencing basic feelings of empathy or compassion.
Locrian08 2 years ago
It probably does seem odd to an outsider, but treating my chickens/ducks as well as I would pets allows me to have a clean conscience when I do process them. They are also dead within seconds with my method (branch clippers)
omchomsky 2 years ago
hahahah
nerdyharry 2 years ago
So does this justify slaughtering dogs?
Vote3rdParty 2 years ago
"They got their eyes on the side of their heads..."
"Those are animals that have been raised, over thousands of years, to be food for us."
Just goes to show that you need not be religious/creationist to be completely ignorant of evolution. I'm guessing when this woman sees a picture a picture of a Tyrannosaurus she thinks "that was food for me!".
MononofuBlood 2 years ago
@MononofuBlood
You are a fucking idiot. The T rex, as well as most other reptilian predators, have eyes on TOP of their heads that face forward, despite *appearing* on the sides of their heads. You are right about one thing, you don't have to be religious to be ignorant of evolution, you just have to be a contrarian moron
takadi 1 year ago
"Gently killing them, with love." ;D
Brilliantly worded.
Boolze 2 years ago
Sounds like the perfect way for vegetarians to ethically get back to a healthy diet. Edible pets are way better than factory farms. Denying that goes against everything animal rights stands for.
hozehd 2 years ago
Wow, this woman is out of her friggin' mind.
MononofuBlood 2 years ago
Pigs are not food. And she's creepy. I don't want to be killed by something that pretends to love me. That's a psycopath.
Loveseekingmissile 2 years ago
"Gently killing them with love"
What the fuck. I hope this woman doesn't have children.
At least she's honest that the ritual is trick her own conscience. I wonder what her views on hunting are.
funkalunatic 2 years ago
Chimps are omnivores. They also are incredibly vicious. Friends witnessed a chimp murder on safari. They kill & eat colobus monkeys,& other small animals. There is one in Gombe who killed a baby, which is why the park has a lower age limit. We're omnivores. Look at our teeth.
However, there are a billion Hindus who eat dairy, but not animal flesh.
Vegetarianism is a noble choice, but please don't operate on a misinformed notion of vegetarianism being "natural" for us. It is not.
KittyHerder 2 years ago
Yes, chimps kill, but rarely eat other animals (Jane Goodall observed it happen once a month). Most chimps are strictly vegan.
True omnivores include bears, dogs, and raccoons. Do you think our teeth are comparable? In fact, our teeth have almost exactly the same structure as those of horses, cows, and giraffes. A future alien civilization looking only at human dental structure would be forced to conclude that we were strictly herbivores.
Vegetarianism is not just natural, but most healthy.
mavaddat 2 years ago
definitely some form of psychosis.
ScepticalPenguin 2 years ago
This is one of those polarizing issues where the truth lies in the middle. The truth is, we evolved to eat meat but Americans in particular eat much more than we need to. The result, far greater evils known as factory farming and obesity. Sure it sucks to kill an animal you raised yourself, but millions of tons of shit being poured into the Mississippi river every year, and heart disease far outweigh that sort of thing.
MagellansUnderwear 2 years ago
Thanks for the reasoned comment, Magellan'sUnderwear.
I'm not sure what you mean that waste in the Mississippi and heart disease "far outweigh" animal treatment. Are these somehow mutually exclusive concerns? Are you aware that animal farming is responsible for more greenhouse gas than all of transportation pollution combined? Do you know that a major contributor to heart disease is eating too much meat?
Also, can you justify your statement that "we evolved to eat meat"?
mavaddat 2 years ago
The structure of our teeth and the levels of protease and lipase in our digestive systems are indicative of an omnivorous diet. I would wager the desire to eat meat is also an indicator, but there's no way to determine that. My point was the American disconnect with the food supply is the real evil here because it leads to the environmental disasters we now face. The disconnect leads to eating far too much meat, which creates factory farms, which is much worse than eating the family "pet".
MagellansUnderwear 2 years ago
The structure of our teeth and digestive system is like that of our closest animal kin, chimps. Chimps north of the Congo river eat almost only fruit, and chimps south of the river are completely "vegan". So I think you're quite mistaken about our naturally selected diet.
Regular meat intake is an extremely recent addition to human culture. Evolution takes millions of years, not thousands, to go from vegan physiology to omnivorous.
Factory farms are also cruel. So where do you buy your meat?
mavaddat 2 years ago
Chimps are omnivorous, Bonobos are mostly frugivores.
The fact we even can eat meat is a sign we evolved to do so. A horse didnt evolve to, so it cant. We are spear-using omnivores, some human populations did and do live entirely off of meat.
Dont confuse can with should, or 'natural' with 'right'. We can also (and evolved to) kill other humans, but we dont.
Saktoth 2 years ago
Yes, chimps eat meat, but infrequently (Goodall observed a chimp would eat a fist sized amount of meat per month).
That we eat meat does mean we evolved to do so in the tautological sense that whatever we *do* we thereby evolved to do. However, eating meat contradicts our dental structure, acidity and enzymes in our saliva, stomach pH, intestinal structure, time spent sleeping, and the fact that regular meat intake is linked to heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and osteoporosis.
mavaddat 2 years ago
Many populations of humans live almost entirely on a diet of meat (reindeer or what have you). This is not nearly the same as a horse or such. The fact we are even capable of it shows that it is a part of our evolutionary history.
