Justify your meat consumption

[toxic aspen]

i could be vegetarian or vegan and be within the moral bounds of my faith

[karmic swan]

In one sentence, how do you justify your meat consumption?

[toxic aspen]

but i am not morally deficit for doing so either

[toxic aspen]

you go first

[karmic swan]

Im vegan

[toxic aspen]

yeah go and justify in one sentence why that’s morally supperior

[karmic swan]

I didn’t say that. Will you answer my question?

[toxic aspen]

it’s a silly question which is why i asked you to answer it first. To understand and justify something one sentence is an arbitrary and likely inadequate length

[karmic swan]

Give it a go?

[regal garden]

lol that’s the whole point of this thread!

[toxic aspen]

couldn’t do it if i tried, sorry, would need at least a few periods

to lay out my premises and such

[regal garden]

God says humans have dominion over animals, therefore we can slaughter them and eat them. I did it 🎉

[toxic aspen]

you found the conclusion

not the justification

and not as nuanced as i would put it

[karmic swan]

It’s not a trick question, I just wanted to understand you clearly as you’re clearly passionate about the topic

[toxic aspen]

would it be better if i replied to one of my former messages laying it out?

[regal garden]

You believe animals are not sentient and have no morals and so as long as they are used to humans benefit, it’s justifiable to kill them them in the billions

[toxic aspen]

funny how much you strawman me, i seriously doubt you read all the way through without beginning your response

[regal garden]

Go on then, lay out your premises

[karmic swan]

Ok but please make it clear and since you’ve already acknowledged that it’s not related to religion then not including anything faith based?

[toxic aspen]

did i acknowledge that?

[karmic swan]

Here?

[toxic aspen]

i said that’s oversimplifying things

wait what? im saying i could be vegan and also not vegan and still be moral in the confines of my faith

okay i’m confused what your getting at

that was in response to the strawman saying that God says to slaughter animals to be moral

which i was pointing out was not true

[regal garden]

That’s not what I said

[toxic aspen]

anyway, here is my argument

[karmic swan]

So what is your justification then? Religion dictates that you should consume animal products?

[toxic aspen]

no

it says that you can

not that you have to

and in fact fasting from meat can be virtuous

but is not required

to be morally sound

[karmic swan]

Ok so then can we leave religion out of it since your religion doesn’t require you to eat animal products

[regal garden]

That’s what I said

[karmic swan]

So what is your justification?

[toxic aspen]

no, religion in part provides the premises why it’s okay, but also provides the premises why it’s okay not to?

also if you have read through the thread you would know i have avidly advocated and defended the vegan perspective from a secular moral perspective

[karmic swan]

Do you agree with killing animals for fun/entertainment?

[toxic aspen]

very strongly

[toxic aspen]

no

unless it’s combined with another legitimate purpose like food or population control

[karmic swan]

And do you agree you can live a healthy life as a vegan?

[toxic aspen]

not practically no

[toxic aspen]

this is important too

I will be more than happy to lay out in one text my full beliefs and the justification for them as well as the messages i have sent in defense of decreasing meat consumption as much as possible from an irreligious framework, right now i’m at a museum so it’s hard to respond rn

[karmic swan]

Ah ok so I guess that is your justification then. I was brought up eating meat and dairy too and told it was healthy. There’s a lot of science now refuting what we were told about food. A documentary called ‘what the health’ is really interesting and a good place to start if you’re interested in the food industry in general. If you give it a watch then ping me and let me know what you thought. Would be interested in your views!

[toxic aspen]

not my justification

will respond later

[karmic swan]

Still would be interested in your thoughts on that documentary. It’s an interesting watch in general about society and the health industry

[karmic swan]

I’m going to bed now and tbh religion doesn’t really interest me in regards to justifying meat consumption. If I went around kicking puppies because my god told me ‘you physically can if you want to, but you don’t have to’ youd probably tell me to not kick them 😉

🦵 🐶

Yeah you’re right, kick em. Night!

[vapid marlin]

Isn't killing animals for fun and for food the same in the current state of our society?

I get that if you are in a farming society that sometimes you have to kill animals in order not to die yourself

Nowadays we only kill animals because we WANT to not because we NEED to

So then isn't that the same as killing animals for fun?

[toxic aspen]

okay first of all: the puppy kicking analogy is not logically sound bc

1. why do we see kicking puppies as wrong? because in our world sadistically harming others for no reason is wrong.
2. our consciences are aware of this and thus react negatively to that prompt
3. by proposing a hypothetical where God permits sadistically kicking puppies, to prove the point that I would not condone such an action if it were to happen, is inherently contradictory.
4. Why? because it requires applying a moral standard that we share in this reality (sadistic harm for its own sake is bad) to a new moral standard in a hypothetical world that runs in direct in conflict with the moral standard/demand in our world.
5. To clarify: My moral code, directly shaped by my religion views that kicking the dog in your example is wrong. Therefore, I will still innately view the hypothetical under my religiously influence moral lens which says it’s wrong.

[toxic aspen]

forgot to ping u

[karmic swan]

sorry, you were too late, i already kicked it

[toxic aspen]

even though you said that you are not interested in religion as a justification, i will still lay out the religiously backed premises that together justify it if you care to hear, as you did ask earlier

[karmic swan]

go for it

[toxic aspen]

didn’t even address my point, it’s okay to admit you made an emotional appeal

anyway: it’ll be a second

[karmic swan]

dunno, you seemed to be saying don't kick the dog which i didn't think needed addressing as a point

[toxic aspen]

okay pause in my typing: yeah it was just explaining why it’s not a ‘gotcha’ because it does not do what it seems to do

Preface: this is an argument explicitly in regards to consumption of meat, not the method by which meat is produced (definitely could legitimate argue that the way most meat is produced is in conflict with religious premises)

1. God made humans inherently different than animals (our souls/essence is different)

• this is similar to Aristotle’s concept of essence and metaphysics
• cannot prove or disprove this (its faith)
• Despite evolutionary/biological similarities or relationships, that does not implicate that our essence is the same

2. we as humans are given dominion over the animals

• this means that they are resources for humanity as a part of nature
• we have an obligation to take care of these resources (not deplete them, harm them meaninglessly, hurt the environment, etc)

3. meat consumption is not a meaningless use of these resources

• it provides sustenance even if you argue it’s unnecessary

might be forgetting something, but that’s basically it. maybe should include somewhere that harming others for its on sake and nothing else is a definitely a net negative utility so that’s why that’s wrong

[karmic swan]

Can I try to make this simpler? If you think harming an animal for no reason is wrong and we know that you don't need to eat animals for health or nutrition then there isn't any logical reason to eat animals. The suffering they go through is immense and deeply cruel. You cannot seperate the way they die from the act of consuming them. There is absolutely zero way to kill an animal that doesnt want to die humanely.
If you insist on bringing religion into it then I think a question for yourself is 'would a benevolent god want me to needlessly harm the animals they created?'

[vapid marlin]

10 commandments:
"Thou shall not kill"

So doesnt your fairytale tell you not to kill

Where in the bible does it say it only applies to humans?

[toxic aspen]

can i respond to your first point first before jumping to these things?

[vapid marlin]

Yeah just react in the order you want

[toxic aspen]

it’s hard to discuss this when you follow up with stuff before i respond

[vapid marlin]

Since it's a discussoin on discord, there's no need to give a ''live'' reaction

if your answer my question in a reply to someone else, you can just tell my you've given the answer already

Just answer hotbunz first ❤️

[toxic aspen]

maybe it’s just a me thing, but i like to focus on one point before seeing another

but alright

[vapid marlin]

I get that, and in a live discussion that would be the best course of action. But since in this medium you can re-read ans scroll through messages, i don't think it applies here 😉

As you can still react to the points 1 by 1 in chronological order if that's your preference

[toxic aspen]

1. In the current environment which i am in (cannot speak on behalf of others) it would be very difficult to obtain all the nutrients i need going vegetarian much less vegan.

2. regardless there is a difference in my eyes between necessity and meaningfulness. What defines necessity? is it just what we need to not be harmed? to not die? what is the line? Meaning to me means it serves a practical use for humanity or for the betterment of nature. population control, food count.

3. killing animals can be cruel, but it does not always mean that, and i’d argue our goal when using animals for meaningful reasons is to limit the pain as much as possible.

4. it is animals nature to be consumed or eaten, so it’s not subjecting them to anything that is unnatural to them, and every (or most) animals are hard wired for self preservation.

