User Controls
We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
-
2018-04-01 at 4:40 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny I agree that the meat industry sucks, and that overpopulation is a real problem we should address (although our societies would collapse with a 99% loss of population over night, or even spaced over several generations).
Not really, you just use technology to replace the lost workers and hunt for food.That said our population does not necessitate the meat industry at all. Our choices as consumers do. We could feed our population just fine without the meat industry.
It's all about protein. You feel way better and have better health when you're eating very large amounts of animal protein.
Yes, you can make your protein up with plant protein, whey and eggs, but meat is much more palatable. -
2018-04-01 at 5:03 PM UTC
-
2018-04-01 at 6:58 PM UTC
Originally posted by GasTheKikesRaceWarNow Not really, you just use technology to replace the lost workers and hunt for food.
First world countries automate anything they economically can, yet still require massive amounts of manual human labor, so automation is a long way from being able to replace even 99% of the manually laboring workforce. Creative fields are even further from being automatable. And just the logistics of population decline are highly challenging. Just look at Japan, where the population is declining ever so slightly, it's considered a tremendous economic problem.It's all about protein. You feel way better and have better health when you're eating very large amounts of animal protein.
Yes, you can make your protein up with plant protein, whey and eggs, but meat is much more palatable.
Sure, most people probably prefer a diet which includes meat to one which does not. Note "prefer". Lots of people would probably prefer to drive a rolls to a toyota, but this doesn't make rolls ownership "necessary". The meat industry persists and generates tremendous animal suffering not out of necessity but because people care more about satisfying their preference for meat than the suffering required to produce. Either that or they just haven't thought critically about it. -
2018-04-01 at 7:49 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny First world countries automate anything they economically can, yet still require massive amounts of manual human labor, so automation is a long way from being able to replace even 99% of the manually laboring workforce. Creative fields are even further from being automatable. And just the logistics of population decline are highly challenging.
We don't need creative professionals at all, and we don't need a quarter the stuff we produce. All we need is food and energy, and both will be abundant when the population is reduced to a sane level.Just look at Japan, where the population is declining ever so slightly, it's considered a tremendous economic problem.
Yeah, cos they're debted up. Not everything revolves around GDP, the way white people seem to think it does. Ordinary Japanese are looking forward to lower property prices and more space.Sure, most people probably prefer a diet which includes meat to one which does not. Note "prefer". Lots of people would probably prefer to drive a rolls to a toyota, but this doesn't make rolls ownership "necessary".
I dunno how you can really compare a chicken to a luxury car. Maybe it's because you don't move so much - nothing personal, I know you're a computer guy - but protein really is important if you are doing anything physical.The meat industry persists and generates tremendous animal suffering not out of necessity but because people care more about satisfying their preference for meat than the suffering required to produce.
Raising animals is not really what I regard as suffering, and we kill them pretty kindly as well, compared to nature. Yeah, their lives could be better, but I don't feel bad for enabling life.
Aren't you an anti-natalist?Either that or they just haven't thought critically about it.
People don't think critically. -
2018-04-01 at 9:39 PM UTC
Originally posted by GasTheKikesRaceWarNow I dunno how you can really compare a chicken to a luxury car. Maybe it's because you don't move so much - nothing personal, I know you're a computer guy - but protein really is important if you are doing anything physical.
Yes, protein is important. Never argued it isn't. But in your own words the only difference between protein from meat and form non-meat sources is palatability, that is how good it tastes. You can satisfy your nutritional requirements without supporting the meat industry, if you choose to eat meat it's not because you need to but because you want to satisfy your preference for the taste of meat.Raising animals is not really what I regard as suffering, and we kill them pretty kindly as well, compared to nature. Yeah, their lives could be better, but I don't feel bad for enabling life.
Even if you think raising animals for slaughter doesn't imply undue suffering per se (and this isn't an unreasonable position) the reality of what intensive animal farming in the US is certainly does. Are you familiar with large scale meat production practices? After looking into it, it's hard to imagine a more abysmal existence than that of a battery hen or dairy cow. We can discuss the conditions most farm animals are raised in but there's a lot of literature on it, I'd be happy to point you do some of the efforts at documenting it.
You yourself said that "the meat industry sucks" right? What did you mean by that if not the way in which animals are treated?Aren't you an anti-natalist?