Goodall also observed Chimps going to war with eachother. They are also very skilled and complex hunters. watch?v=WDFh5JdYh7I
This is irrelevant to the morality of it, knowing that we can, or have, or evolved to, doesnt tell us that we SHOULD. Naturalistic fallacy.
Saktoth 2 years ago
It's interesting that you ignored my earlier comment about health in the context of what's natural. I won't repeat it here. But I have read Moore's Principia. I am familiar with the naturalistic fallacy.
mavaddat 2 years ago
Vague, fluffy deductions of what is 'natural' by comparisons to chimps or examination of teeth structure. This kind of arguments always go nowhere. Empirical data on the actual health of humans is what you should look at if you want to use the health argument.
In the studies ive read, Vegetarianism is generally healthier for humans. Veganism, on the other hand, is generally not.
Saktoth 2 years ago
Wrong on both counts.
Comparison of chimp physiology to humans gives us an immense amount of information about our own physiology. Just think of lab experiments and testing on animals. To deny this makes it hard for me to take you seriously.
Veganism is also objectively healthier than vegetarianism. What studies are you reading? Despite dairy industry propaganda, humans tend to be significantly better off without dairy. Same for eggs. Vitamin B12 can be gotten from bacteria on leafy surfaces.
mavaddat 2 years ago
Scientific studies are useful, mental masturbation on the internet by comparing teeth is a waste of time. Actual studies on human health is the most useful though.
Ive a friend who ended up aneamic from a vegan diet (anecdotal, yes). I dont contend that you cannot be healthy on a vegan diet, merely that it is much more difficult, you must pay a lot of attention to balancing your diet to ensure adequate nutrition.
I cannot really speak to the practical applications of everyone doing this.
Saktoth 2 years ago
I agree that being vegan might be difficult (if only at first). However, no one said following our moral imperatives would always be easy. Aren't bravest of men those who align with the moral imperative despite the ease of the alternative?
mavaddat 2 years ago
My friend became anemic after 3 years.
I do not think the systematic adoption of vegan diets by the entire society will raise the health of the society. People do not spend enough time caring for thier health at current, and a vegan diet is more difficult. For those who wish to spend the time carefully watching their diet, it may be healthy for them.
A vegetarian or meat-restricted diet is easy and may help with the current obesity problems, but veganism is not some convenient panacea.
Saktoth 2 years ago
@mavaddat What studies have you been reading? The idea that dairy is "bad" or unnatural (for us to consume) seems like something you try and prove as a vegan. How heavily processed was the dairy used? What did the animals eat? Let me put it to you another way, Iceland has one of the highest qualities of life in old age, a huge number of people over 100, the highest average lifespan outside of Japan. 245 pounds of fish, 180lbs of meat, copious amounts of dairy and little or no veg.
MichaelnChristine 1 year ago
There are lots. See, for example, "Should dairy be recommended?" by Lanou, AJ.
Lanou finds, "Osteoporotic bone fracture rates are highest in countries that consume the most dairy, calcium, and animal protein. [S]tudies of fracture risk provide little or no evidence that dairy products benefit bone. Accumulating evidence shows that consuming dairy products may contribute to the risk of prostate and ovarian cancers, autoimmune diseases, and some childhood ailments."
mavaddat 1 year ago
Ok so a PhD, not an MD, a Vegan for ethical reason. I don't see this as an unbiased source. Do you? That said she concludes "that high-fat, high-calorie dairy products actually play a key role in America's obesity epidemic... Milk is the single largest source of saturated fat - a leading contributor to coronary disease " Two words "French Paradox". They eat twice as much cream and whole milk as Americans. No where near the same rate of heart disease, or obesity. I don't think it's the milk.
MichaelnChristine 1 year ago
MD's are relatively ill-placed to make judgements on nutrition. In North America, MD's (including family doctors) do not take more than one upper level class on diet or nutrition, and further study is not required. Only dietitians and nutritionists are academically qualified to recommend healthy eating plans.
The source I cited is science based, not biased. France and U.S. consume almost equivalent amounts of dairy product, but the U.S. consumes twice the beef and poultry. Do the math.
mavaddat 1 year ago
@mavaddat I'd also point out the claim that "Osteoporotic bone fracture rates are highest in countries that consume the most dairy, calcium....." deliberately sets aside anomallys that the scientific community can't figure out. Like the low rates of osteoperosis in Iceland. They aren't the highest, or even close. However they eat 250lbs of fish, 140lbs of lamb and massive amounts of diary, per capita. So if the link was there they'd have to be the worst. They aren't.
MichaelnChristine 1 year ago
In fact, it seems you are simply wrong about low rates of osteoporosis in Iceland. For example, Kanis JA, Johnell O, De Laet C, et al. report in "International variations in hip fracture probabilities" that the highest risk of hip fractures due to osteoporosis are seen in Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Denmark and the U.S.
Even if it were true that this correlation deliberately set aside anomalies, that is the nature of statistical correlation anyway! You draw trends from the most common case.
mavaddat 1 year ago
The most precious thing you can do for an animal you plan to eat is to give them a loving and good life first. It also means more when we are spiritually connected to our food. Five stars.
tburke64 2 years ago
Gosh this has really brought out the militant vegetarians hasnt it.