5. your last point is interesting about benevolence, don’t have a response just yet, but i will think about it more

[toxic aspen]

yeah it’s just more overwhelming when i see 2 new paragraphs pop up when i’ve only responded to the first half of one

[vapid marlin]

Allright, my bad

[toxic aspen]

these are mandates to humans and were never meant to be interpreted to be literal killing all animals

but you could argue that you believe it does, but there is a long list of other bible references that kinda clearly condones animal consumption which helps to clarify that that is not what it means

[toxic aspen]

all good

[toxic aspen]

some of these are indirect some are direct. perhaps the most direct is “every moving thing that lives shall be food for you”

but i do not want to go into bible stuff because of how open to interpretation it can be and if things are literal, figurative, or can be better explained as instructions for a people of a time period that does not apply today

[vapid marlin]

I'm just saying it's inconsistent. It's never mentioned it only applies to humans, but we interpret it that way because it is convenient as otherwise it would be an inconsistency.

That's why I don't subscribe to religious arguments

People can claim literal opposite conclusions based on the same text, depending on interpretations

[toxic aspen]

true, but some id argue have more merit than others or more credibility based off of translation accuracy and such, but nonetheless, it’s always arguable.

[toxic aspen]

and, as i’ve said, i’ve avidly laid out the arguments for reducing meat consumption as much as possible based on non religiously backed premises, so hopefully you don’t think i don’t understand the logical framework of that, I just fundamentally disagree with some of the premises

[karmic swan]

1. Where do you live that you have internet access but no access to staple foods such as fruits, vegetables and legumes? If you're floating along on a piece of ice in the arctic right now then I have no problem with you trying to take down a seal for breakfast (good luck). I do understand that it's not easy to switch up your diet especially when what we eat is linked with tradition or youre in a shared household etc. It's not easy for everyone so making changes where you can is great for your health, the animals and the environment.

2. I would say necessity in this context means for survival. Consuming animal products has a detrimental impact on the climate change, human health and actually requires so much land (for livestock to live on plus land to grow food for that livestock) that we produce far less food for humans by continuing to keep animals for food.

3. Not having it, sorry. Limiting pain is still pain and even a painless death to an animal that doesnt want to die is cruel. The reality is that the vast majority of animal products produced for consumption comes from a farm that operates behind closed doors for a reason.

4. Animals reared for meat have their self preservation tools taken away when they cant leave. Nothing natural about what humans do to animals. If you hunt all your meat and prepare it yourself then you're doing way better by the environment than those using supermarkets.

[toxic aspen]

going to respond to 2-4

2. my point is i don’t agree with necessity i agree with the need for meaningful purpose

3. my point here is that while zero pain is ideal, (thus is the reason why vegetarian diet can in fact be virtuous under my religous framework) it is not morally required because of the difference in nature i outlined in point 1 of my original argument.

4. I do not see the difference or at least do not think it changes their essence or their purpose in relation to humanity

[karmic swan]

2. 'Meaningful purpose' doesn't mean anything in this sentence. I can assign meaningful purpose to standing in the corner of the room for 2 minutes but that doesnt make it actually purposeful.

3. I respect you wanting to fight for what you've been told is right but if you think a vegetarian diet is one that causes zero pain then I'd definitely love to revisit this point if you'll watch the 5 minute youtube video called 'Dairy is Scary' on YouTube (the one with the girl in the thumbnail at about 7mil views, dunno if i can post links here)

4.If you think the prolonged torture and cruelty displayed in farms is the same as hunting a wild animal that still has it's self preservation tools then your previous points about not agreeing with causing unnecessary harm to animals is definitely no longer true.

Would you consider trying a plant based diet for one week and watching the 5 minute dairy is scary video?

[vapid marlin]

1. In the current environment which i am in (cannot speak on behalf of others) it would be very difficult to obtain all the nutrients i need going vegetarian much less vegan.
   Based on the fact that animal products require order of magnitude more plant-based food to produce the same amount of nutritional value, I find this hard to believe. If you claim there is not enough proper plant-based food readily available but there is animal-based, than it just means that either animal feed is imported or the animals themselves are.

3. killing animals can be cruel, but it does not always mean that, and i’d argue our goal when using animals for meaningful reasons is to limit the pain as much as possible.
   True. However MOST of the animals we breed for consumption are mistreated. I'd agree with you if this was a rare event, but it is actually the status quo in food production, because this makes it more profitable to produce animal products. So for me personally, there is a balance to be upheld. I'm not neccesarily against animal consumption, however there is a minimum level of animal welfare that in my opinion would be required in order to weigh up against the economic benefits. Currently, this is not the case for almost all of animal production worldwide.

it is animals nature to be consumed or eaten, so it’s not subjecting them to anything that is unnatural to them, and every (or most) animals are hard wired for self preservation.
I get that this is your position, but it is such a wild position to say that "animals are to be consumed".

[toxic aspen]

1. how do you do the isolation of the points that’s pretty neat

2. we won’t agree on the practicality or health concerns of veganism, so i think we are going in circles there.

3. as for point 3, as i’ve said before, I think that rectifying the meat industry to increasing the quality of life and eliminate the deplorable and irreverent conditions of animals is definitely valid. whether that means more regulations or reducing consumer demand, ive never argued against doing either. for example, there is a difference in moral culpability between the sweatshop owner and the person who buys a shirt. To extend the metaphor, Im solely defending buying a shirt, not the industry which makes them.

[vapid marlin]

1. how do you do the isolation of the points that’s pretty neat
   If you are on PC, you can put a ">" in front of some text and it will show as a quote

2. we won’t agree on the practicality or health concerns of veganism, so i think we are going in circles there.
   I didnt say anything about veganism. I'm not vegan. You don't need to be vegan in order to not eat meat.

3. as for point 3, as i’ve said before, I think that rectifying the meat industry to increasing the quality of life and eliminate the deplorable and irreverent conditions of animals is definitely valid. whether that means more regulations or reducing consumer demand, ive never argued against doing either. for example, there is a difference in moral culpability between the sweatshop owner and the person who buys a shirt. To extend the metaphor, Im solely defending buying a shirt, not the industry which makes them.
   Ah I see. For me I won't defend either buying the shirt or the industry. I believe it to be morally wrong to willingly/voluntarily participate in something that is brought about by immorral actions. If given the choice that is.

So for example, I don't think its immoral if the alternative is that you have to suffer, e.g. having no clothes at all. But if there is a valid alternative, then it is immoral to participate.

[toxic aspen]

alright myb i must’ve conflate what u we’re saying and the dairyisscary fellow about veganism. alright, i see your points, at this point I think anything else added would just be repeating ourselves so i’m fine ending it here unless someone else has different questions i haven’t already answered

[gray fjord]

Interesting to see that my (nontheistic) framework is very similar to yours. I argue that we don't kill certain animals for food because of a perceived proximity to ourselves. We don't kill chimps for food in the same way that we don't kill cows for being a nuisance like we do mosquitos.

Suppose it was revealed that God created some more "enlightened" creature than ourselves. Would we be obligated to offer ourselves as "resources" to them, since as higher creatures they would be given dominion over us?

[toxic aspen]

offer ourselves? no, but i don’t think any animal for that matter does that for humans freely lol

can you elaborate on your framework more though? struggling to see the point you are making rn

[gray fjord]

I've already written at length earlier in this thread. The gist is that we don't have a problem with killing things or suffering, we have a problem with unjustified killing and suffering. Thou shalt not kill*.
*Except in certain cases... like punishment for a capital offense.

The requirements for justifying the killing of animals becomes more lax the less closely related we are to that animal. I think we could all agree that pests (like termites or mosquitos) can be killed simply for being a nuisance. But we would think twice before killing a cow for the same reason.

[toxic aspen]

yeah, i agree we do that to a certain extent

i guess the question would be what makes that a morally valid system

if you’ve already explained it before, i can just search the thread to save you time

[gray fjord]

Linked.

[toxic aspen]

thanks

a couple brief points: i like your discussion about sentience and what makes killing pests okay but not a more sentient animal, some pushback to that might be that pests pose harm to us, while a cow for example does not

also if i were a vegan i would argue that the only obligation we have is to reduce our own suffering we inflict, not those inflicted by carnivores in the wild

also your first point was pretty funny, could you theoretically steal 50 percent of the meat you eat and be morally neutral 🤣

but yeah i agree that morality of eating meat is entirely different than producing it although there is some linkage and spillover

[gray fjord]

I don't really know the answer myself, I'm just trying to use thought experiments to further iterate the positions of others and evaluate my own. My best answer is that we should do our best to be conscious of the harm that we cause others and to minimize it using our best judgment.

