|
The sticky situation of paying for animal abuse
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 13:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 00:12 |
|
|
Enjoy posted:The sticky situation of paying for animal abuse It's good when you make it clear that you aren't engaging in good faith at all. Thanks. Sorry you can't come up with any solutions besides never thinking about animals again. Maybe you wouldn't be vegan if you didnt have a low key beastiality fetish.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 13:40
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:It's good when you make it clear that you aren't engaging in good faith at all. Thanks. No one engaged with anything I wrote in the OP 
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 13:42
|
|
|
Sure we did. It's a good OP and I agree with a lot of it, just not every premise of morality or the conclusion. But on the other hand, I've made lots of posts here where the substantive point was disregarded so you could call me a puppy experimenter. I think actual animal welfare is more important than perceived individual moral harms.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 14:10
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:Sure we did. It's a good OP and I agree with a lot of it, just not every premise of morality or the conclusion. But on the other hand, I've made lots of posts here where the substantive point was disregarded so you could call me a puppy experimenter. Try experimenting on fewer puppies then
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 14:16
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:Sure we did. It's a good OP and I agree with a lot of it, just not every premise of morality or the conclusion. But on the other hand, I've made lots of posts here where the substantive point was disregarded so you could call me a puppy experimenter. What do you mean by perceived moral harms? Do you acknowledge these animals are individuals who are experiencing the world and it's not just a perceived harm, but in fact actual real harm? You say you do not support factory farming but there is no way for the world to continue to eat meat as you do without it so why not address the morals at the individual level without trying to handwave away all the suffering by arguing for some fantasy land situation where all these pigs and chickens get to roam free and the gas chamber at the end is a fair trade. The only reason to argue for the continued exploitation of these animals is cultural inertia and tradition. We do not need these products and the fact that bacon tastes nice is not a justification. Besides the moral question there are other good reasons to stop animal agriculture such as the impact on the environment, antibiotic resistance, and zoonotic diseases.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 14:47
|
|
|
DrBox posted:You say you do not support factory farming but there is no way for the world to continue to eat meat as you do without it I think there is a morally acceptable point that is not veganism, not that things should remain unchanged, and I reject the premise that individuals becoming vegan is the only way to enact needed change. And we probably do need some of these products because we certainly can't keep using plastic for everything.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 15:06
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:I think there is a morally acceptable point that is not veganism, not that things should remain unchanged, and I reject the premise that individuals becoming vegan is the only way to enact needed change. Individuals becoming vegan is not the only way to enact change, but it's the only way to remain morally consistent. If you agree that animals have moral value then it does not make sense to cut their throat for a burger when we have alternatives available. We are not living in a desert island scenario here. As for the plastic comment, I assume you mean for clothing? There is lots of literature to show the process for tanning leather and animal agriculture in general has a far greater impact and again, we have alternatives available. There are new forms of vegan leather and lots of plants we can process for wool and silk alternatives. If this was actually a priority for people we could push for those alternatives but instead we go for the cheap animal by-products. DrBox fucked around with this message at 15:23 on Sep 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 15:20
|
|
|
It's been well established that we disagree on the morality of "giving a sheep a haircut from time to time" so I don't find the consistency argument at all persuasive. "Lol" at silkworm feelings entirely.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 15:23
|
|
|
Even if you think that some form of animal agriculture/killing animals for their body parts is acceptable (and personally there are some that I think are probably ok, e.g. bivalve farming), the reality is that we are miles away from it in terms of current marginal production of food products. Arguing for strict veganism in all cases is an awful lot harder than arguing for "it's bad to buy commercially produced meat (and other animal products)". An awful lot of arguments over the last few pages seem like they might make sense for the first but are totally incongruous with the facts on the ground re the second.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 15:27
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:It's been well established that we disagree on the morality of "giving a sheep a haircut from time to time" so I don't find the consistency argument at all persuasive. e.g., for clarity you're obviously opposed to strict veganism. Do you think it's ethical to go and buy a steak from your local butcher's?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 15:28