It is impossible to live and NOT kill animals. Farming of grain kills mice, spraying of crops kills thousands of insects. But insects arent cute enough to care about? And bacteria, dust mites? What about plants- they are alive. Isnt it wrong to kill plants?
As a human being you fuel yourself off of the death of other organisms. Deal with it.
Saktoth 2 years ago
Animals feel pain and emotion, that's why it's wrong to kill them.
Agreed, it is impossible to not kill animals in some way or another. However, that doesn't give us licence to kill them in every way and the other. It also doesn't mean we shouldn't try to minimize the animals we harm. Don't you agree?
These are separate issues.
Consider a parallel argument: Global economics entails that some people will be made poor to the point of starvation. Therefore, we don't need to minimize starvation?
mavaddat 2 years ago
She is minimizing pain, she is minimizing harm. She keeps these animals in a happy, healthy enviroment, kills them humanely and has an understanding of the exact effects eating these animals has both emotionally and enviromentally.
Go criticize dehumanized factory farms and buying meat that comes in trays from the supermarket. Not this woman.
Saktoth 2 years ago
Thanks for the thoughts, Saktoth. I understand that *IF* you are committed to eating meat, then she is raising and killing animals in the least painful way. But it is far from painless.
In reality, those animals will feel profound pain and terror when butchered in the prime of their adult life (they are killed by beheading or jugulating without anaesthesia). Farm animals (especially pigs) also have amazingly complex social structure and mourn each other.
I do also criticize factory farms.
mavaddat 2 years ago
Crop spraying and combine harvesters and deforestation and the massive enviromental displacement required for growing grain and vegetables leads to the death of thousands of animals. Screw the pigs, they wouldnt even exist if we werent eating them, what about all the wildlife?
Yes, deforestation and methane due to beef farming does more damage, but this woman cant be blamed for that. Are you a vegetarian because of the enviromental impact, or because you are squeamish about the poor piggies?
Saktoth 2 years ago
I'm "vegan". My reasons include compassion for animals, environmental concern, and personal and societal health. I find it disturbing that you refer to caring about other sentient animals as mere "squeamishness", as if it were a silly fear.
Pigs wouldn't exist if we weren't eating them? Actually, pigs make great pets. But that is beside the point. The question is whether it is ever justified to kill an animal strictly for food. The fact that they feel human-like pain and emotion suggests not.
mavaddat 2 years ago
"gently killing them with love" - murder is not a gentle act! i highly doubt that the animals being slaughtered think so either.
as sentient beings, animals certainly do feel emotion/pain. part of the problem is humans have the sense of being superior which creates separateness. there is therefore no thought it taking the life of an animal.
the resources used to raise animals for food is a potent issue. how is it just that some shall have the luxury of eating meat while others starve?
peacerebelgirl 2 years ago 2
This woman understands what it is to take an animals life in a way we never will. People who buy sausages at the shops, that is creating separateness.
We eat too much meat, our farming practices are not sustainable. But the fact remains that humans cannot eat grass, and that not all land is appropriate for growing wheat or vegetables. The small scale farm where animals are raised on the land rather than fed on soy and antibiotics is the solution to this problem, not the cause.
Saktoth 2 years ago
You are comparing apples and oranges. It wouldn't be cost effective to keep bugs off crops without killing them. Plants don't have brains, or a nervous system. Neither do bacteria.
You gave examples of things that either:
We can't avoid killing, or
Don't value their own lives
I'm all for eating meat, and killing for it. But don't kid yourself. It's not necessary for your survival. It's a luxury.
kaje01 2 years ago
Organic farming doesnt spray crops, though i agree its not very cost effective.
All living things value their own lives. It is an intense struggle for survival out there, if you arent fighting you're dead. So they dont have a central nervous system or a 'conception' of what it is to be alive. So what. This is just a line in the sand dwarn between fluffy moocows and creepy locusts. Most meat eaters just draw the line further up- between Humans and Non-Humans.
Saktoth 2 years ago
So what? So having a nervous system means that they can feel pain and emotion, that's what. The part of the nervous system responsible for pain and emotion is exactly the same in cows as it is in humans. To think that this is a trivial matter or an arbitrary "line in the sand" is to seriously mistake a matter of physiology.
If causing unnecessary harm in animals is not wrong, there is no reason to think it is especially wrong in humans. Show compassion!
mavaddat 2 years ago
So its alright to murder people if you anesthetize them first? Basing your ethical framework on whether or not something can feel pain is morally bankrupt and unworkable, it is for the emotionally squeamish.
Have you ever killed a plant with your bare hands, ripped it from the ground and felt it wilt and die, and struggle to live? Show compassion!
You can not afford the same rights to animals as you do people. Otherwise we'd have to keep most of them in prison for pooping everywhere.
Saktoth 2 years ago
I agree that pain *alone* does not make a moral framework. But it's certainly a necessary consideration!
Anaesthesia is not sufficient to warrant killing anyone; however, if the killing is not forced, anaesthesia would be necessary. You understand the difference between "necessary" and "sufficient" conditions?
I find it amazing that people compare animals that feel pain with plants. Incredible.