I'm not. -
2018-04-01 at 10:02 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny Are you familiar with large scale meat production practices? After looking into it, it's hard to imagine a more abysmal existence than that of a battery hen or dairy cow. We can discuss the conditions most farm animals are raised in but there's a lot of literature on it, I'd be happy to point you do some of the efforts at documenting it.
I spent most of my life on different farms - in my opinion even at its worst it's not nearly as bad as PETA and other videos would have you believe, even chicken or foie gras production.You yourself said that "the meat industry sucks" right? What did you mean by that if not the way in which animals are treated?
We could definitely make it better, like give all the animals far more space, and especially give things that like to swim like ducks and geese some water. I once bought some geese and ducks, and when they found the pool I had put up they were so happy. But people want to maximise profit, and that means cram them into sheds and accept filthy conditions.
But I don't think that any of this is really argument for vegetarianism, as you can easily pay extra for well raised animals, or even raise them yourself, and I would do both of those things before I gave up meat. -
2018-04-02 at 2:27 AM UTC
-
2018-04-02 at 3 AM UTC
Originally posted by RestStop If I remember right a certain species is immortal even. Anything earthly that is immortal is clearly evil as shit.
They're all immortal as long as they don't get damaged. They have incredible regenerative abilities. Labnigs are working right now to make medicine out of them. Just don't believe in that prevagen shit. -
2018-04-02 at 3:05 AM UTC
Originally posted by GasTheKikesRaceWarNow Yeah, cos they're debted up. Not everything revolves around GDP, the way white people seem to think it does. Ordinary Japanese are looking forward to lower property prices and more space.
japan has some of the highest savings, their central banks actually have / had negative interest rates. -
2018-04-02 at 4:01 AM UTC
Originally posted by GasTheKikesRaceWarNow I spent most of my life on different farms - in my opinion even at its worst it's not nearly as bad as PETA and other videos would have you believe, even chicken or foie gras production.
What kind of farms though? Those supplying, say, the big four meat packers? Or smaller scale farms that may have better conditions for animals but represent a negligible amount of national meat production? If it's not that bad, how bad is bad enough for you to consider the treatment of an animal unacceptable?We could definitely make it better, like give all the animals far more space, and especially give things that like to swim like ducks and geese some water. I once bought some geese and ducks, and when they found the pool I had put up they were so happy. But people want to maximise profit, and that means cram them into sheds and accept filthy conditions.
Right. Maximum profits at the cost of animal suffering is not necessary, we could have a successful society without it.But I don't think that any of this is really argument for vegetarianism, as you can easily pay extra for well raised animals, or even raise them yourself, and I would do both of those things before I gave up meat.
But you don't do either of those things, do you? And what are the odds of the meat you order in a restaurant being "ethically produced" or any standard of ethical?
And of course all of this assumes that killing something well before its natural lifespan is done doesn't causing injury to it, which seems like a pretty difficult position to generalize to humans. -
2018-04-02 at 4:45 PM UTCzanick, serious question :
why do you think people in 3rd world countries deserve to have this moral obligation waived ???
are we free to eat meat without any moral obligations becos were barbaric ???? becos were lesser human beings ???
are we mere beasts in your eyes ???The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-04-02 at 6:31 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny What kind of farms though? Those supplying, say, the big four meat packers? Or smaller scale farms that may have better conditions for animals but represent a negligible amount of national meat production? If it's not that bad, how bad is bad enough for you to consider the treatment of an animal unacceptable?
We need small businesses. All large businesses should be shut down.
How bad is bad enough? I guess I know it when I see it. It would also depend on my mood. I can't really answer that question.
Probably we (the public) should get to inspect animals regularly.Right. Maximum profits at the cost of animal suffering is not necessary, we could have a successful society without it.
Also human suffering. The people in Speedy Parker's video look pretty poorly paid and low status. To me that's worse than the dead chickens.But you don't do either of those things, do you? And what are the odds of the meat you order in a restaurant being "ethically produced" or any standard of ethical?
No I don't, and 0%.And of course all of this assumes that killing something well before its natural lifespan is done doesn't causing injury to it, which seems like a pretty difficult position to generalize to humans.
Yes, killing something is about the ultimate injury, but everything dies. I suspect a lot of your vegetarian impulse results from your obsession with cleanliness and impurity, and anxiety over your own mortality and the temporary nature of life. -
2018-04-02 at 7:50 PM UTC
Originally posted by benny vader zanick, serious question :
why do you think people in 3rd world countries deserve to have this moral obligation waived ???
are we free to eat meat without any moral obligations becos were barbaric ???? becos were lesser human beings ???
are we mere beasts in your eyes ???