|
|
|
It depends entirely on where he gets the steak from. Opposed is a strong word for it. I disagree with the moral absolutism even though I agree with the critique of modern agriculture as is.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 15:30
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 15:35
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I'm not vegan but this dismissal of their ethical position is unfair imo. They raise good arguments that I think deserve more serious consideration than an accusation of virtue signaling. Not virtue signaling. I can't find any other way to square it with the "it's ok to spay feral cats" or "who cares about species going extinct". It's moral reductionism.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 15:37
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:It depends entirely on where he gets the steak from. Thanks! I think that this is the actual debate real people are faced with, whether any actually existing choices that they can make around meat consumption are ethical. I disagree (and consequently don't buy steaks) for three reasons: * The marginal bit of beef production isn't some artisanal farm which claims to have "high" animal welfare standards, it's somewhere in Brazil * Even "high" welfare beef has disastrous climate and land use impacts * Cows are easily intelligent enough that I think it's wrong to breed and kill them for their meat, in any manner that is actually practiced today, from a quasi-utilitarian standpoint. Our lack of knowledge about what is good or bad, how animals experience the world, is enough to make me strongly opposed to treating them differently in this case than I would humans.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 15:38
|
|
|
distortion park posted:* The marginal but of beef production isn't some artisanal farm which claims to have "high" animal welfare standards, it's somewhere in Brazil I thought this was a thread about individual choices not the marginal thing. If we want to talk about changing the marginal thing, we go back to whether it's gonna be easier to get people as a whole on board with veganism or being nicer to cows, and I think it's the latter. Mostly I support switching over to turkey. Eat all the dinosaurs. But there are other ways to remediate the negative impacts of beef besides full veganism.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 15:41
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:Not virtue signaling. This might also be the wrong word. But virtue signalling means they don't care. I think they do. I think animal welfare is fraught and complicated and veganism is an easy answer. But that doesn't make it the most correct or moral.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 15:44
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:It depends entirely on where he gets the steak from. Do you actually care about this and look into it, or do you just buy steak blindly knowing the cow probably suffered? It's one thing to virtue signal and say you wish it were better for the cow but those are empty words if you keep buying that steak. Do you use this moral absolutism critique with any other moral discussions? Bull fighting or rodeos can be done better and arguing for a boycott is too extreme?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 15:47
|
|
|
Start a thread on those and find out. Edit, to be less flip, there are probably practices I don't support, but I don't think "loving around with a bull" is some great moral wrong
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 15:48
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:This might also be the wrong word. But virtue signalling means they don't care. I think they do. I think animal welfare is fraught and complicated and veganism is an easy answer. But that doesn't make it the most correct or moral. I think most of the US would highly disagree with this. If it was, most people would be vegan by this point.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 15:49
|
|
|
Kalit posted:I think most of the US would highly disagree with this. If it was, most people would be vegan by this point. I think most of the US doesn't give a poo poo but maybe you have some evidence otherwise
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 15:52
|
|
|
Imo if you want to debate with vegans and change their mind you should treat their objections with the same seriousness that (non-rear end in a top hat) people afford to those with religiously proscribed diets. But what I see a lot of instead is contempt, dismissal, or at best trying to argue around the reason they object to eating animals rather than addressing it. In this thread even. If a restaurant brought a Jew guacamole with carnitas you wouldn't tell her to just eat around the pig parts. You don't try to rhetorically trap a Muslim with elaborate and ridiculous scenarios where an indigenous king serves them a pulled pork sandwich and it would mean war not to eat it. If you were trying to convince a Muslim that they should eat pork (which most people wouldn't even try to do in the first place) you'd have to take their faith seriously and make arguments in that framework. Convince them God doesn't really mind or that God doesn't exist or something like that. Trying to argue around it with stuff like - well you only do it to feel better than other people - you shouldn't be absolutist about it -ok what if you only did it a little bit -what if the pigs had happy lives first - wouldn't it be better for God if 10 people ate 20% less pork than if one person ate zero, why don't you try that - ah but if everybody gave up pork tomorrow what would happen to all our millions of pigs, do you want them to die, do you want a genocide of pigs, etc These arguments may work for you, because you don't have ethical objections to killing animals. But they are a waste of time and effort on somebody who does, for the same reason that somebody would be unlikely to succeed in convincing you to do something you consider unethical by calling you a virtue signaler or saying "well just do it a little bit"