Yes, we'd banish animals from the city who pooped everywhere. That's exactly what we do already.
mavaddat 2 years ago
You have not offered any argument that we should not kill animals other than that they feel pain. Its the only criteria you have set forth. Offer a proper ethical argument.
I am not joking when i talk about plants. It doesnt matter whether it feels pain or not, when you take a life to feed yourself you better be concious of what it is you are doing. The fact you havent even stopped to think about this is frankly shocking.
Saktoth 2 years ago
I'm always shocked when people compare plants to animals. If this were an argument about cruelty to dogs you would call someone an idiot for saying that it's no different than cutting grass. Please stop treating all people who read this like idiots- anyone who has passed middle school biology knows this distinction, and most people realize instinctively that animals are different because they have a central nervous system which makes them capable of suffering.
JTsmiley14 2 years ago
Who said I hadn't thought of the plants' lives that I eat? You assumed that from thin air.
By comparing plants to animals, you suppose a nervous system is irrelevant to how we ought to treat life forms. This is a grotesque assumption made ridiculous if carried to conclusion. Why treat humans differently than plants?
I appeal to the ethical proposition that we ought, so far as we don't contradict other imperatives, prevent inflicting unnecessary pain. If you disagree, please justify yourself.
mavaddat 2 years ago
On the issue of displacement of animals: We dont, and cant, banish birds. What about animal reproductive rights? What about disease carrying rats? We cannot hold them to the same standards.
What happens when there is no more habitat left for a species? We are not talking about keeping pets and killing them here, we are talking genocide. Not just killing one animal, but displacing them and killing their entire species.
Vegan or not you are responsible in a small way for all of this.
Saktoth 2 years ago
Saktoth, may I recommend a brief video of mine titled "The Grounding of Moral Facts: Shelly Kagan [...]"? Professor Kagan does a good job of describing why it doesn't make sense to hold animals morally accountable in the way you are asking. Briefly, animals aren't capable of ethical reasoning, so it doesn't make sense to say what they do is morally wrong.
However, that is very far from saying we have no ethical obligations toward them. To deny this is to confuse moral worth with moral agency.
mavaddat 2 years ago
So you agree that we cannot treat Animals the same as we treat humans.
What about mentally handicapped humans? What about dangerous or destructive animals, such as hippos, mosquitos.
Even a flatworm has a central nervous system, what about the dust mites you kill every day?
You say that the minimization or elimination of pain isnt sufficient ethical criteria, i agree. So what IS the ethical criteria you use to tell when it is right to kill an animal (and you do kill MANY).
Saktoth 2 years ago
Yes, I agree we cannot treat animals the same as we treat humans.
Value is the criteria to decide worth.
I believe we need a graduated, scaled ethics of concern so that we may recognize value in other lifeforms (as opposed to having a black-and-white conception of worth). Thus, we will value animals in proportion to their valuable characteristics (e.g., cognition, capacity for pain, emotion, social structure, even beauty, helpfulness, etc.) instead of disregarding them if they're not human.
mavaddat 2 years ago
Value is an assigned characteristic. Instrumental values are always towards an end, an inherent value, but the inherent value is itself is still assigned rather than being 'inherent' in the same way as 'heat' is. Agreed?
The value of cognition and social structure is more a manifestation of personal bias as we ourselves possess these characteristics. You value these things merely because you possess them. You value it in others merely because they are 'like you'. This is a form of bigotry.
Saktoth 2 years ago
Saktoth, you are here guilty of a genetic fallacy: The source of our values (in your case, likeness to us) tells us nothing about whether they are justified or not.
The question is not "where do our values come from?", but rather "what do we (you and I) in fact value?"
Unless you are saying you really don't value anything, I think we can have a productive conversation about acting in consistency with your actual values without ever pondering the genetic explanation for those values.
mavaddat 2 years ago
What you present is really two ideas, one is that the traits in common with humans are 'valuable', this seems partly as a way to support the worth of humans (humans are at the top of the scale in all the things you value, no surprise).
The second is that those traits that are useful to humans should be preserved, a sort of utilitarian rational-self interest.
So, your ethical framework still strikes me as ultimately human centric. Some people just draw the harsher line to remove ambiguity.
Saktoth 2 years ago
No, my ethic is not solely human centric. Being like humans is only one part of what I value. I'm a value pluralist. Have you read W.D. Ross?
I'm not so interested in providing an irrefutable foundation for ethics as much as I am interested in evaluating what we actually value and considering whether we are living in harmony with that.
If possible, is it better to preserve an animal with an ability to think or not? If possible, is it not better to prevent excess pain than to allow it?
mavaddat 2 years ago
Im a utilitarian moral relitivist. My goal is to come up with a single foundational value that most people will agree with which leads to an ethical structure i can follow. At its simplest my rule is that human life and happiness is valuable. Its bigoted though, if you think about it.
I think viewing the rights of animals as disconnected individuals can be problematic. If we preserved all animals that thought, we would run out of space quickly. Inaction has similiar moral weight to action.
Saktoth 2 years ago
Thank you for the constructive conversation, Saktoth. You are a rare breed of YouTuber.
My suggestion is not to preserve all animals who think. My suggestion is that we not actively eliminate those who do think.
"Ought" implies "can". We cannot save every animal, so that cannot be our obligation.
So let me ask you: On your theory, is it ever wrong to abuse a non-human animal? If so, when and why (i.e, on what principle)? If not, does such a theory not seem grotesque?
