/ck/ - Food & Cooking

>>5873321
animals eat other animals. Just because we are self aware doesn't make a difference.

as much as i love meat, factory farmed meat is pretty dang unethical.

that's what we've got family operated farms for, though.

I know plenty that can be said on it, but since this is just another vegan shit troll thread, and it's all been said many times before on /ck/, nah.

>>5873321
Factory farming, imo, is pretty unethical. It leads to very shitty treatment of the animal.
Eating the meat itself isn't unethical under any means. It's purchasing it and supporting factory farms that's unethical.

>>5873321
>next to no literature opposing this view.
Because nobody cares. They're fucking animals born and raised for only one thing, to be consumed.

>>5873340
Someone did bring this up.
>Factory farming is unethical
>eating it is not

His response was that if something is unethical, paying someone to do it is also unethical.

It's unethical to kill an innocent person
It's also unethical to hire an assassin to kill a person.

Then same logic for animals and farms.

Do you have an option to choose to argue that meat consumption is unethical? Any person who knows their professor's views, and willingly argues the other side is a fool.

>>5873321
I need it as a good source of protein for my gains. Don't you want me to make it?

>>5873321
What makes a species successful by evolutionary standards?
Numbers.
Breeding.
Successful occupation of land and resources.

Cows and chickens are the most successful animals on the face of the earth because humans breed so many of them for food.

>ethics

>>5873321
its ethical because i dont care about animals

>>5873369
It's not unethical, it's efficient. What's unethical is trying to disestablish a source of food just because you feel bad about some retarded animals.

>>5873321
faggot the issue your professor is spoonfeeding your retarded as is the "factory farmed issue, not the meat."

It's not ethical to make animals suffer to produce effeicient food.

it is immoral NOT to produc the most high quality food for the most people as possible.

poor people in this country used to live on wheat and beans. Now chicken thighs at $.69 and poor people can eat meat.

would you rather be immoral and do the wrong thing, or unethical and know you're not following the best practice for a single part of a complex system?

>>5873384
I've had him twice before for my Minor. He's a reasonable guy and I doubt he would punish you somehow by blowing him out in a debate.

>>5873369
Is he unaware that there are ways to obtain meat for consumption that have nothing to do with factory farming?

>>5873432
I'm sorry we will get some one to insist mass grain is healthier than a diet supplemented with meat, but let's face it, impoverished and uneducated people aren't going to eat a balanced vegetarian diet and are probably better with some animal proteins thrown in.

Well we really need to establish what ethics are when it comes to food production and consumption.
If it's unethical in the sense that we treat animals like shit, sure one could argue that. But what would the opposite be? Organic?
If we look at organic meat, it's more demanding when it comes to labour and space, and with current technology, we really couldn't produve the amounts of meat we do now. Now then is meat an essential part of our stable? our do we simply eat too much? Should we eat bugs instead?

Also your professor sounds like a dick

the ethical argument for eating meat is that humans are entitled to kill other animals for their food since those abimals are not possesed of adequate qualities that would give them the right to treatment as an equal.

that's why ppl get all shitty about killing whales, dolphins and monkey, they are very clearly intelligent on a higher order, possibly self aware and killing a self aware being is murder and both immoral and unethical.

there are both religious justifications for this ethical stance and philosophical ones.

>>5873321
Animals have no higher order thinking and don't experience pain in any meaningful way.
If you let the animals free, they don't give a fuck.
If you keep them in the smallest possible cage and force feed them, they probably enjoy it, due to incentives given to them through evolution.

>>5873369
>yet to show why it's unethical
>stretching stringy logic and applying it to immediate extremes

Why didn't he just say HITLER HITLER HITLER MEAT IS MURDER

>>5873484
>possibly self aware

No, not really.

Also, dolphins are evil fucks, hearing people call them majestic etc makes me mad.
I also think appeals to nature should stop pls

I think killing and eating mammals is below us as the self proclaimed dominant and most intelligent species. It's sad. But reptiles, certain birds and every fish and invertebrate imaginable are fair game. I can empathize with the sad eyes of a cow, but I can't empathize with some dumbass fish with hardly a brain who only exists to be something else's food.

I guess my ideal diet would be pescatarian but I don't think I'm gonna quit meat any time soon.

>>5873514
>self proclaimed
>mile high buildings mining operations and nukes

"Sad" eyes don't mean anything, the animal is just eating/standing/shitting/miliking, it's not sad.