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 15:54
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:I think most of the US doesn't give a poo poo but maybe you have some evidence otherwise Here's some polls: https://news.gallup.com/poll/183275/say-animals-rights-people.aspx quote:Almost a third of Americans, 32%, believe animals should be given the same rights as people, while 62% say they deserve some protection but can still be used for the benefit of humans. The strong animal rights view is up from 2008 when 25% thought animals' rights should be on par with humans'. quote:Nearly half of Americans (46%) believe that animal-cruelty laws in the U.S. are not strict enough, while about one-third (32%) say they’re about right and 5% say they’re too strict. quote:About one in three Americans say that animals don’t have enough legal rights in society. A similar share say animal rights are good as is, and only 8% say animals have too many legal rights. As a reminder, ~10% of the US population is vegetarian: https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2022/03/1-in-10-americans-say-they-dont-eat-meat-a-growing-share-of-the-population/. Full veganism is a little harder to find, maybe 2-6%: https://www.plantproteins.co/vegan-plant-based-diet-statistics/. So, if veganism was the easy answer, I expect a lot more people who answered yes about more animal protections would be vegan. I do really wish people eating less/no meat/animal products was the easy answer, then we'd be doing a lot better on the climate change front. Kalit fucked around with this message at 16:06 on Sep 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 16:00
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:Start a thread on those and find out. Bull fighting and rodeos is just "loving around with a bull"? You are so set on not acknowledging the harm done to these animals for entertainment. Steak falls into the category of entertainment too. Bull fights end with the bull stabbed with a sword multiple times. In rodeos bulls have a rope tied around their balls to give them incentive to buck and give a show. Many animals die in chuckwagon races and calf roping. This is all for spectacle and the root cause is the same mentality you display here. The idea that animals are ours to use and abuse.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 16:02
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Imo if you want to debate with vegans and change their mind you should treat their objections with the same seriousness that (non-rear end in a top hat) people afford to those with religiously proscribed diets. I don't think anyone here is trying to persuade the vegans not to be. We're just discussing points of agreement and disagreement.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 16:16
|
|
|
DrBox posted:Bull fighting and rodeos is just "loving around with a bull"? You are so set on not acknowledging the harm done to these animals for entertainment. Steak falls into the category of entertainment too. This is exactly what I'm talking about and the exact kind of bad faith I'm sick of. Thanks for demonstrating it so aptly. loving with animals does not have to involve stabbing them and I don't support stabbing them, but since I'm not a vegan the vegans posting find every horrible thing done to animals that has ever happened and lay it at my feet. Go gently caress yourself
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 16:19
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:This is exactly what I'm talking about and the exact kind of bad faith I'm sick of. Thanks for demonstrating it so aptly. You chose to defend bull fighting, you laid it at your own feet
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 16:25
|
|
|
I explicitly did not. In fact, I outright indicated I disagree with some practices. You shithead (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 16:28
|
|
|
Vegans are just lazy thinkers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 16:30
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:I explicitly did not. In fact, I outright indicated I disagree with some practices. You shithead You said there were practices you disagreed with but "loving around with a bull" was not one of those. You said that in response to bull fighting being raised.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 16:31
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:I explicitly did not. In fact, I outright indicated I disagree with some practices. You shithead Harold Fjord posted:Start a thread on those and find out. You said you "probably disagree with some practices" then called it "loving around with a bull" To be clear, all bulls die bleeding in bull fighting and some percentage of animals die in every event in a rodeo due to accidents. Why not just take a moral position instead of this wishy washy sliding scale of harm? There is no compelling argument to defend using animals this way. You're the guy going to a sea world protest trying to argue the fish are lucky to be there.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 16:37