Thanks again.
mavaddat 2 years ago
Action and inaction blur into eachother when you are talking about ecosystems. We fundamentally change the ecosystem by our mere preasance, by urbanization, land-clearing, roads, mining, etc. The cane toad cant help being posionuous, but it is. Sometimes systematic eradication is the only choice.
Define 'abuse'. Pain for its own sake is wrong. Negligence can be wrong but is sometimes unavoidable. Inflicting pain as a byproduct of another end is in my mind justifiable.
Saktoth 2 years ago
2:01 Sharks have their eyes on the sides of their heads. This lady doesn't know jack about evolution, or biology... or anything really.
SaganAppreciationSoc 2 years ago
I feel sorry for anyone who lives near her and her family.
SaganAppreciationSoc 2 years ago
my grandma always cared for her chickens, even though she later on killed them.
jokerbookshop 2 years ago 3
Is this woman for real? Gently killing them with love?! Obviously, she doesn't find anything wrong with it: she's not the one being "gently" butchered with "love." Has anyone asked the pigs is they're OK with being slaughtered? Of course, not.
Besides, it's not healthy to eat animal meat.
Jackstowne 2 years ago
Speaking of edible pets, I always wonder how human flesh tastes.
Mastikator 2 years ago 3
I've considered giving my dead body away to a giant barbeque party when I die. Strictly speaking, it's more moraly ok eating my dead body (with my consent), then what it is eating a tortured and killed pig. Somehow I think there would be some laws against it.
Throred 2 years ago 2
There being a law against it is a testament to how your body belongs not to you, but to whoever makes the laws. :/
Tyranny sucks :(
Mastikator 2 years ago
Sweeter pork.
studio7manga 2 years ago
Whether by factory or by loving human hand, meat is murder.
FRTothus 2 years ago
nice chairs...
whispers83 2 years ago
Animals have the right to be tasty.
Look at these whiny "ethical" vegans crying about people eating food. Disgusting.
I wonder how they feel about how other animals eat their food. Go on, ask me how wolves usually kill deer.
studio7manga 2 years ago
Good point! If other animals do it, it has to be alright for humans to do it. Makes sense! So I assume you don't mind if I chase you down and tear your throat out with my bare teeth. While I'm at it, I assume you don't mind if I rape your mother too, right? After all, wolves do it all the time. Remember: Your logic, not mine.
mavaddat 2 years ago
"I assume you don't mind if I chase you down and tear your throat out"
No I don't mind at all, it would give me a legally acceptable reason to use my pistol.
The ironic point being you overlook savagery from other animals but then turn around and claim they feel "love" and "pain" more vividly than humans(almost implying they are more noble somehow). A travesty of reason in the purest sense. Your argument is clearly based on emotion yet you cloak yourself in false reason, out of shame perhaps.
studio7manga 2 years ago
studio7manga, I'd rather have a conversation that be condescending, so I'm going to take your points seriously. Behind the insults you hurl, you seem like an intelligent person.
Obviously, you recognize that what happens commonly in other species doesn't give warrant for humans to do the same. Right? So why does it matter that other animals eat each other? Surely a difference between us and animals is that we can reflect and so decide how to live.
I appeal to compassion, I don't deny that.
mavaddat 2 years ago
studio7manga, I don't deny my argument relies on emotion. Logic alone never tells you what's right or wrong. Invoking some kind of value is necessary for that. The value I hope we share is a sense of compassion for beings that feel pain.
It seems obvious that you recognize that what happens in other species does not give warrant for humans to behave likewise. So why does it matter that wolves eat meat? We are capable of reflection and so should think about the consequence our actions, no?
mavaddat 2 years ago
"Logic alone never tells you what's right or wrong"
I disagree, logic is the only way to come to anything close to an objective values system.
studio7manga 2 years ago
I suspect haven't studied philosophy because you use "logic" in its colloquial sense as in "reasonable". I mean "logic" as in using the axioms of implication, disjunction and conjunction.
In fact, logic is a way of communicating. Logic only ensures that you are being consistent. It does not tell you what to do. It does not prescribe action, cannot resolve conflicts, cannot tell us anything about any value whatsoever, let alone objective ones.
mavaddat 2 years ago
Someone who eats their pets is by far more detestable than one who eats "anonymous" animals that they never saw.
I would far rather sit at the table with a person ignorant of the source of their meat than one who knows the terror and pain that slaughtered animals endure, but thinks it's morally acceptable.
Anyone acclimated to killing and eating an animal she loved is a scary, repulsive person.
mavaddat 2 years ago
I don't buy this justification. This woman says her life is worth more than other lives. She is trying to justify her rational and behavior by taking the elitist paradigm. She'll let cats sleep on her bed, but treat pigs like food. Again, there is a fundamental difference in humans; Those who have selective ethics and those that have universal ethics. I'm from the latter.
WellIAMScottish 2 years ago 2
Precisely, WellIAMScottish.
She seems to think it's alright to kill the animals so long as she loved them before.