>>5873519
so you don't understand how causing needless pain to a creature so similar to humans is kind of shitty? and how it's better to eat fish because they don't have mammalian emotions?

>>5873525
>so similar
What?
It's not better, it's the same.
Just out of curiosity, how often do you see cows in person?

>>5873527

I was raised on a farm and I've seen and eaten deer, cows, pigs and chickens killed for meat.

there is a right way and a wrong way to do it and causing another living thing a second of extra pain when you don't have to is unethical.

In fact, it's fucking plain wrong and bad and if you don't get that, you need to learn that ASAP.

>>5873493

You are wrong and there is ample scientific research to prove that, pain in animals is one of the most studied areas of biology extant.

likewise, animal reaction to confinement, substandard care and so forth. Ever heard the phrase "to pine away"?

it means when an animal is so miserable it loses the will to live and dies no matter what. factory farms are built specifically to avoid this outcome.

animals feel, learn from, and demonstrate pain and suffering very, very well indeed.

>>5873539
I've had an identical upbringing. I never advocated for smashing animals with pickle jars, so I agree, efficient ways of killing animals are better than causing it needless pain. That said, cows do not suffer in any meaningful way. It is a fucking biological machine, pain in the vast, vast majority of animals is only used to as a disincentive to harmful behavior. Not sure what the last line of your post was meant to convey, is this a very personal issue for you?

Lack of money and time.

Not many people have the money to buy organic or any of that other bullshit "label" product.

Not a lot of people want to waste their time with organic and things like that, in the short term it really wouldn't be much different than just eating some 'regular' meat. Especially if they are a student or a full time worker, life moves to fast to sweat the little things for these types of people that need to pay bills all the time and pinch pennies and still try and have a life.

Also you could definitely argue that just because something is wrong/right doesn't mean everyone is going to follow that mentality. Just because it is better for you to buy organic and whatever else doesn't mean everyone is going to. It's literally the definition of "thats just like your opinion man".

>>5873551
Pain is not identical to suffering, avoidance behavior is not akin to suffering the same way we suffer. "Learn" is an interesting word choice, some animals can change their instincts withing their lifetimes, yes, but most simply develop these routines through selective breeding.
To suffer, a creature has to be aware that it is suffering. There is no reason to believe that sheep are conscious as humans are, and very good reason to believe that they are not

>>5873476
His suggested alternative is vegetarianism or vegetarian leaning diets.

>>5873495
Full argument is from Richard Rachels, which can be found here:
https://www.scribd.com/doc/96838743/Rachels-Basic-Argument-for-Vegetarianism

I mean, I buy it. I don't think my enjoyment justifies factory farming, but I also don't care enough to stop eating chickens.

Also, does anyone have any academic papers on the issue? It's nice reading your opinions but I'm looking for published papers

>>5873567
Sorry, that's Stuart Rachels. Not Richard Rachels.

>>5873567
>/ck/
>academic

we bitch about weird new things in the supermarket here, just look at any mention of avocados.

>>5873567
Right at 2 it's wrong.
Animals must know they are in pain to suffer. Animals are not conscious, so they cannot suffer.

http://www.lloydianaspects.co.uk/evolve/pigeon.html

OP
Get down to the library, bring a notebook, and read Judith Butler's Frames of War. It's ostensibly about the mental gymnastics we play in order to assign relative value to human life, but is applicable to nonhuman life as well.

It's like a dense dissertation on why people don't eat dogs but no one gives a fuck about fish.

>>5873527
If you think a cow and a tuna are both equally similar to a person then there is no hope for you.

>>5873321
>implying I give a shit about the ethics of meat eating

in all seriousness though, there's big money in the meat industry, the economy needs it.
there's already an established supply and demand, so stopping consuming meat would just 'cause continual death of animals for no reason while the economy falls about and the third world continues to starve.

plus meat's tasty as fuck.

food ethics are retarded.

>>5873581
I never said that, guv. Eating them is similar. Fish feel very little, cows may feel more, neither are able to suffer.

>>5873589
Crows have developed language and play. They hold grudges. They are well past the threshold of edibility if you want to base on anthropomorphism.

>>5873593
whoop, read cows as crows. thought it was weird that you'd mention crows but
cows are dumb fuck em

>>5873593
>cows have developed language
Can you prove this in any meaningful way?
You have not proven cows are conscious, and thus able to suffer.

>>5873598
I made the same mistake as
>>5873597
Disregard.