What I failed to mention is that sentience is entirely subjective. We have no way of quantifying "sentience", we can only look at behavior that mimics our own and rationalize it as intelligent or stupid. There is some scientific argument that plants and even rocks are sentient. Again, we operate on our best judgment that if there is some gradient, dogs are probably more sentient than plants.

Spiders scare some people to the extent that we kill them. Yet they are in many cases helpful in killing and eating more harmful household pests. Is being scared of an animal enough of a justification to kill it? If not, is perceiving that something might be harmful enough of a justification?

[toxic aspen]

and I also agree that killing animals for a meaningful reason is valid morally because animals in my eyes are resources. for things such as medicine, population, control, food, etc as long as we try to not cause unnecessary suffering in the process, but I guess some people disagree that A) those reasons are valid and B) that we have a right to make those decisions

interesting thoughts forcsure

[gray fjord]

I would agree, but I think the term "resources" is troubling to some readers. Animals are resources in the same sense that our friends are also resources.

[toxic aspen]

friends are humans

and the more we humanize animals such as our doggos and cars, the less permissible it is to kill them

which kinda ties into your hypothesis

another non religious argument i’ve heard is that morality is subjective, morality is determined by society, society values meat, therefore it’s morally permissible to eat meat within society

i don’t subscribe to subjective morality tho so i refrain from making the argument or exploring it deeper

[gray fjord]

As I get older it seems more and more clear to me that morality is our attempt to rationalize our base evolutionary instincts. Humans are successful as a species because we're so cooperative.

[toxic aspen]

interesting perspective, what do you make of certain moral virtues that seem to contradict some of our base evolutionary instincts?

perhaps it’s simply a perception of self regulation that is valuable?

[gray fjord]

I would be interested to hear some examples. I would start by questioning why they must be contradictory to our instincts

[gray fjord]

Certainly true

[toxic aspen]

to clarify, i’m not saying there must be, i’m saying that some moral frameworks have some that seem to defy natural instinct

such a premarital sex

or just abstinence perhaps

[vapid marlin]

It is yes

I just have a very hard time with the notion that only humans should matter to other humans and all other life is just there to serve humans

The audacity, the egocentric complex you require for that to be your point of view

Moreover, I care more about many animals than I care about a lot of humans, and i'd rather see many humans die than those animals

But by Mykonos' logic, that would make me a bad human

But I guess it's the religious doctrine that sets humans on a pedestal as the ''chosen ones''

But to conclude, yes I get angry reading things like ''animals are there to serve humans'' or anything along those lines.

[karmic swan]

No victim involved. You can (within the laws of our society) do what you want, and as long as you’re not causing harm to others you can get on with it regardless of what our ‘natural instincts’ are meant to be.

If you put an apple and a bunny into a play pen with a human baby, the baby will play with the bunny and eat the apple. Humans develop their views on animal products for consumption from previous generations.

I think you’ve established that you don’t care about an animals right to life, so maybe you care about the environment? What are your thoughts on the destruction done to the planet caused by the unsustainable way humans consume animal products? You say we have dominion over animals so we can rape, abuse and slaughter them at will, but do we have the right to destroy the planet too?

[prisma sedge]

Animals ≠ People

More traditionally it says Thou shall not murder, so that's not actually the same as killing

[toxic aspen]

@karmic swan read point 3, i believe we should be good stewards of the earth which we are currently doing a poor job of so fixing the overtly inhumane meat industry i could agree with

[karmic swan]

why not make the choice to not support the overtly inhumane meat industry then? For the planet

[toxic aspen]

what did i ever say that i was not doing that?

i don’t support their practices

but again, i believe at leas there is separation of moral culpability between buyer and producer

and yeah buying meat from less ethical producers when others exist would be probably be morally inferior

[karmic swan]

if you purchase animal products you are supporting those industries

[karmic swan]

there is no ethical way to produce animal products. A loved and cared for animal still has it's throat slit against it's will or is forced screaming into a gas chamber. A dairy cow on the nicest farm still has her baby taken away.

[toxic aspen]

agree to disagree then ig, all my rebuttals i’ve already said and you’ve said this already too, or at least others have

[karmic swan]

I am asked a lot if I am vegan for my heath, the animals or the environment, but a question to all non vegans could instead be why are you not vegan? Because you aren't concerned for your health (processed meat products are class 1 carcinogens), because you hate animals or because you have no respect for the planet?

[toxic aspen]

also already answered this, but if you are just saying it for others to see that’s fine

[karmic swan]

I couldn't succinctly say what your justification is for meat consumption. You tend to get bogged down in trying to define morals and ethics. I would love to hear a sound and sane argument for the consumption of animal products with the understanding of the environmental impact

[toxic aspen]

linking it again. defining morality and ethics is essential to define what is moral and what is ethical. I have a different set of beliefs than you founded on an aristotlean idea of metaphysics/essence and purpose balanced with the obligations of humans to be good stewards. at this point, until a new point is brought up i haven’t already addressed, im not interested in repeating myself indefinitely so ill most likely refrain from responding

[karmic swan]

immediately a contradiction, you say 'we have an obligation to take care of these resources (not deplete them, harm them meaninglessly, hurt the environment, etc)'.

[toxic aspen]

what’s contradicting

[karmic swan]

consumption of animal products is devastating to the environment

[toxic aspen]

to our current extend yes

[karmic swan]

right, so why support it

[toxic aspen]

but it does not always mean that

[toxic aspen]

i dont, that’s not what i’m defending

please look back through the thread, if it’s not something new, feel free to look back through the thread

[karmic swan]

you support it by buying it

[karmic swan]

if you buy animal products you support the industry

[toxic aspen]

don’t attack the person, attack the argument i’m making. IF that is my behavior, im not defending myself

i’m literally saying supporting it is bad, but there is less moral weight on the buyer than on the actual industry. again, already addressed. this time if i don’t respond you know why.

[karmic swan]

the industry only continues its practices when we support it with our money. You have the power to make change. I believe in you!

[gray fjord]

I have to assume here but you seem to be focused on selfish reproduction, i.e. that my natural instinct is to have sex and create offspring. This does occur often, yes, but we observe all kinds of similarly counterintuitive, altruistic, behavior in other species. We might also look at why animals of various species (including our own) coparent or adopt, or why worker females of certain insects work without ever reproducing. Altruistic behaviors that seem to go against natural instinct are possibly or probably evolutionarily advantageous (or at least not disadvantageous)

[toxic aspen]

kinda lost you ngl

[gray fjord]

Celibacy/abstaining from premarital sex is bad from the perspective of "I need to reproduce to pass on my genes". Society (humanity's greatest success) requires altruism. Altruistic acts (such as raising the child of another) seem to go against "natural instinct" but because in reality they have a social function. Why do people deliberately become celibate? It isn't for the sake of celibacy.

[toxic aspen]

no i’m saying it’s a moral virtue that seems to conflict with nature

i still think i’m lost, busy rn but can talk later

[gray fjord]

I see. I assume in my claim that society is human nature.

[gentle locust]

Just a quick comment to this, because it is very much off topic.

Prudence and abstinence from premarital sex was historically mostly demanded from women, by male dominated societies. That would fit with the biological asymmetry of our reproductive system and the fact that the men wanted the baby to be theirs alone.

The reason these practices still exist is permeating patriarchal religious dogma.

[jovial void]

Correct me if im wrong, but meat is the only thing that really gives you the most protein per gram of food.

Id rather eat a half pound of meat than a 10 pound salad.

[karmic swan]

There are loads of plant based protein sources, it’s a very easy google search away.

Some of the strongest animals on the planet (rhinos, gorillas, horse for example) are all herbivores and get their protein directly from plants.

[gentle locust]

Legumes are amazing in this respect, and I also add protein shakes because of the gym (which are pretty easy to get vegan)

[jovial void]

They also average eating 50+ pounds of plants a day.
Thats my point.

Yes, you can get protine from plants, but you get a lot more from meat.
Like i said, id rather eat a half pound of meat than a 10 pound salad.
Im not a rhino, and the human body is designed to consume both plants and animals.

Its been proven time and time again that a vegan diet is unhealthy and never gives you all of the nutrients you need.

[karmic swan]

Have you ever met someone with a protein deficiency? Getting enough protein on a vegan diet isn’t hard at all. Plus you get it from the source rather than via an animal.

Plenty of vegan bodybuilders/athletes kicking around to disprove your idea that veganism is unhealthy. If you’re talking about b12 being missing from a vegan diet then fyi it’s supplemented into animals diets instead of being naturally occurring.

