Yesterday there was a thread about the pros/cons of veganism/vegetarianism where we all attempted to mindlessly justify our established life choices.
Round 2?
>ITT: we defend our rationale
I'll start. We are ethically obligated to continue eating meat and animal products so that the current population of domestic animals is still necessary. If we were to stop using these products, the drop-off in animal population would be tantamount to genocide.
Other urls found in this thread:
highsteaks.com
zerocarbzen.com
empiri.ca
twitter.com
Well, checked. Y'all don't recognize dubs nowadays?
Did something happened after hourse population decline? People refused the horses as vehicle, a number of horses just plundered. I understand what you are talking about, but it seems not to work always. Espicially considering, that domestic animals are, well, isolated from the rest animal world and nature.
if we dont curb/regulate our red meat consumption it could very much lead to our own destruction or at least to drastical changes of the eco system, hey even changing from red meat to poultry would help a lot
I just don't eat most meats because of dem whore-moans.
That's an interesting perspective, but you're failing to consider the horse perspective. The problem is the same for the cows in the field and the Jews in the camps. They are silent. The quiet processed death comes slow, or in the case of the horse, obselesence.
Their isolation is the precise reason for their survival success. As long as humans lives, the canine species will never go extinct. The same for the cow, chicken, lamb. Any ethical argument for horses agknowledges the horse's right to life. What of the horses that will now never be born?
I think equal argument could be made for natural gas, and both methods are subject to utility arguments. Are you claiming that veganism will save human lives? I'm not sure that many families could live without animal products.
Organic?
two sets of dubs in 4 posts, assuming I don't get this one. This proves the rightness of my arguments.
retard, b12 is necessary to live. no plant makes it. even supplements come from animal sources
Well I personally support meat eating, but I see your point. Purely as a devil's advocate, b12 supplements are easily synthesized, and GMO rice and wheat can be edited to include B vitamins.
I personally support GMO consumption as well, if anyone wants to be assmad about that.
I'm not making an ethical argument though.
I'm just saying I personally abstain from most meat for my health. I don't even think meat in of itself is bad, just the hormone filled crap the nwo produces.
As for horses/cows, I'm sure they'll be fine.
There are plenty of cow breeds all over the world and I'm sure that even if the modern American farm cow were to be wiped out (which is likely because they can't survive outside the farm anymore) then that doesn't seem like the worst tragedy to befall earth, and I certainly don't consider it a big enough loss to eat meat which I know is loaded with chemicals to grow tits, ya dig?
Nice dubs btw
What do you mean by fine? A grass fed life seems fine, and they live well until the end. If you consider the lives of such animals completely disposable, I see no reason not to allow others to subsist on them.
Your choices are your own, and I do understand your decision not to eat hormone laced meat products. I also know that there are for sale organic meat products in which hormones are not used. I asked why you do not consume those.
well, from that perspective it looks like playing gods. They are silent, yes, but even if they had voice, they don't have enough intellegnece to use it anyway. I mean, let it nature to decide whether to let them extint without human involvement. Also, they were originally artificially breeded, so, they are, sort of, our creation, why won't we decide what to do with them? We are not going to annihilate every species that we now use for our own needs, they will just go to decline just as our demand. And the circle will be closed.
Beside, do you think that if they had voice, they would be happy about their fate? Living only with purpose to be killed. I'm not sure they would choose that sort of life.
JUST FUCK OFF WITH THE VEGAN SPAM.
CHRIST. Faggots and vegans cannot STFU about their fucked up life choices.
Take it to /ck/ and hopefully they'll ban you.
I *do* eat meats that are apparently hormone free, I stated that in my original replies. That's why I said I don't eat *most* meats, specifically hormone treated ones.
And what I mean by fine is even if all the modern American farm cow breeds (not the cows you see at state fairs) were to die out, it wouldn't be that big of a tragedy since their existence is already tragic and they can't subsist on their own. And besides there's plenty of diverse cows worldwide.
Hey, people might want to transition their breed back to normalcy, so it might not be so tragic, since they care about them so much apparently.
There is no viable ethical argument to continue using more veggies to feed livestock than just eating the feed. We waste food eating red meat, it's a fact.
We live in a world where we can literally grow the meat in a lab and it's the exact same thing. No reason to kill animals anymore besides s the fact billions of dollars are spent in lobbying, etc, in order to ensure you keep the meat industry alive.
Excellent repeating digits, also, I don't think you read my post. I'm pro meat consumption.