>>5873593
Crows are an interesting subject, the have self awareness to a degree, if I'm not mistaken, but I don't know about consciousness.

>>5873576
Thanks for linking this.

>>5873577
Note made in phone. Will get to it after this round of midterms.

>>5873561

Let's try it on you and see how you feel about it, troll.

>olololllloolllollollloll

>>5873639
>veganism: the post

>>5873552

yes, I killed a puppy when I was a boy on the farm. It suffered horribly because I chose to play with it too rough.

>unlike it's 2 brothers I couldn't fetch out of the hay bale litter that later rotted and stank to high heaven.

>they died quick

>>5873650
The fuck is up with this Of Mice and Men shit? Do us a favor and don't breed.

>>5873598

Are you stupid?

consciousness is not related to suffering, you ass.

You are conflating reflex and pain and you are absolutely in the wrong, cows can suffer pain like all mammals can.

If you're not educated enough to keep up, don't contribute, kid.

One could say that by the time you make the decision on whether to buy the meat or not the animal has already been butchered. What suffering it may have had is over, and if someone else doesn't happen to buy it if you decide against it its entire existence will have been in vain and pointless.

>>5873606

crows taste awful, like seagulls. their meat tastes like burnt cigarettes yeeeeck

>>5873369
Except you are paying for meat. How they raised it is a separate issue.

And if he wants to merge those two issues, then you need to consider the additional hunger involved with a less efficient alternative.

>>5873321
>Does anyone know of an ethical argument for meat consumption
It tastes good

>>5873321

ethics is subjective

also say something about hedonism or something

>>5873711
>ethics is subjective

Yeah, that will go down well in a university ethics class.

Not got too much of the ol' edumacation yourself, have you?

>>5873711

You utter moron

the whole point of ethics is that they ARE NOT SUBJECTIVE

what in the jesus fuck. How do people like you happen. are you from Iowa or worse?

>>5873726

so why are there so many different interpretations of them

if ethics were objective, OP wouldn't be asking this shit

>>5873766

confirmed for Iowa or maybe Helmund province or something,

How are you able to to type on the computaters and breathe at the same time, doesn't it and so much for you?

>>5873781
>computaters

>>5873726
>>5873781
>hehe it was totally worth selling my ass to my professor so I could pass in stay in my Ivy League college :) Now I can look down on Midwesterners, Southerns, well, anyone outside NYC and SoCal :) WORTH IT :D:D:D:D

theres plenty of ethical arguments for eating meat.

theres an ethical argument for any course of action you can possibly imagine.

also it doesn't matter if your ethics teacher 'disagrees' with your arguments etiher. she has no authority over what you consider ethical, on the contrary, her degree in ethics only cements her poor decision making skills and why she shouldn't be trusted in the first place.

>>5873321

The argument against meat only holds merit if your food is produced on a very small scale. Growing your own crops on a small plot vs. butchering your cow, sure, one of these methods allows you to survive with minimum effect on other sentient life.

However, this is not the case for modern factory farming. Any vegetarian eating food produced on giant farms who claims moral superiority over meat eaters is saying one of two things:

-They are ignorant of the effect of modern farming methods on wildlife.

-They consider it unethical to kill cows and pigs for meat but consider it ethical to kill rodents, reptiles and insects in far greater numbers for grain and vegetables.

Because this is what happens. Tilling a field with modern farming equipment, for example, kills countless small mammals, reptiles and lizards. It's not uncommon for birds of prey to follow a plowing tractor because they know it's going to leave lots of food behind. Rodents are poisoned in the millions to protect grain stores, insects die in countless amounts to protect various produce.

To replace the amount of calories produced from butchering one cow, you have to accept killing a far greater number of "lesser" animals and insects. There is no way to eat without killing other beings unless you're painstakingly growing your own food and being careful not to harm anything in the process. Why is it wrong to eat a hamburger that required one cow being killed but ok to eat a loaf of bread that required hundreds of insects and rodents being killed?

>>5873321
OK, so keeping them in factory farms is unnecessarily cruel but killing them quickly and painlessly by stunning is not.
If you keep them in a pretty meadow then there's no guilt but your own baseless vegan crappity flim flam floob dopsy.
Killing animals for meat is fine because they can not empathise with us and you could not explain to them why it is bad to agress against another of their species or ours. If you could do so and receive positive feedback then killing them would be immoral.
Capiche?
"Evil of Dairy" Comics incoming.