@jovial void

Also you keep saying 10 pound salad.. salad isn’t the only thing vegans eat

[remote saddle]

i don't get it

i just got here

but why can't i eat meat?

other animals eat meat

[gray fjord]

consuming meat (mostly) requires inflicting suffering on animals which is unethical

[remote saddle]

the consumption?

or are you talking about industrial farming

yk wild animal suffering outweighs industrial suffering by a massive scale right

[gray fjord]

I am not a vegan myself, I'm simply restating the claim. Most of us here will agree that industrial farming is unethical.

Your point reframes the trolley problem: should we pull the trigger and kill the animal or allow it to live and potentially die a brutal death?

[remote saddle]

not really

referring to the latter part of your msg btw

i'm trying to understand why we should be exempt (for lack of a better word) from natural norms

even if industrial farming is unethical why should that matter

it's no more unethical than a lion brutally torturing a zebra

[gray fjord]

Animals are not models of ethical behavior. Simply observing that something occurs in nature does not make it ethical.

[remote saddle]

yes but we're just replicating nature

why should we be held to a higher standard

[gray fjord]

So you're not asking "is it ethical", you're asking "why should I behave ethically".

[remote saddle]

that's taking the question out of context

we haven't even established whether eating meat is unethical yet

and of course i don't think an absolute ethics system exist so that might be where we differ

but if other animals eat meat why can't i also eat meat

especially since human are omnivores

[gray fjord]

It doesn't seem to matter to you whether eating meat is ethical or not. Your claim is that if an animal acts unethically, you cannot be held to a higher standard and therefore may act unethically.

[remote saddle]

ok no

that was not the claim 💀

[karmic swan]

We also don’t kill our children which is seen in wild animals.
Living in a way that causes the least suffering to others, does the best by our environment and the climate crisis and is better for our own personal health seems like an obvious choice to me! Why not try going vegan for a week, maybe you enjoy it 🙂

[remote saddle]

i was asking why we can't eat meat if animals eat meat

[gray fjord]

Okay, why can't we kill our children if animals kill their children?

[remote saddle]

in the majority of cases where animals do that it's because of resource scarcity and other extrenous circumstances

and obviously that's also happened with humans

and i'm not quite sure what your point here is

[karmic swan]

You can eat meat if you want to. You don’t need to for survival though (or to be healthy, not just surviving).

[remote saddle]

yeah i know meat isn't neccessary for survival

i agree with a lot of the ethical/enviormental issues that industrial farming has

[gray fjord]

My point is that if you believe it's okay to do something because animals do it, then you aren't asking a question of ethics. I can't commit murder and go to trial with the defense "well, your honor, animals do it too!" The question here is whether eating meat is ethical.

[remote saddle]

that's not analogous though

[karmic swan]

There you have another reason why humans eating meat isn’t comparable to wild animals

Industrial farming

Cruel practices

Environment damage

[remote saddle]

industrial ag is also really bad

[karmic swan]

Human suffering for those who live near or work on those farms/slaughterhouses

[remote saddle]

runoff pollutes enviorments

[karmic swan]

Yeah that shit is terrible. And the animals usually live miserable lives and they are all killed in the cheapest way possible, usually throat slit or gas chambers

Don’t support these industries if you don’t have to

They’re rotten

[remote saddle]

unfortunately that goes for the majority of big corporations ☹️

[karmic swan]

Big ag corporations?

[gray fjord]

Carnist arguments for the consumption of meat can be summed up as "the four Ns":

• natural (it's our human nature) - subjective
• normal (others do it) - not relevant to ethics
• necessary (we need it for our diet) - untrue
• nice (it tastes good) - not relevant to ethics

Your argument falls in the third category. We are perfectly capable of surviving (thriving, even) without eating meat.

The question really being asked here is to what extent we are obligated to inconvenience ourselves (eating foods with lower protein density and not enjoying the taste of meat) to prevent the suffering of animals. We can also ask if we are performing a net good to the animals by shepherding them and providing a more humane death than they would experience naturally.

[karmic swan]

I like your message except the idea that the animals are provided a more humane death than they would experience naturally. Absolutely nothing humane happens at a slaughterhouse, and these animals are bred to suit humans desires, often to the animals detriment, so they are already born into suffering. Or maybe you’re born a male baby chick.. you’re immediately mascerated. You have no value to humans. Arguably better than the life of a dairy cow though

[gray fjord]

I agree in principal that we should be offering humanity to animals. My point is that a wild deer will die, whether it comes at the hand of a wolf maiming it, disease slowly consuming it, or (relatively mercifully) a hunter shooting it.

[remote saddle]

no just big corproations in general

[vapid marlin]

because nothing in the rest of our lives and societies as humans follows the natural norm anymore, so why would it be so important if it is in regards to meat consumption, but not to anything else?

We don't live in small groups of ~150 people. We don't hunt and gather. We don't travel around multiple times a year. We don't do physical work nearly as much as we used to. We changed our diet. We changed our sleep schedule. We changed the way our groups are governed etc etc etc. If you are gonna make a claim on ''natural norms'' than you should adress all of the above points too.

Because contemporary humans have defied natural norms in all of those fields

Have you ever eaten a slice of bread or drank a glass of something resembling beer?

Congratulations, those are the fruits of agriculture, something that is not a natural norm to humans in any way.

So I don't think the '''natural norms'' argument really goes up for eating meat as it is not applicable to any other aspect of modern human lives.

In that way, you are measuring with differnt standards depending on whether the answer suits you or not

[karmic swan]

Agree that big corporations aren’t always the friendliest to staff or the environment but as far as I’m aware nobody is having their throat slit at Amazon hq when their productivity falls. I think it’s easy to say ‘there’s terrible stuff all over the world’ and become disengaged with activism but when you consume animal products you know there is a victim, you know someone was killed for that choice and it has never been easier to make kinder choices with the amount of plant based convenience food available to us.

I really encourage anybody who is interested in health, the environment and animal welfare to watch the documentaries, watch the slaughterhouse videos, follow a vegan athlete/chef on Instagram, because this thread is full of the same ‘arguments’ over and over and there is not 1 single justification for meat consumption here. The reality is that for the vast majority of us there is no justification for eating animal products, and if the vast majority of us went vegan, think about the enormous impact we could make. Idk if I’m allowed to post links here but if so I can throw together a list of media that would benefit everyone to watch before entering into this debate

[karmic swan]

Easy to watch YouTube videos:

Dairy is Scary- 5 minute video explaining the dairy industry with nearly 7 million views on YouTube. If you’re thinking you already know what happens please watch it anyway https://youtu.be/UcN7SGGoCNI?si=9H6LdEDLcOEYa7Ps

Earthling Ed Ted Talk <20 mins video- every argument against veganism addressed succinctly
https://youtu.be/byTxzzztRBU?si=hExoI8dqYhQVOvWw

Earthling Ed again out debating people on the streets. This one is a religious argument but he has loads of entertaining videos like this with people in the uk and us bringing their own pro meat arguments to him https://youtu.be/Xo-OzbZxmho?si=HkBQQ99vy2_4utz5

Kip Anderson documentaries:

What the health- exploring the link between diet and disease, exposing charities and organisations that take money from meat/dairy industry to promote their products as beneficial against diseases despite scientific findings. He confronts them about it https://youtu.be/obx7cJtk3fE?si=XU6ZzhxKBoDpWMZ5

Cowspiracy- exploring the environmental impact of animal agriculture https://youtu.be/UsigH2Skfdg?si=TSIOsxjDkp9lTHyX

Seaspiricy- explores impact of commercial fishing. Couldn’t find it on YouTube but it’s on Netflix.

Other documentaries:

The game changers- looking at vegan athletes. Such an interesting watch for anyone who goes to the gym or in interested in fitness
https://youtu.be/MIl6aRS452E?si=bysgzfxEJ7w0pAkO

Blackfish- super popular doco about orca whales and Seaworld. Not focused on veganism but shone a light onto captive animals and the realities of the industry. Caused a huge controversy with Seaworld firing back but eventually backing down and announcing they were ending the orca breeding program. This one is an emotional watch https://youtu.be/FUlSKUlGzbU?si=yEvvEeUDKXFdjgtZ

Social media accounts:

@fitgreenmind Maya is a young vegan cook making simple and tasty food. She’s very sweet and chill. She’s on Instagram and tiktok

@torre.washington vegan bodybuilder if that’s your thing.

@venuswilliams is also vegan for anyone still doubting a plant based diet is healthy

Positions on vegan diet from different dietetic associations:

https://vomad.life/nutrients/

There is loads and loads of literature on the topic (including my own university dissertation out there somewhere 👀) and if you’re someone who does want to read (or actually has access to academic papers) then you can find them easily by searching an area that interests you most.