I specified first world countries because there are places in the world where people don't have access to plant-based alternatives. Asking people who live in abject poverty to make a significant dietary change isn't the way to make the world better for animals, given that most of the murder happens in countries whose people can invest more capital in the activity. -
2018-04-02 at 7:55 PM UTCIs it more immoral to eat chicken than turkey? A turkey is big, and has a lot more meat than a chicken. How about quail?
Is eating quail eggs the ultimate immorality? -
2018-04-02 at 8:07 PM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick I specified first world countries because there are places in the world where people don't have access to plant-based alternatives. Asking people who live in abject poverty to make a significant dietary change isn't the way to make the world better for animals, given that most of the murder happens in countries whose people can invest more capital in the activity.
so your saying that the value of morality is dependent on living standards ??? -
2018-04-02 at 9:28 PM UTC
Originally posted by benny vader so your saying that the value of morality is dependent on living standards ???
No, that is not what I'm saying. Some places in the world have become dependent on animal products, but lack the infrastructure to easily transition toward plant-based alternatives without harming their own population considerably. At the same time, very poor countries with problems in their food supply generally won't have the resources to slaughter animals on the massive scale we've seen in the US. It would be ideal if they did eventually embrace animal rights, but until relieving impoverished countries of their supply problems becomes somewhat easier, we should focus our political capital toward changing those countries who can unquestionably afford it.
If you're trying to suggest that we should prioritize every region of the world equally when we promote animal rights, I would say you have a generous perception of the funding and participation that goes into my cause. We have limited resources, so it's important to spend them where they're expected to do the most good. -
2018-04-03 at 2:31 AM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick problems in their food supply generally won't have the resources to slaughter animals on the massive scale we've seen in the US.
No country on earth has more problems with its food supply than the USA. It sounds like your whole problem is with modern western capitalism, since that is what you (and Lanny) keep returning to.the funding and participation that goes into my cause. We have limited resources
So far your resources consist of a 1000 post BBS thread. Are you soliciting donations? -
2018-04-03 at 3:06 AM UTCWhat are your thoughts on the voluntary human extinction movement? Could that concept of self-extinction play a role in any of this?
-
2018-04-03 at 3:55 AM UTC
Originally posted by GasTheKikesRaceWarNow We need small businesses. All large businesses should be shut down.
I mean I think all businesses should be shut down. But getting rid of the big ones would be a great start.How bad is bad enough? I guess I know it when I see it. It would also depend on my mood. I can't really answer that question.
Fair enough, intuition is an important part of forming moral judgements, but it does seem like a question you'll have to answer for yourself before you can say you're OK with eating meat or not.Also human suffering. The people in Speedy Parker's video look pretty poorly paid and low status. To me that's worse than the dead chickens.
Yeah, that's a very good point. The working conditions in the meat industry are abhorrent and I really doubt anyone works in a slaughterhouse because they want to. I'm not sure if I think human welfare issues are worse than the animal ones if only as a result of scale (for each one person subjected to those conditions hundreds or thousands of animals are created and killed) but it's definitely not an acceptable state of affairs either way.
All the more reason not to support the meat industry.Yes, killing something is about the ultimate injury, but everything dies.
But we don't think "gonna die eventually" can justify killing people, or people's pets so I don't think this really justifies cutting short a farm animal's life.I suspect a lot of your vegetarian impulse results from your obsession with cleanliness and impurity, and anxiety over your own mortality and the temporary nature of life.
I could say I suspect your desire to eat meat results from your subconscious desire to suck dicks. But I'm not in any kind of position to make that speculation, and I don't think you could evaluate it impartially either. So like yeah, that could be my angle here, but I don't have any evidence to think it is and I don't think you do either. -
2018-04-03 at 4:04 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny I'm not sure if I think human welfare issues are worse than the animal ones if only as a result of scale (for each one person subjected to those conditions hundreds or thousands of animals are created and killed) but it's definitely not an acceptable state of affairs either way.
Here’s a little thought experiment.
Say there are 2 rooms that are about to be blown up. One room contains a single human being and the other contains 1,000 chickens. You can only stop one of them from being blown up, which would you choose.