>>5873903
Hoooooly fuck shit, tl;dr

>>5873912
IKR more comics!

>>5873915

>>5873917
dairy is the milk of satan ;)
literally worse than hitler k guys

>>5873919
For real, FDA raids on unpasteurized milk farms have to stop. I need my fix.

>>5873321
thats becuz animal factory farms are unethical in their practice...

>>5873321
The only ethical argument would be based on totally ridiculous hypothetical situations where something worse would happen if you didn't eat it. A rational argument? No.

>>5873903
Holy fuck you are so, so, so fucking stupid I can't even address all the misleading bullshit statements you made.

1. Meat production is wayyyyyyyyy worse for wildlife than vegan agriculture ever could be. http://www.takeextinctionoffyourplate.com/
2. Your animals eat the majority of crops ya fuckwit.
3. You're trying to compare the least harmful ways to eat animals with the worst ways to eat veggies. Fuck outta here. Done with your shit.

>>5873332
>>5873337
>>5873384
>>5873391

OP said FACTORY FARMED not quit meat & go vegan

>>5873966
free range is ethical then?
gooood

Qt got my attention.

Look, Sam Harris, the neuroscientist and book writer, couldn't come up with an ethical argument for the consumption of meat. I'm pretty no one else in this thread is going to succeed.

Vid related: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLFnJ8pWh8g

Omnivores vs Vegans is a clash between tastes/desires vs feelings/morality.

>>5873321
it taste good

>>5873321

>1000 level ethics class
>consuming factory farmed meat is unethical and there's next to no literature opposing this view

Just because there's hardly any literature supporting a practice that's basically the norm means nothing.

You could start with providing a few of the basic arguments that are somehow being preached to you, and then there might be an actual discussion.

>inb4 "eating meat", "philosophy class", obvious troll...

I studied philosophy, got a few things published, and planned to stick with it. I was honestly looking into going into some anti-veg stuff from an everyday language/Wittgenstein type perspective. Then I became an al/ck/oholic for half a decade and now need to move 30 boxes of books I haven't opened in years because they represent the only meaningful thing I've done.

Seriously though, there are very good arguments to be made defending meat consumption. Factory farming is a little different; but in most cases the arguments are hardly philosophic (which doesn't mean non-rational, but you know that).

I would start by explaining why we find it wrong to eat dogs, for example. Most people can't give a good reason that doesn't contradict other practices they engage in.

>>5873321
Well if we didn't raise cows and such for food then they would go extinct since they cant survive in the wild and no one would want to raise them just for the hell of it. So is letting an entire species become extinct of releasing them into a habitat they can't survive in ethical?

>>5873476

>is meat an essential part of our stable?

Not unless you grew up in France.

>>5873980
It is moral though, because they can't understand or communicate that they understand that killing is bad.
>>5873911

>>5873726

>she probably couldn't even tell you the difference between ethics and morals

>>5874024
So you're saying it's moral to kill animals because they don't understand that they're being killed or harmed?

>>5874001
There are wild cows and pigs and chickens actually... And while your unlikely scenario that they would go extinct is irrelevant when compared with the fact that species are already going extinct due to livestock farming.

>>5873819

>philosophy professors are politicians
>this is how many, many retards base their votes on political leaders

>>5874034
-while*

Also irrelevant because their extinction would harm nothing. They don't even really exist in the ecosystem, and their only impacts are extremely negative. Then you're ignoring the abuse as well.

The only ethical arguments you're going to come up with against veganism are cherry picked and poorly thought out and misleading.

>>5874033
no, they probably have fear of death otherwise they wouldn't have survived to be domesticated
the key is that if I kill a human, we both know it's bad and I and others can communicate that it is bad, even write down why it is bad
I can't do this with a cow, I can't explain non-agression or murder to them or apologise to their family or imprison the abbatoir worker who killed them because it isn't unethical.
Also we need that shit for food, it delicious.

>>5874037
/thread

>>5873321
>it helps cover basic survival

>>5874038
Well thing is. We don't have to eat animals to survive. Humans exist outside of the realm of nature now. Pretty much every facet of our lives is artificial/unnatural. So the fact that we intentionally harm and kill animals for food even though we know we don't have do it and we know they feel pain.. doesn't that make us evil?

>>5874050
Who said we aren't evil?
What is evil? What is good?
Fuck you eat some oysters.

>>5874042
It's actually probably going to bring us to extinction...

>>5874055
>what no ac? Can't grow your own food?
You'll be dead but not myself.