I’m not suggesting everyone needs to watch/follow/read everything here immediately but especially the first 2 short YouTube videos would give anyone wanting to debate a good understanding of the topic and most of your points are addressed and answered there tbh

[vapid marlin]

How many of the animals that are killed each day do you think are mercifully shot by hunters, and how many do you think are suffocated in gas chambers or hung upside down and got their throat slit by farmers? For most animals we consume, a natural death would be orders of magnitudes more humane than the shit farmers and slaughterhouses put them through. Just because we have the ability to kill them in a more humane way, doesn't mean we do. And we don't because it would increase costs.

[regal garden]

Thanks for putting together this very comprehensive ensemble of videos, social media tags, and academic literature! I hope people will watch, follow, and read some of them 😊

[toxic aspen]

citing this is problematic because this position of theirs is no longer valid as of 2021, it says it if you read down to the footnotes

and they have publicly announced that they in fact no longer hold any position on the matter although they do plan on investigating it in the future

so if you are going to make an appeal to authority, please corroborate it with an updated authority of else it’s misleading

link: https://x.com/eatrightPRO/status/1555670614874136578

eatrightPRO (@eatrightPRO) on X

@Citizen08786247 @VNDPG @fleroy1974 @FructoseNo @PCRM @BDA_Dietitians @GeorgiaEdeMD @ChrisPalmerMD @AlpacaAurelius @eatright Since the most recent position paper expired, the Academy currently does not have a position on vegetarian nutrition. A reexamination of evidence for this topic is planned, however, and the Academy is recruiting for expert...

Twitter · Aug 5, 2022, 9:42 PM

[karmic swan]

It says the research expired and is due to be renewed which doesn’t mean the previous statement was incorrect. This site has a list of other official agencies of dietetics around the world and their position so take your pick https://vomad.life/nutrients/

[toxic aspen]

not saying it’s untrue, but claiming that it is the position is in truth just speculation until they update it

[karmic swan]

I didn’t know it had expired, not trying to scam anyone here. Even without it their position the facts remain. Hope you watched some of the stuff I posted

[toxic aspen]

yeah np i just wanted to make sure its made clear especially given they went out of their way to publicly distance themselves from it as of right now

[karmic swan]

Idk if you’re trying to imply they’ve discovered something terrible about the vegan diet and want to distance themselves from recommending it but that’s not what I’ve seen and let’s remember the wealth of information linking animal products to disease, climate crisis etc etc etc

[toxic aspen]

no lol 😆 i have no problem with you citing other stuff, and. i agree with some of the negative impacts of the meat industry, i just think if you are going to make the argument, please use updated sources because otherwise it has the potential to mislead. They might come out saying the exact thing they said before, but right now, to maintain scholarly integrity we should refrain from it.

when they publically announced such

[karmic swan]

Thank god you’re here to maintain the scholarly integrity around here

What about all the other stuff I shared?

[toxic aspen]

what about it?

[karmic swan]

Thoughts?

[toxic aspen]

i haven’t looked into their merit yet, but don’t get me wrong, i’ve seen a few anti meat industry documentaries and such so i’m aware of the often inhumane treatment

[karmic swan]

Probably go vegan then mate

[drifting vortex]

You guys really do keep forgetting the giant point that meat eaters have

[toxic aspen]

lol

[rustic kiln]

Just responding to the ping, haven't read anything above
This is unironically a better justification than most others that attempt to deny that animals have rights or that they aren't sentient enough for humans to care.

Like I would say all things considered it is easier to justify killing an animal if the output is a really nice steak, rather than a bone dry piece of unflavored chicken.

[drifting vortex]

Yeah I feel like everyone mourns the death of an animal that becomes a terrible meal.

[toxic aspen]

i visited a dairy farm today, it’s part of a inmate workforce preparation farm

it was pretty chill ngl, they made some decent icecream lol

[regal garden]

Did they show you how they forcibly impregnate the female cows? Did they show you how they take the mother cow’s baby away from her right after she gives birth? Did they show you how they electro-ejaculate the bull so they can extract his semen that they then force into the female?

[toxic aspen]

no, but i saw a lot of cows free grazing

[regal garden]

I guess you still haven’t watched, Dairy Is Scary on YouTube or Dominion. They showed you what you want to see, what you hope is the case on dairy farms. They didn’t show you all the cruel things that have to happen in order for you, a human, to get the milk from a mother cow. This milk is actually meant for her baby. This is why mammals produce milk.

[toxic aspen]

okay

[drifting vortex]

Okay dairyisscary_50868

[fading herald]

because steak tasty

[mortal creek]

And Dino nuggets

[drifting vortex]

You guys get it

[jovial void]

Theres plenty of suffering in the animal kingdom, and not every animal kills its child. Some animals go the extent of letting themselves be eaten by their young so they have a better fighting chance to reach adulthood.

Yes we have ethics and morals, and not everyone practices them, but saying "eating meat is bad" is basically saying there is never any reason to eat meat, and that in and of itself is a falsehood.

Hyenas, bears, and many other animals eat their prey while its alive and screaming and suffering for the entire duration of its meal.
Moose taken down by a pack of wolves doesnt seem very humane either.

We can distinguish ourselves from animals because we have a higher intelligence, but by no means does that mean were arnt animals in the same kingdom.

Were a part of the circle too. You wanna eat carrots and tofu, go for it.
Youll never see me say no to a steak.
That steak didnt suffer nearly as much as any animal eaten by a pack of hyenas.

At least big cats go for the throat, or in the case of panthers, the brain stem.

[drifting steppe]

Dey yummy

Hope that helps

[covert tundra]

Wait till you see us castrate the baby bulls

[regal garden]

the issue here is with the meat industry, not with the individuals themselves. you don't need to "justify" your meat eating because it's a natural process, we are omnivores, we eat meat. out of all the animals in the animal kingdom we have the tools to do it in the most humane methods possible, and it's unfortunate that some industry titans don't follow those humane methods, but again, that's an industry issue. i raise chickens for eggs and meat, they have plenty of space, they are given free range to browse and they are also given vegetables, fruits, seeds, and other plants on top of that. they are given a safe space to sleep and live, and are arguably living a life that is MUCH better than any animal in the wild could ever hope for. i don't slaughter them until they're so old that they stop producing eggs, which is a MUCH longer life expectancy than they would have in the wild, and they are given a quick, painless death, which is MUCH better than they could hope for in the wild. i have no moral qualms about killing and eating the chickens, because i know that i did everything i could to make sure they had a truly good life before they died.

[covert tundra]

^ Anytime you have large corporations, they're more inclined to focus on the most cost-effective methods as opposed to focusing on the animals directly. My family raise beef cattle, primarily to have meat for ourselves, and then secondly to sell to our local area. We focus on quality of meat, which requires happy cows, not scared/stressed ones. It also requires good nutrition, not just some manufactured feed, but rather real grass, hay only if your grass quality drops dramatically in the winter to where there isn't a sustainable amount of grass.

[gentle wolf]

im hungry

nvm i didn't realise I scrolled that far up. Disregard

[molten bloom]

• Nutritionally beneficial
• Can be ethically and sustainably farmed, sometimes in a less impactful way to the environment then farming. (Take lobster farming off the uk, where lobsters are measured to ensure breeding females and beneficial males remain in the sea and conservation programmes directly add to the population).
• Significantly less, in a lot of cases no pesticides.
• I know this is personal and thus opinion but swapping back to eating meat after 2 years as a vegetarian made it much easier for me to get required nutrients as a picky eater when depressed.

And to end the list
I just love a good hunters chicken on my birthday 👍

[vapid marlin]

Hmm I might stir up a whole debate, but are fish and seafood considered ''meat''.

Because where I am from, they are often seen as a separate category of food

And it wasn't until your comment here that I realised that maybe in different places they are considered all in the same group.

[mortal creek]

I mean it depends how you define meat. I’ve heard the inside of a coconut called meat and it’s clearly not animal. I think just people just use meat to refer to the juicy edible part of something. Not a scientific definition cause I don’t feel like looking it up but just a phenomenon I experienced

[vapid marlin]

Yeah, it was moreso an observation. It never occured to me that the term ''meat'' could mean different things for different people across different cultures and languages. As in, I have never actively thought about it.

And his comment made me realise that actually the term ''meat'' is maybe not referring to the same thing for everyone

[molten bloom]

Often meat and fish are separated on diagrams and some people even choose not to eat meat but eat fish, pesketerians, I suppose this is a sentience based argument for meat consumption as (some) fish are easily shrugged off as not being sentient

At least that's the argument my brother and mum use, who both eat fish but not meat, I find it weird because as I study marine biology I've observed more and more complex behaviours in fish species, and if we can't even deffine sentience properly how can we state that something is more or less sentient?