Personally, I think it's far and away more grotesque to have no qualms about killing an animal one supposedly "loved" than to just eat whatever "anonymous" meat is put in front of her.
mavaddat 2 years ago
Our lives are worth more. Animals don't create civilization, they don't have culture or knowledge. We are the arbiters of meaning, not them. Go live in the woods.
studio7manga 2 years ago
Of course our lives are "worth more". That doesn't mean we have a right to completely disregard other lives. The black-and-white, special-or-not-special thinking you employ is precisely the problem.
Try having a graduated, scaled ethics and you will see that animals feel pain and love as deeply (if not more deeply) as humans do. If it wrong to inflict unnecessary pain on humans, it is wrong for all pain-feeling animals.
mavaddat 2 years ago
"The black-and-white, special-or-not-special"
You simply draw an arbitrary line further down the spectrum of what is "ok" and what isn't. Then pretend you have the moral high ground.
"animals feel pain and love as deeply"
Protip: We are animals, and yes the mating rituals of the Mallard (an animal that reproduces purely through gang rape) is breathtaking indeed. As is the method that wolves use to kill deer (primarily by ripping out their intestinal tract ass first with their teeth).
studio7manga 2 years ago
Again, the line between animals that feel pain and those who do not is NOT arbitrary. Do you understand that? It is a matter of an objective fact about physiology. Animals that feel pain have a fully developed nervous system and amygdalae. Does that make sense? Do you understand how that's not arbitrary?
Of course, I know humans are animals. I didn't have enough characters to write "non-human animals". You ignore the point, which is that they feel pain and emotion as we do.
mavaddat 2 years ago
Shut up, fool. They're living creatures that aren't hurting you. Only defensive violence is OK. And animals are necessary for our environment to be healthy. Since 1950, we've killed off 90% of the largest fish populations to the detriment of the sea and the environment. Whether you're in the woods or not, you won't be able to escape the environmental damage you and others are imposing on the rest of us.
Jackstowne 2 years ago
"They're living creatures that aren't hurting you"
So are plants, and plenty of animals die in the harvesting of grains.
"animals are necessary for our environment to be healthy."
So are plants.
"we've killed off 90% of the largest fish pop."
This is an argument against overfishing not consumption of fish.
"environmental damage you and others are imposing on us"
I agree, stop driving your car. Oh, you're talking about eating meat, well going veg isn't going to save the world, sorry.
studio7manga 2 years ago
studio7manga, did you know that meat production puts more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than transport?
The UN Food and Agriculture Organization research says livestock is responsible for nearly one-fifth of global greenhouse gas emissions.
Transport, by contrast, accounts for just 13% of humankind's greenhouse gas footprint. That includes cars and planes.
I'm just pointing out facts here. It seems like a commitment to environmentalism would demand eating far less meat.
mavaddat 2 years ago
Yes, and it's cute trivia. Actually my argument isn't being made from an environmentalist perspective as many environmentalists simply wish they could live like hunter gatherers, or more commonly, would enjoy watching the rest of the world suffer in such conditions.
"eating far less meat"
I don't argue this point, at least from a dietary perspective in countries like the US, my argument is with "ethical" vegans/vegetarians.
studio7manga 2 years ago
So you would say you don't consider yourself an environmentalist? Do you believe we should take care of the environment at all? If so, to what extent (qualitatively)? Specifically, I'm wondering whether you think we have a responsibility to future generations.
Yes, there are good practical and ethical reasons to be vegetarian/vegan. Compassion, environment, and health are the ones most persuasive to me.
mavaddat 2 years ago
Obviously we are the stewards of the environment, but that doesn't necessarily mean regressing society back to a lower energy state. It's how we acquire the energy used to run society, not the amount, that is the issue.
Pain is unavoidable, and I have no problem inflicting it in a method equal to or less severe than what would occur naturally if it means a net benefit to the stake holders.
studio7manga 2 years ago
Who said anything about "regressing to a lower energy state"? Are you thinking of the energy that comes from meat as compared to grain, vegetables, and fruit? Perhaps you're not aware that vegetarian diets can be as energetic as non-vegetarian diets (although not usually as reckless).
Who are these "stake holders" you imagine? All humans? Some humans? You? Why do other people's feelings matter, in your opinion? Does it ever matter how we treat animals independent of whether it benefits humans?
mavaddat 2 years ago
"Who said anything about "regressing to a lower energy state"?"
I was referring to the idea of the noble savage and the technophobia in general. As well as the net energy usage of society.
"Who are these "stake holders""
You're a human you choose the metrics for yourself, any I give can be dismissed by you. Clearly though we are using different metrics to come to our conclusions.
studio7manga 2 years ago
I'm asking what your metric is. I want to know what your *reasons* are. Wasn't it you praising the capacities of reason? Obviously, if you have no reasons, or reason does not matter to you, then this conversation is a complete waste, isn't it? It's no use talking to someone committed to irrationality.
So again, why do other people's feelings matter, in your opinion? Does it matter how we treat animals independent of whether it benefits humans?
mavaddat 2 years ago
"or reason does not matter to you"
Largely I feel it won't matter to you, but what the hell. Let's waste some more time.
Apex primates.