If we're to take in cognitive load as you suggest, then the pain of death and happiness relative cannot be considered to be experienced in the same way. The cow has no experience of existential dread. The cow has no occasion to bserve the course of its life, nor to consider its end. It is not, in fact human. I agree, we can let it die. However, I believe we should do -something- with the body. Why not feed the hungry? Voice to the cow would be lipstick on a pig.
You're equivocating a sad life and species wide death, which is a rather dark path to tread when you consider human existential anguish and the burden of consciousness. See previous as to what to do with the bodies.
On the gradual fade-out, I've actually thought about this myself. The ethical dilema of murder is still in place, as well as further sanctioning the death of X number of animals per year in trade. It would likely go the way of the whale, and some animals would probably be maintained for religious sacrifice, etc.
The requisite calorie reduction of the planet would need to be replaced, likely by rice paddies (for calorie efficiency), which require as much if not more water/ destroyed land.
I think the prodigal son would disagree.
To replace the protein lost from meat we would need to eat more vegetables of a certain variety, and more nuts. The cost of this extra consumption is roughly equivalent to the loss to cows, the switchover would be extreme. Seriously, look up the costs associated with nut production, specifically almonds, cashews. It's mildly ridiculous.
Lab meat is, quite simply not the same. Production cost is the most elemental for the $500,000 hamburger. I'm sure you remember the article. Met industry aside, animal husbandry is a tenant of human survival. Ask the Ethiopian to relinquish his goat, the Nigerian his cow, the man of Papua New Guinea to give up his pigs. You will kill him.
Additionally, see my first post for what I believe to be a viable ethical argument for meat production and consumption.
I'm actually not equivocating anything, just pointing out that these cows can't live on their own and live short, painful, violent lives anyways. The end is already spelled out for them. Either we try REALLY hard to rehibilitate them OR continue to use their flesh in this specific way until they die off anyways.
However, you're equivocating human life to animal life, which I don't.
Again, I'm not trying to make an ethical argument. If you're trying to convince me to take some type of action to save these specific cows, I am in my own way, by not supporting the system which caused their condition. Hey, I might even help fund people who want to rehabilitate them, if that day comes.
I don't personally feel responsible for what's happened to them though, but you seem to be saying that we, as individuals, are responsible for their fate?
That is a pretty stupid statement, considering that those animals are only kept alive for consumption. Their number doesn't hold any intrinsic value.
You're saying a sad life can be freely exchanged for total death. That is making the two equal, which is equivocating. I welcome a clarification, as I don't want to misunderstand you.
The condition of their lives is only considered short by the standard of an 80 year human life. The Galapagos turtle would consider our lifespan stunted. Even still, our lives are considered by the brilliant as: "Solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."
I generally don't equivocate animal and human life, but the best utilitarian arguments against meat consumption equivocate human and animal suffering. I would say that we are responsible for their fate, and their future existence. This is a moral responsibility, if not an ethical one. I understand your right not to participate in it, but that also abstains you from the associated decision making process. You've decided not to play the game.
Nice trips. The meat eater might not consider the number important, as the cattle are meant for slaughter. Any argument for veganism/vegetarianism must include a valuation for animal life or suffering, both of which are addressed in the fact of their living. The argument only applies to people who really already disagree with meat consumption.
>Ask a person whether they would eat a chicken to prevent the slaughter of another chicken.
This is only a predicament for the vegetarian.
I also said that their death would be tragic, even though their life is "sad". I'm *not* saying that their sad life is equal to death, simply that such death is already in the game plan in their current existence, wether it be because the system moves along as planned or if they were allowed to live "freely," and soon die a painful death.
If we decide to eat them, they die in gross suffering. If we free them, they die in gross suffering.
I personally see them both as tragic, however I don't feel the resposnibilty to respond beyond how I am already. After all, there is equally as much human suffering in the world, and if I am to be dedicate myself like that I would be spreading my resources too thin. As it is I'm living paycheck to paycheck. But I digress.
So summarize, I don't want those cows to suffer, and in fact I would support you in anyway I could to assure they live a relatively pleasant life, but as of now I choose not to eat the hormone addled meat of the industrial farm cow for my own health. You haven't demonstrated that eating such affected meat would benefit these cows, in fact you supported my decision to eat only hormone free meat, when I can find and afford it.
All that besides, why do you say " we are responsible for their fate, and their(cows) future existence"?
I agree with you because you sound smart
Really, I do
If it were me on pro-meat eating I wouldve just said I eat meat because animals are faggots