And as much as I'd love to get into it, I'm not going to open the pandoras box that is taxonomy, and how the term fish doesn't really work in classifying animals

[vapid marlin]

I do the same. I don't eat meat for environmental reasons. The environmental fingerprint on fish consumption is significantly lower.

Yet I eat fish maybe once a week

[molten bloom]

what do you mean by environmental fingerprint?
impact on food webs, greenhouse gas production, pollution? both sides have drawbacks that are, at least in my opinion, rather different.
Mass production of beef results in a LOT of methane production so if by environment you mean climate change then I agree. Whereas fishing very frequently leads to thousands of tones of ghost gear directly polluting the environment for its impact on other species.

[vapid marlin]

impact on food webs, greenhouse gas production, pollution?
All of the above, also impact on the general ecosystem, energy requirements etc.

both sides have drawbacks that are, at least in my opinion, rather different
I agree. However, there is one that is contributing significantly more damage to the environment in pretty much any measurable way.

Mass production of beef results in a LOT of methane production so if by environment you mean climate change then I agree.
Methane production I'm not even that worried about as it is short cycle. But if we consider the full life cycle, you must include land use, feed production, medicine usage, which do not neccesarily directly contribute to climate change (although in some cases they do), but are still bad in an overall environmental scope due to e.g. waste production, mass migration of nutrients, ecosystem deprevation etc.

Whereas fishing very frequently leads to thousands of tones of ghost gear directly polluting the environment for its impact on other species.
Agreed. Im also not claiming I am perfect. But I do honestly believe that this has a much lower impact on both local and global scales compared to traditional meat consumption like beef etc.

[molten bloom]

I agree on pretty much all of those points, good stuff 👍

[regal garden]

I’d like to address each of your points:

1. There can be some nutritional benefits to animal products in moderation. However, there is a lot of research that shows that animal products are also the number one cause of heart disease and certain types of cancer (happy to share the links if requested).

2. I believe this is the crux of the conversation. I would simply ask, How can you ethically (or humanely) kill an animal who does not want to be killed? Given that the animals in question have been proven to be sentient, I don’t think there is any ethical or humane way to kill them.

On the topic of sustainability, I would argue that there is almost a scientific consensus that animal agriculture is detrimental to the environment, and certainly much more so than plant farming. Again, happy to provide links to peer-reviewed articles if requested 😊
3. Perhaps on the actual animal farms themselves, there are less pesticides. However, the majority of plant crops go to feed these animals so pesticides are still a major part of animal agriculture.
4. I’m sorry you went through a period of bad depression. Mental health is definitely a challenge. I think accessibility and knowledge of nutritional plant-based foods needs to improve and it’s certainly difficult to do that yourself when you’re in a depressed state. That being said, all of the nutrients you need to live a healthy life are readily available in most easily accessible plant-based foods.

Regarding your last point, taste pleasure isn’t a good justification to needlessly kill another sentient being. It’s dangerous territory to use “I enjoy something” as reasonable and commendable justification.

[regal garden]

Yeah, I think the original thesis should have been “Justify your consumption of animals and animal products.” I think meat can refer to a wide array of things. When referring to animals, I find it takes the sentience and individuality away from them to just refer to them as “meat.” That’s why I try to use “animals,” “non-human animals,” “other animals,” or the specific animal in question when having this discussion. The more distant humans feel from other animals, the easier it becomes to turn a blind eye to what happens to them in order for you to get a steak, chicken, or even a block of cheese on your plate.

[regal garden]

That’s amazing that you study marine biology. Marine animals are incredible and often the most overlooked when it comes to sentience, intelligence, and individuality.

[regal garden]

I really appreciate your genuine discussion. This is what these threads should be about. I would just reiterate what Venus pointed about about fishing in that the majority of ocean dead zones are caused by fishing. Whale entanglement, and other marine animal entanglement is caused by fishing. Large clumps of ocean garbage are caused by fishing. People sometimes forget the importance of the oceans, but fishing has essentially destroyed the oceans, in some areas beyond repair. If the oceans are in bad shape, then the whole of the planet is. And fishing is the primary culprit. Once again, I’m happy to cite and link to some peer-reviewed articles here but I’d also highly recommend watching Seaspiracy (Netflix).

[regal garden]

It’s not about being perfect, that’s impossible. It’s great that you don’t eat meat. Now the challenge is to leave all animals and animal products off your plate. I understand change can take time though. Just try to put yourself in the position of these other animals and making the changes becomes easier 😊

[vapid marlin]

If the oceans are in bad shape, then the whole of the planet is. And fishing is the primary culprit.
If you have peer-reviewed articles claiming this I am very interested. Based on the knowledge I have, ocean acidificationa and tempearture increase in oceans is much more devestating for the ocean ecosystems than plastic waste and mechanical destruction due to fishing activities.

But by all means show me I'm wrong

[vapid marlin]

Just try to put yourself in the position of these other animals
I don't think anthropomorphizing animals is, or will ever be, a good argument against eating meat or consuming animal products. The fact is, they are not humans. I don't care if a fish is hurt while being caught, because a fish does not experience pain and stress the same way a human does. It is wrong to think they do.

Im also not against the idea of consuming animal products in the first place. However I am against the widescale industrial production of animal products. E.g. if people were to eat meat once every 2 weeks, so it can be sustainably raised without much impact on the environment or animal welfare, I don't see why that would be a problem.

[regal garden]

It’s not anthropomorphizing. It is clear that the animals we are talking about are sentient, including fishes (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9100576/). Just because a fish doesn’t experience pain and stress the same way a human does, doesn’t mean it is invalid or unimportant. A dog being kicked is still a dog being kicked even though the dog isn’t human. You just haven’t extended your morality to include certain species of animals because it’s what you’ve been taught. This is essentially anthropocentrism, which has been discussed at length previously. An animal that is sentient has a subjective experience of their reality and should therefore have intrinsic value. Who are we to determine that a fish’s pain and suffering is unimportant? That’s why I said to think of it from their perspective. A lot of the times, other animals have even more sensitive pain receptors than we do, so arguably their experience of pain and stress could be worse than our own.

[regal garden]

If you have no care for the animals, then there’s no point in continuing this discussion. Why do you care about animal welfare if you have no problem with others murdering animals so you can eat them? Why do you care about animal welfare if you have no problem with others sexually violating female cows so you can eat a piece of cheese?

[regal garden]

Start with this: https://www.fao.org/4/y4773e/y4773e05.htm. It also references other articles that you can have a look at but this is a good overview of some of the environmental destruction that fishing causes

I also love how it seems the onus is always on me to provide sources and grounded arguments while those arguing their case for continuing to eat animals and animal products can simply say, “I don’t care,” or “steak is yummy,” as a justification. I thought we were in a philosophy channel, where arguments and justification needed to be backed up with more than “I don’t care”

[vapid marlin]

It’s not anthropomorphizing.
You said ''put yourself in the position of these other animals". That is clearly aimed at antropomorphizing animls.

It is impossible for a human to know or understand how a different animal experiences the world. It is therefore futile to suggest to ''put yourself in their position''. It is just utter nonsense.

It is clear that the animals we are talking about are sentient
I completely agree, never argued anything different. To the contrary, I believe I have argued this in this specific discussion before already.

Just because a fish doesn’t experience pain and stress the same way a human does, doesn’t mean it is invalid or unimportant.
And I never claimed such a position once in my life. Don't put words in my mouth please.

A dog being kicked is still a dog being kicked even though the dog isn’t human.
Again, I never claimed it would't be the case. I don't understand what the point is you are trying to make towards me. You are acting like I hate animals or something.

The point is, if the dog gets kicked, you don't know how that dog experiences that. And any attempt to try and understand how the dog will experience it is merely projecting your human attributes and behaviours onto another animal. That's a useless thing to do. The dog will in fact not experience it the same way a human would, so you shouldn't project your feelings or emotions onto an animal.

You just haven’t extended your morality to include certain species of animals because it’s what you’ve been taught.
Stop making these random claims about my morals please, its of no use in this discussion. Just because I don't believe in the same thing as you do, doesn't mean either of us is wrong or right.

An animal that is sentient has a subjective experience of their reality and should therefore have intrinsic value
Again, I agree. I don't see what the point is of you arguing this to me, as I have said pretty much the same things earlier in this discussoin already. You don't have to convince me of a stance I am already holding.

That’s why I said to think of it from their perspective. A lot of the times, other animals have even more sensitive pain receptors than we do, so arguably their experience of pain and stress could be worse than our own.
Arguably it could, arguably it could not. The point is you don't know so it is not a valid argument to use in a discussion like this.