Harm/benefit, consent, progress.
studio7manga 2 years ago
No thanks. I'm done with this conversation. I don't feel that there's any more constructive potential here, since you're not honest about your knowledge (or lack) of science and I don't think you really care much about ethics. All in all, you seem more determined to insult and tear down ideas that make you feel the shame you so fear. Of course, this is a culture supportive your apathetic cruelty, which is the only reason you can make such perverse claims without attendant ridicule.
mavaddat 2 years ago
Actually I just wanted to troll some ethical vegans, mission accomplished.
studio7manga 2 years ago
I completely agree.
mavaddat 2 years ago
Yeah I'm totally a vegan iRL, let's go eat some bran flakes together sometime and sing kumbaya. Personally we should put all the animals in mansions and serve them because I feel so bad about them suffering. Now starving children, they can go fuck themselves.
studio7manga 2 years ago
Are you familiar with the term 'straw-man' argument? It means arguing with a position that doesn't really exist in order to seem like you're right. In my experience, people conscientious enough to go vegan are usually the first ones trying to help starving children, because we realize compassion goes across artificial boundaries. Incidentally, if we were all vegan, there would be much more food available to the global hungry.
JTsmiley14 2 years ago
"because we realize compassion goes across artificial boundaries"
All boundaries are constructs of our minds, I already discussed that with someone else, you simply draw an ad hoc line somewhere else and pretend you have the moral high ground.
"...there would be much more food available to the global hungry. "
There already is enough food to feed everyone. But go and tell that to the Maasai tribesmen and see how successful you'll be in convincing them to "go veg".
studio7manga 2 years ago
Drawing a line that is a construct isn't ad hoc; now you're presuming intention. The construct of a line makes perfect sense based on the paramaters on which we base our moral system. I realize there's already enough food, but the production of meat drives up grain prices in addition to using the majority of grain that could otherwise be fed to people directly. I'm not sure of your point about Maasai tribesmen. For one thing though, I'm not. I'm telling it to you. :)
JTsmiley14 2 years ago
"She'll let cats sleep on her bed, but treat pigs like food."
Cat's aren't nearly as tasty.
studio7manga 2 years ago 12
@studio7manga
right, and very little meat compared to their size!
Lotusflowerism 1 year ago
'Gently killing them with love.' ???
Oh, puh-leeeez
Lady, just call a spade a spade.
You raised it & fed expressly to kill that sucker and eat it.
These phony 'peace & love' types kill me. You just know she burns incense.
proteanview 2 years ago 3
That's exactly what I thought, proteanview. I don't know about you, but the concept of "gently" bringing down an axe onto a chicken's neck or "lovingly" slashing a pig's throat until it bleeds to death seems... Orwellian at best.
mavaddat 2 years ago
Exactly, just eat the animal. Make it's death humane but there's no need to make it into a "sacred" ritual.
studio7manga 2 years ago
What does a "humane" death mean, studio7manga? Without excess pain or terror? Are they supposed to use anaesthesia? If not, how is it humane? If so, how can it be eaten with anaesthesia in its blood?
The concept of "humane" killing is nonsense, in my opinion. It's not possible.
The raising of animals for food and the killing of animals for food is cruel, wasteful, and unhealthy. It just makes no sense morally or practically.
But we're addicted to the taste... so we continue.
mavaddat 2 years ago
"humane death...anesthesia?"
Boy that is quite a conundrum there mavaddat, as if there were only two options. You see there are these things called firearms and that a shot to the brain virtually guarantees instantaneous death. You might not have been aware of such technological advances.
"humane killing is nonsense"
I agree, it truly is a disgrace that so many plants die for our selfishness.
"unhealthy"
Actually meat intake correlates with larger brain size in our evolutionary history.
studio7manga 2 years ago
I didn't say there are only two options. I was asking a question and suggested two possibilities.
Do you know the pain an animal feels as their brains are blown out? Sure, they die "instantaneously", but that doesn't mean they don't feel an intense pain before dying.
Do you seriously think we can treat animals like plants? Do you understand the issue is having an ability to feel pain?
Vegetarians actually tend to have higher IQ than people who eat meat. Google "Southampton Univ veg".
mavaddat 2 years ago
"Do you know the pain an animal feels as their brains are blown out?"
You can't feel pain without a brain.
studio7manga 2 years ago
The animal still has its brain before it dies. Surely you understand that the animal can still feel pain before their brain is blown out. I don't understand why you're being so difficult. If you don't care about reducing unecessary suffering, just say so. Seriously, I'm not being rhetorical. Otherwise, your responses seem absurd (am I supposed to believe you didn't realize I was talking about the animal's pain *BEFORE* it dies?)
mavaddat 2 years ago
And while we're in the business of throwing around studies...
news. bbc. co. uk / 2/hi/talking_point/7490202 . stm
And the IQ correlation doesn't strike me as surprising in the least, but it's not causal.
studio7manga 2 years ago
Thanks. That's an interesting article. Of course, I'm sure you realize veganism/vegetarianism does not require or even depend on tofu. I hardly ever eat it, myself. I much prefer lentils and rice.
Yes, I agree it's a correlation. I never suggested it was a causation. But humans eating meat when our brains were larger is also a correlation. It is likely explicable by our ingenuity in hunting.
mavaddat 2 years ago
It's referring to protein derived from soy, not just tofu.
While not a consensus yet to my knowledge, a significant portion of the scientific community are of the opinion that increased protein and fat intake were the feedstock for brain growth, without which we couldn't have supported the additional energy requirement. This is a total digression, but whatever, the whole conversation is a kludge.
studio7manga 2 years ago
No, that is not the consensus of the scientific community. Not even close. Again, you confusedly think that eating meat is somehow inherently a more successful strategy. This is false.