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:Vegans are just lazy thinkers. How so? Does consuming animal products somehow give humans the ability to think more critically? What enlightenment can you bring to the table? Beyond shitposting one liners, like you've been doing for most of this page
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 16:41
|
|
|
Let's take the temperature down just a bit before a good, if heated at times, discussion becomes a brawl please. I think veganism is an easier moral position than meat consumption but a much harder one in every other way, akin to requiring a cultural revolution to probably even get a seat at a table where it could get an ear from the powerful. If you're a vegan you're aware of many of your kin in power but also aware than none of them are really advocates either, which yeah I get it, that sucks rear end. About the only meat I would struggle with giving up, indeed it's about the only meat I ever eat anymore, is oily fish. Both because I love me a tin of sardines and because I don't trust plant sources of omega-3. My questions for vegans or knowledgable folk here are: 1) Are fish = conscious and meat still as contentious a point as it was like a decade ago last I checked in on it? What about stuff like scallops or oysters? 2) Omega-3 levels in vegans and vegetarians, I've heard they're good despite ALA being so poorly converted. Is this true, and if so what's the cause? Benefit from so many bad fats being cut out so a little bit goes a lot longer a way?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 16:52
|
|
|
DrBox posted:To be clear, all bulls die bleeding in bull fighting and some percentage of animals die in every event in a rodeo due to accidents. Meanwhile, in reality people have been "bull fighting" without stabbing them to death for at least 5 years now. https://www.denverpost.com/2017/07/13/controversial-bloodless-bullfighting-denver/ I fail to see how rodeo accidents carry any ethical weight whatsoever and of they did, it implies we should care about animal welfare itself in a way vegans have been quite clear that they do not.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 16:59
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:I think there is a morally acceptable point that is not veganism, not that things should remain unchanged, and I reject the premise that individuals becoming vegan is the only way to enact needed change. My understanding is that your position is that killing an animal for meat is ethically acceptable as long as the animal didn't suffer before it died. Apologies if I'm wrong about that. If so, how do you propose we get to the point where all meat is ethically produced? To me it seems like the easiest way is to stop consuming meat to the point where demand is low enough that all animals can be raised ethically. Do you have an alternative solution?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 17:07
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:
Harold Fjord posted:it implies we should care about animal welfare itself in a way vegans have been quite clear that they do not.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 17:08
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:Meanwhile, in reality people have been "bull fighting" without stabbing them to death for at least 5 years now. https://www.denverpost.com/2017/07/13/controversial-bloodless-bullfighting-denver/ Harold Fjord posted:I fail to see how rodeo accidents carry any ethical weight whatsoever and of they did, it implies we should care about animal welfare itself in a way vegans have been quite clear that they do not.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 17:12
|
|
|
DrBox posted:Oh nice. A practice that according to your article is seen as controversial, going against tradition and used in a tiny minority of bull fights. I'm glad a handful of bulls will survive but that's not a reason to now excuse the sport. Why not just stop rather than try to do it a little nicer in a compromise that makes no one happy. The article acknowledging your disagreement in advance does not give your disagreement merit. The bulls not being murdered is every reason to excuse that version of the sport. Just because it doesn't make you happy doesn't mean it makes no one happy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 17:17
|
|
|
Seph posted:My understanding is that your position is that killing an animal for meat is ethically acceptable as long as the animal didn't suffer before it died. Apologies if I'm wrong about that. If so, how do you propose we get to the point where all meat is ethically produced? To me it seems like the easiest way is to stop consuming meat to the point where demand is low enough that all animals can be raised ethically. Do you have an alternative solution? I don't see why it is necessary to stop consuming all meat instead of unethically produced meat to reach that point.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 17:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 00:12 |
|
|
Epic High Five posted:1) Are fish = conscious and meat still as contentious a point as it was like a decade ago last I checked in on it? What about stuff like scallops or oysters? There's greater genetic diversity amongst fish than amongst all land animals, so it's hard to generalise. But some species of fish pass the mirror test: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.3000021 Epic High Five posted:2) Omega-3 levels in vegans and vegetarians, I've heard they're good despite ALA being so poorly converted. Is this true, and if so what's the cause? Benefit from so many bad fats being cut out so a little bit goes a lot longer a way? Personally I take an algae-derived supplement (it looks just like a fish oil pill)
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 17:23
|
|