[vapid marlin]

I also love how it seems the onus is always on me to provide sources and grounded arguments while those arguing their case for continuing to eat animals and animal products can simply say, “I don’t care,” or “steak is yummy,” as a justification.

1. That's not what I am at all arguing so you are completely misjudged there.

2. You said yourself that you were happy to link peer-reviewed articles, so I took you up on your offer. Which you now use as some sort of reason to get into a victim complex about how i am asking you for information...??? I mean come on..

[vapid marlin]

If you have no care for the animals
Again, misjudgement of character. Just because I am not neccesarily against consumption of animal products does not mean I don't care about animals. That's a conclusion that you made yourself.

You gotta understand that there are more options than good or bad here. In reality there is a whole spectrum of thoughts and ideas someone can have, it's not all black and white. What you are doing here is creating some sort of paradox for the sake of argument, that if someone does not agree with you, it automatically means they hold the opposite stance, which is not true at all in a real world. That is only true in your head.

I would suggest you to discuss me about the things I am saying and not just make some open interpretations and then draw your own conclusions from that. That's not how a proper discussion works.

What you are doing here is akin to protesters against the Israel-Palestine war being made out for ''anti-semites" even thought that's not at all what they are arguing

If you want a proper discussion you have to stop the hate and start to have an actual conversation.

[regal garden]

This is what you said:
“I don’t care if a fish is hurt while being caught, because a fish does not experience pain and stress the same way a human does.” Tell me how else I can interpret that other than, a fish is not human so I don’t care about their pain and experiences. This is anthropocentric

[vapid marlin]

I fish's brain is not able to experience emotions.

Pain has no deeper meaning to a fish

[regal garden]

Show me the proof

[vapid marlin]

In contrast to humans, where pain is experienced on a whole different level

[regal garden]

Peer-reviewed articles please

[vapid marlin]

Sure if you want, but then you gotta wait a bit

[rigid hawk]

I eat meat and respect the source it derived from

[regal garden]

Why do I have to wait? Are you making claims without actual knowledge of the subject

[vapid marlin]

But please @regal garden , it would really suit you if you stop being so hostile

[vapid marlin]

You think I can remember every bit of literature I have ever read in my life in title, author etc?

[regal garden]

😃 I’m so hostile it’s unbelievable

[vapid marlin]

Also, I am currently at work so I don't have time now to look it up

You are hostile

[regal garden]

You pay for animals to be murdered and sexually violated and I’m the hostile one, got it

[rigid hawk]

I doubt that. I’ve seen for myself fish hiding from predators is that not an emotion ?

[vapid marlin]

Nope that's not an emotion

At least if we stick with the best current understanding of emotion we have in neurosciences

[regal garden]

No, not necessarily, that can be seen as an instinct based off fear

[rigid hawk]

Sexually violated is wild, most farmers do not force impregnate animals. Especially when its easier to do it naturally in most cases.

[vapid marlin]

This is blatantly false

[rigid hawk]

Nuh uh

[vapid marlin]

Almost all cows in western countries are inseminated

Also, their tits get sucked dry at least twice a day

[rigid hawk]

I live close to a farm and can confirm the owners cows naturally breed.

[vapid marlin]

There is no other way to describe that than sexually violating

[vapid marlin]

sample size is one

im not saying all, im saying most

[vapid marlin]

do i pay for animals to be sexually violated?

And yes, you are the hostile one regarding having a conversation. That has nothing to do with the topic we are conversing about.

[rigid hawk]

So only the cows getting violated?

[regal garden]

If you eat animals or animal products then yes

[vapid marlin]

So you did not read at all what i said no?

I only eat fish at most once a week, for the rest i'm pretty much vegan

[rigid hawk]

There’s a lot of meat and other animal produce that does not include harsh living upon the animals

[vapid marlin]

yet you put me away as some tyrannical monster that sexually abuses animals?

Which is exactly why i am saying you are being hostile

you are not at all interested in a proper conversation

you are only interested in villainizing anyone that does not fully agree with you

its not a proper way to have a discussion

[vapid marlin]

''there is a lot'' -> brother personal experience does not count towards your argument

The country I live >98% of all livestock cows are not even under biological conditions (~40.000 out of 4M are)

[rigid hawk]

It 100% does I argue personal first hand experience in the real world is better research than most News articles.

[vapid marlin]

and those conditions arent even natural

[vapid marlin]

im not talking news, im talking research

[regal garden]

This is the case for the majority of cows in places like India as well

[rigid hawk]

Even then, research isnt always credible even if you believe it to be.

[vapid marlin]

Most of the worlds soy production is for animal feed. That means that ALL animals that require soy as additional feed live in conditions that are not sustainable under normal circumstances

[vapid marlin]

But it is much much much much more credible than any ''experience''

In every possible measurable way

experience is not a valid argument

[rigid hawk]

Not really, many activists exist these days

[vapid marlin]

i mean i dont know how to say this

other than you are wrong

but you will not believe me anyway

Do you believe that your experience is representative of all of the world?

or differntly, if someone else has a different experience, are they wrong according to you

[rigid hawk]

No, but surely its better than only doing online due diligence

I never argued that there arent animals being abused, Just that more arent being abused than you guys make it out to seem

[regal garden]

Perhaps I was being a bit hostile towards you Cury, my apologies. I think your comment “I don’t care if a fish feels pain when caught,” set me off a bit. I do want to engage in civil, meaningful, and science-based discussion.

[regal garden]

I think it depends on your definition of abuse. Based on a scientific consensus that animals and animal products are unnecessary to survive and thrive and live a happy life, I think the use of animals is abuse. As I’ve argued before, unnecessarily killing a sentient being primarily for taste pleasure or convenience are not good enough justifications

[rigid hawk]

Plants are not sentient beings to you?

[regal garden]

There is no peer-reviewed scientific evidence that plants are sentient, so no, plants are not sentient. They have no central nervous system and have yet to be shown to have a subjective experience of reality

They may respond to certain stimuli and react but that does not mean they are sentient

[rigid hawk]

Bro they’re still very much so alive. And research shows plants can communicate.

[regal garden]

Alive and sentient are different

[rigid hawk]

Id argue anything living is sentient.

[regal garden]

That’s nice that you’d argue that, but science and philosophy disagree with you

[vapid marlin]

You can argue that, however that does not make it true

There is a quite clear definition of sentience

A plant generally does not abide by that definition

[rigid hawk]

Science has yet to prove plants arent sentient

And considering they very much are alive its safe to assume they are

Exactly what I expected

“Currently there are no such tests”

It cant be proven nor disproven

From what im finding

[regal garden]

Science has to prove that they are sentient. What is certain is that animals are and will avoid pain if possible. Plants can’t move out of the way or cower in fear of you approach a plant with a sharp object or even begin to cut it

[rigid hawk]

Just because we lack the understanding of plants complexity doesnt mean they arent sentient. We just cant prove it the same way as with animals.

[regal garden]

The same author who tries to argue for plant sentience says that 95% of plant biologists would reject plant sentience. In a philosophical discussion, we have to side with the consensus but we can leave room for the 5% as a possibility 😊

[rigid hawk]

Also they can move just slowly. A knife however wouldn’t be threatening to a knife nor an animal.

[regal garden]

All that being said, if you truly believe that plants are sentient and care about them equally to other animals, more plants are killed to feed animals so less plants are actually killed if we just eat the plants directly

[rigid hawk]

They lack the understanding of what it is. Even some humans

[regal garden]

A knife is threatening to an animal. Animals in slaughterhouses in the killfloor will try to avoiding have their throats slit

[rigid hawk]

So by seeing the knife or being inflicted pain with the knife?

The only way seeing a knife would scare an animal is if they knew it was tied to pain.

[regal garden]

Certainly inflicting pain, I’m not sure a non-human animal would understand a human concept like a knife unless they already know it causes pain as you mentioned

But unlike plants, they will try to avoid pain when possible

[rigid hawk]

Yes they would have to experience or experience another life forms experience

[rigid hawk]

Plants arent mobile how are they meant to avoid it?

[regal garden]

Right, exactly. One of the primary evolutionary benefits of developing sentience and emotion is to understand pain and be able to avoid it. There would be no evolutionary benefit to plants to develop sentience because they have no ability to move away from pain

[rigid hawk]

Plus how many times have you seen trees grow in ways shaped by its surroundings.

[regal garden]

This only shows they respond to environmental stimuli like wind

[rigid hawk]

And thats just hard coded into their dna?

[regal garden]

They have cell structure that allows them to respond to external stimuli like every living thing

[rigid hawk]

Plants have more survival instincts than we do as babies. They live independently adapting to where they are.