>>5874034
wild cows are the same as the domesticated ones and where do you expect us to put the huge amount of animals that there would be if we stopped eating meat?


How is the scenario unlikely, if we stop eating them they have no where to go and cant survive on their own what do you think would happen to them?

>>5874037
Lots of things extinction would harm nothing that doesnt stop people from trying to prevent their extinction

I can see you are a vegan though so there is no use arguing with you

>>5874050
We need that shit for food because there is an infinite demand for it. Human want is infinite douche.
We exist in nature and are part of it. Without it we die.
You intentionally harm and kill animals with your evil combine harvesters for your " vegan " grains.
Feel free to ignore my explanation of ethics and the ability of animals to understand it (THIS IS WHY WEE DON'T KILL HUMANS), and just carry on wit you "meat r ebil u ebil animal feal payne".

>>5873476
>we really couldn't produve the amounts of meat we do now
Correct but we don't need nearly as much meat as we eat now. We eat a lot more meat than people have ever done and we're getting negative effects on our health because of it.

>>5874126
>We eat a lot more meat than people have ever done
LOL
Been reading about the Mongols and Eskimos.
They'd much like to disagree with you.

>>5873321
>there's next to no literature opposing this view

As someone else who has taken 1000 level philosophy classes, your professor is a classless, biased cocksucker. You seriously think there isn't a single professor who could competently argue for eating meat?? Seriously? There's arguments for EVERYTHING in almost equal measure.

Go ahead, lay down the argument against factory farmed meat, see how the collective minds of /ck/ accept it.

Of course you'd rather just say "uhhhh experts like myself have agreed that I am right and everyone else doesn't have a leg to stand on, therefor you should all listen to me, trust me LOLOLOL"

>>5874173

see

>>5873567

>>5873334

>implying factories can't be run by families

>>5873321

There is pro-meat literature out there, although far less than condemning literature. It can just be hard to find.

Most of the pro arguments you'll hear are anti-utilitarian arguments, and tend to be trash. Theorists take a situation where pain (or suffering; it's semantics) is the foundation of evil, and object to conclusions of "don't cause other species pain" with a scattering of speciest arguments, which all tend to be shitty/basic ("humans can do whatever they want" type shit). I'd avoid all that.

If you can move past the utilitarian "avoid pain at all costs" shit, holistic ethical work is a great place to start finding some actual interesting work. I'd suggest reading Aldo Leopold's Land Ethic if you haven't, just to get acquainted with the non-individualistic style of thinking. It's vastly flawed as a standalone theory, but it's still a good place to get an idea of holistic objections.

As for your actual question, for one of the best objections to the condemnation of factor farming, I'd suggest reading J. Baird Callicott - he has a piece called "Animal liberation: A triangular affair" which I'm sure you can find a PDF of on Google. The basic argument is that domestic animals are creations of man, or living artifacts, existing only as the result of man's influence on the biosphere. Basically, in a holistic sense, they are the moral equivalent of a table, a car, a chair, etc. Domesticated animals have no default place in nature, and therefore are not extended the rights of a nonhuman natural being. Callicott goes through quite a few hypotheticals to support this theory - ie what WOULD happen if all factory farmed animals were released. Once you get past the organically demeaning individual aspect of it, it's an interesting concept, especially working form a holistic sense instead of one of utility.

Hope that helps at least a little.

>>5874254
>wymen
>logic

>>5874006

Ha! Good one.

>>5874267
>Animal liberation: A triangular affair
If he reads that he should also read this http://jbcallicott.weebly.com/introductory-palinode.html

anon

>>5873321
Why would you want to defend an indefensible cause?

I agree that factory farmed meat is almost bad enough that it should be banned, but that's not an argument for meat consumption as a whole.

Just look at hunting as an example for when we should kill animals, nature can't sustain a too big animal populations so we hunt both to feed ourselves and to keep to population at a manageable level.

Regular farms with properly raised animals is where the question of ethics actually become interesting, but you'll have to figure out for yourself if you want to eat animals that someone has raised and then killed, or at least sent away to be killed.

>>5873340
>factory farming is unethical
No it isn't.
The alternative to factory farming is hunting for meat, which, while more humane for the animal, also limits animal populations to the natural carrying capacity of the land.
When trying to feed populations of humans like we have now, widespread market hunting means you very quickly deplete the environment of wild animals, leaving nothing but environmental destruction in your wake.
This is where the factory farm comes in. By farming already-domesticated animals for food on a massive scale, you can both satisfy public demand for meat the countryside AND preserve wild environments for native animals.
The drawback is, of course, quality of life for the farmed animals themselves. But since they are domesticated, they are already purpose-bred for food, and thus already dislocated from their native environments and dissimilar from wild populations. If there is an animal species that it would be ethically permissible to exploit, it is the already-domesticated ones.