Incidentally, it is disturbing to me that people (not just you) invent the science that they find congenial to their way of life as opposed to actually investigating what science finds. Why not actually look it up as opposed to claiming it and hoping it's true?
mavaddat 2 years ago
"Again, you confusedly think that eating meat is somehow inherently a more successful strategy. This is false."
Totally wrong. Do you even have any idea what the predominant survival strategy for humans was for the past 100,000 years or so was? Christ...
"it is disturbing to me that people (not just you) invent the science that they find congenial to their way of life"
My thoughts on you exactly.
studio7manga 2 years ago
"Predominant" does not equal "most successful". At least, not for survival purposes. Meat tastes good and is a useful source of food in arid and cold places. There's no reason to think that meat is a statistically better survival strategy. There *are* plenty of reasons to think it's responsible for exacerbating if not causing all our "diseases of luxury" (heart disease, obesity, various cancers, etc.).
You think I invent my science, but the facts speak for themselves. You assert, I research.
mavaddat 2 years ago
""Predominant" does not equal "most successful""
Think about what you said just there, in the evolutionary sense.
"You assert, I research."
I think you need to do a bit more of it personally.
studio7manga 2 years ago
Yeah, the predominant survival strategy involved killing other humans and possibly eating them, too. Natural doesnt mean right.
Saktoth 2 years ago
"Natural doesnt mean right."
I completely agree. The preceding discussion is relevant to the matter of *health*. When we speak of what's "natural" for humans to eat, we tend to have wellbeing in mind.
The inference from "natural" to "ought" is fallacious when not predicated upon a mutually agreed principle of action. In this case, the implicit principle is that we generally ought to preserve health.
Some might disregard health. They wouldn't feel the force of my argument here.
mavaddat 2 years ago
Meat isn't poison, and you're being disingenuous. But you already know that.
Properly controlled deaths are more humane than natural deaths. We control the environment to be free of predators and want much more pleasant than the outside world would provide.
Your arguments are easily countered. And you've already admitted to your position is primarily based on your emotional squeamishness.
studio7manga 2 years ago
Who said meat was "poison"? More straw men?
I already agreed that controlled deaths are more humane. This is irrelevant.
What you call squeamishness, I call compassion. A pity you lack any.
mavaddat 2 years ago
"is relevant to the matter of health" "In this case, the implicit principle is that we generally ought to preserve health." "we tend to have wellbeing in mind."
Mmhmm.
What you call compassion, I call an emotional plea from someone who can't make a rational argument.
studio7manga 2 years ago
I fully understand it is difficult (if not impossible) to grasp the weight of compassion when one lacks any ethical sense whatsoever. You would've made a good torture chamber guard, studio. You're still young, why not sign up for a career in the military?
mavaddat 2 years ago
I agree with you.
Loveseekingmissile 2 years ago
"when one lacks any ethical sense whatsoever"
This is why no one takes people like you seriously. Keep marginalizing yourselves, you're doing a better job than I ever could.
Remember when someone doesn't agree with you that means they are evil~
studio7manga 2 years ago
It is precisely the fatuous conception of evil as conscious wickedness sold by Hollywood fiction that blinds you to the ordinariness, the banality of evil.
The most profound evils have never been committed by malicious, saliva drooling monsters or psychotic serial killers. They were committed by people who took it for granted that their ideals were "normal".
As Arendt wrote, "[There is] a strange interdependence between thoughtlessness and evil."
mavaddat 2 years ago
TL;DR
You know, Hitler was a vegetarian.
studio7manga 2 years ago
So?
Inupiatun 2 years ago
Read Animal Liberation or The Case for Animal Rights. The rationality has been pretty apparent to me for some time now, if your principles are logic and altruism.
JTsmiley14 2 years ago
Humans are animals.
But I may just for the laughs. For the record I've never heard an argument that was cogent. I suspect they'll simply be a rehash of all the "arguments" I hear bandied about the tubes.
studio7manga 2 years ago
Humans are animals with the ability (and thus the responsibility) to behave ethically. There are a lot of people (with any issue) who form arguments based on impulsive emotional responses. I'll grant you that. But a lot of people agree with the positions of Peter Singer and Tom Regan regarding our need to stop using animals at is is simply slavery and mass killing for pleasure (we don't need to do it). Once I get a decent camera I will make a bunch of vids for you to argue with. :-)
JTsmiley14 2 years ago
Actually it was simply hunting, ie. hunter-gatherers. Try again spunky.
studio7manga 2 years ago
Involved, didnt entirely entail.
Humans clearly didnt evolve to use computers. Yet here we are.
Its most irrelevant in determining what we should do, to know what we 'evolved' to do.
Saktoth 2 years ago
Humans are tool users, computers are tools.
Yet another ethical vegan totally missing the actual metrics I use. Try again. Or you could just ask and I'll explain it, again.
studio7manga 2 years ago
Not a vegan, meat eater. I am simply criticizing your use of the naturalistic fallacy. The debate on what is 'natural' is largely irrelevant to what is 'right'.
Saktoth 2 years ago
I'm not using it as an argument.
studio7manga 2 years ago
mmm porky
Steadno 2 years ago