They definitely have a sense of where they are and whats dangerous to them

[regal garden]

I’m not going to argue plant sentience with you here, first because it’s not the main topic of discussion, and second because the majority of plant biologists and research that exists shows that plants are not sentient.

What I will do is leave some links to videos that people should watch:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d5wabeFG9pM&pp=ygUVSm9leSBjYXJic3Ryb25nIGRhaXJ5

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LQRAfJyEsko&pp=ygUIRG9taW5pb24%3D

https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLrm8z8KoIhJVit02TKNyVptOuiMvyatG9

[drifting vortex]

To be fair have you fully considered the point that steak is yummy

[rigid hawk]

I just talked about how there is no research disproving plants sentience

And once we are capable of sufficient testing. If plants are sentient would you stop eating farm produced plants?

[regal garden]

You found one article, that’s hardly enough evidence. Keep searching and you’ll find more scientific article that show that plants are not sentient than the converse

[regal garden]

If there is one day scientific consensus that plants are sentient, I’d have to re-evaluate my morality and my behaviour. But until that day comes, there is no moral dilemma to eat plants

[rigid hawk]

Multiple articles write the samething

[regal garden]

Thanks for your incredibly intellectual contribution

[drifting vortex]

Dodging the question

[rigid hawk]

The argument of sentience itself isn’t necessarily fair. Its a category we made up to define certain characteristics of living things.

There are many things we have observed and given our best scientific know how to and still know barely anything to.

While plants don't have the same “feelings” that we do, they often remember stimuli and communicate with other plants about them

quoted from another Source

[regal garden]

Taste pleasure is an inadequate and inconsistent justification. There, addressed.

[rigid hawk]

In other words of what im trying to say

[drifting vortex]

Inconsistent with what exactly, and who determines what is adequate?

[rigid hawk]

We’re basing sentience off of a test we created for a bracket we made up.

Central nervous system is one of the key ingredients to being classes “Sentient”.

by definition,
What Is the Central Nervous System? The central nervous system is made up of the brain and spinal cord: The brain controls how we think, learn, move, and feel. The spinal cord carries messages back and forth between the brain and the nerves that run throughout the body.

Now you mean to tell me plants dont do that in their own methods?

[rustic kiln]

Imo, keeping sentience as an imperfect, personal measure is the way to go rather than something you objectively determine

remember the point of this thread is to justify your PERSONAL consumption of meat

[rigid hawk]

Plants have had so much more time to evolve compared to animals. They developed traits NECESSARY for other life’s existence.

Photosynthesis

[rustic kiln]

So it is perfectly reasonable to draw the line at crickets/fish/chicken, wherever you feel is your personal tolerance for animal killing to get your nutrition and enjoyment for eating

[molten bloom]

Makes sense, my perspective on what I'd like to eat is deffinatly sentience driven and I completely agree that sentience is something that will likely remain undefined without opinion for a very long time

[rustic kiln]

i think the important thing is to acknowledge that such a scale does exist, and that there is a hierarchy of sentience

[rigid hawk]

I think all life is sentient. And where you want to draw the line on what you consume is a personal choice. Though if you deem it morally correct because of sentience argument, there is much more for you to consider

We cant prove other livings organisms conscience as we only know from ours. And in an effort to understand other living things we compare our experience of consciousness to them

[molten bloom]

As sentience is one of my main considerations
Besides the price tag
What would you say is to be considered for justifying what I should prioritise eating?

[rigid hawk]

It’s a personal preference.

with multiple considerations that are unique.

[drifting vortex]

Because they can't move they develop ways to protect themselves without moving. Ex. releasing chemicals that attract predators of their predators when attacked

[rigid hawk]

The waste of whatever you eat.

Perhaps you know you’re less likely to finish 1kg of ground beef than .5.

[rigid hawk]

Or alternatively you eat more chicken than lamb because you like the taste of chicken more.

Youd want to prioritize things you can personally completely eat

[molten bloom]

Ye makes sense, I wouldn't say my personal preference in flavour/texture and such influences my own view of the ethics of the animal, more so the technique of farming/harvesting it.
Once I understand an organism is deffinatly sentient to a point of pain/mental distress I'd rather the animal get the highest degree of welfare but I'm not gonna stop eating it as a result.

Take if I had a pet cow, I'd love it and cherish it to a high degree, probably spend tens of thousands on husbandry before it dies.
Whether that be through euthanasia or natural means is a completely different discussion that I'll leave alone.

Once the cows dead I'm gonna eat it more then likely, despite acknowledgement of its sentience and how it was emotionally attached to me in some way. That's just a huge waste to leave and a huge benefit to me and other people.
If animals are bred in a high welfare manner, which I'll admit is uncommon, the methods of obtaining this product is fairly similar

[rigid hawk]

Well yes in an ideal world i’d never give my money to a company that cuts corners on animals living standards either

[molten bloom]

Luckily where I live I have the option to spend an extra buck and ensure that's the case, with what I know I can tell that is still not the absolute best but hey, it's an improvement

[rigid hawk]

it’d be nice to live in a world where we could ensure all animals a better life

[molten bloom]

That would be sick but very unlikely xd
The natural world presents billions of examples of suffering that aren't really considered, probably because they aren't always a consequence of us and as such we don't feel responsible

[rigid hawk]

We still live in a world where our own species as cruel as we are to our surroundings to fulfill ourselves are starving for food.

[molten bloom]

True true

[rigid hawk]

So even with shortcuts we’ve taken to farm and mass produce food. Our own species isnt insured a meal

We need even more farm

[molten bloom]

Tbf it's not really an issue of lack of farming rather a lack of distributing resources/knowledge due to politics and differences in opinions

[rigid hawk]

We sit here and debate whether is moral to farm animals for our consumption. But majority of us eat meat and are not wishing an animal a cruel life.

[molten bloom]

Ye I don't really think "dang I hate cows" as I enjoy a burger xd

[rigid hawk]

i think plant sentience would destroy this whole argument to be honest

Because then we can all acknowledge, anything we eat was once living. And we eat because we have to live.

If we all became vegan and less animals were consumed. Less animals would have the chance to even live.

[molten bloom]

I'd assume the niche would get filled by something?

[rigid hawk]

Id rather live and become food then to never exist

[molten bloom]

Well that depends how much more land we have to dedicate to farming, we may lose a lot of species (more then we currently are) in that scenario

[molten bloom]

Come and get me worms and roots, come and get me

[rigid hawk]

Yeah wed be destroying more habits to grow farms not to mention crop fields need new soil. After years of farming

the nutrients in soil has to be supplied for plants to thrive. Which is derived from other once living organisms

Its unavoidable everything that eats gets eaten eventually.

[molten bloom]

From what I've concluded going through this discussion is that the choice to or not to eat meat is almost entirely based off personal opinion and preference, each have large degrees of advantages and disadvantages that are backed by other people with opinions who's intentions we can't be 110% on.
Where we draw the line is something everyone chooses, just don't draw it in the microorganisms layer otherwise your gonna get sad when you have a drink of water.
The main consideration behind ethics is that of welfare if we are to be considerate of an animals existence before death, that is if we intend to eat it.

I don't think arguing with someone over their perspective on where the line is drawn will really get anywhere, since its an opinion, that is often based on opinions

[rigid hawk]

Agreed rather than arguing the morality of consuming food.

We should be discussing how to ensure food lives a good life before consumption.

Because we can all agree we don’t Love chickens being trapped in cages to lay eggs. Solely a prisoner for our consumption.

Unless you’re a psycho path

fuck you

[regal garden]

Meat is good

[vapid marlin]

The thing is that most people either don't know or don't care about stuff like this.

[vapid marlin]

Oh I have looked up some literature again, and I have to concede to you. Most neuroscientists seem to agree that at least in the neurobiological definition of ''emotion'', meaning: "brain response actions triggered by the presence of certain stimuli, external to the body or from within the body, when such stimuli activate certain neural systems", fish do actually have emotions. Although that is not exactly what I meant, it is what I said so you are right.

Which by extension means that any animal that has a brain also has emotions, as this definition of emotion merely expresses the function of the brain in the first place.

[rigid hawk]

Im pretty sure most people would care. Most people definitely are unaware and it wouldn’t cross their mines to look into.

[vapid marlin]

Why do you think people would care?

So for example, where I am from, it is not really a secret how the animal industry works

People just don't care

They just want to eat their meat, drink their milk or whatever

[rigid hawk]

Because humans have empathy.

Though Its pretty hard to enforce better lives for farm animals when it all and all cost more money.

People already struggle to put food on the table as is