>>5874530
>The alternative to factory farming is hunting for meat

Or, you know, small farms such as have existed since the beginning of civilization.

>>5873493
You are wrong that animals don't have high-level cognition by definition. Some of them clearly do, and this has been demonstrated scientifically.
That said, your attitude of "who gives a fuck anyway" is generally right. They are animals, but then again so are we. There is nothing ethically wrong with animals eating other animals-it happens every day in nature, and no fucks given. It only "becomes" ethically wrong when you necessarily exclude humans from animal life, which is likewise demonstrably false on a scientific level.
We ARE both animals AND predators, and thus it is our prerogative to kill as we see fit to. It is, after all, what we were created to do by nature. To the extent that we do not just rape the planet of all animal life and leave some of it alone to be itself, that is to our credit. But it is not-nor should it be-to our blame if we do not choose to take this to its logical extreme. We are free to stop any time along the pathway that we wish to, and as human animals that right is reserved for us.

>>5873593
>eating crows
Also, being carrion feeders and all, they taste like rotten shit.

>>5873662
>consciousness is not related to suffering

>>5873781
instead of making presumptions like the pompous ass you are, why don't you try to complete the argument?

oh right, you won't because you're a spiteful cvnt

>>5874267
thanks co/ck/. Found a pdf of it

>>5874533
or, y'know, not eating animals

>>5874721
Wow, he really hit close to home, didn't he?

I honestly don't understand how people think "ethical family farms" are okay.

It's like a pedophile saying "Oh, I'm totally against those Thai child whore houses. I only rape local children! They were happy until I raped them."

I won't deny it's a step up, but come on. You're still keeping an animal in captivity (a dirty little plot of land still isn't ideal for a pig or chicken) and the animals would rather not die.

>>5875124
Because high populations require agriculture and we live in the real world, thus reducing suffering by ameliorating conditions is a feasible solution.

Only children see things black and white. "Why should we do ____ when _____".

>>5873493
The only thing you've demonstrated is that you are at least as stupid as, and certainly less well educated than, most of the factory farmed animals you've eaten in your pathetic life.

>>5873561
Oh boy, I bet you're studying philosophy. You seem to think that your speculation is as valid, or maybe more so, than empirical evidence.

>>5875106
too close for comfort

>>5874083
I imagine we'd stop eating them gradually, so the farmers would probably stop breeding so many and there would be no surplus... In the extremely unlikely scenario that the entire world went vegan overnight, I'm sure the vegans would love to care for them.

Why do meat eaters never think about anything more than 20 seconds? Fuck, stop wasting my time.

Like I said, their existence's only impacts on the ecosystem are completely negative.

And again, they wouldn't go extinct. They just fucking wouldn't...

>>5874267
This has got to be a troll lol. The arguments for veganism are completely utilitarian. The founder of the word was a strong believer of animal rights.
"Speciesist" - you didn't even spell the word correctly and clearly don't know what it means lol.

Yeah this has to be a troll. Good one. I lol'd.

>>5875542
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Bentham#Animal_rights

>>5873321
Factory farming plants is okay, so why not insentient animals?

>>5875542

> Calls me a troll
> Biggest objection is to spelling

A+ effort bro.

Anyways, learn to read. I said most of the PRO-meat arguments are ANTI-utilitarian. In other words, you just echoed the contrapositive as though you were making an actual point. Cute, I guess.

>>5875542

Okay, here are some reasons, from an objectivist point of view as to why factory farmed meat is ethical:

Some assumed facts:
1) The life of an animal is worth less than that of a human.
2) The pain of an animal is worth less than that of a human.
3) The cessation of sustainable factory farming, as accepted by the government, would cause undue hardship to a majority of people who cannot afford the increased prices of farmed products.
4) Even if those people were suddenly to become vegan, this would put undue hardship on those who own stock in those corporations.
5) The founded capitalist nature of America puts firm ground under the feet of those who support the economy. They are by admission of the government, the rock upon which America is built.
6) To undermine those supporters and corporations is amoral, as well as unethical.
7) Cessation, especially rapid decontinuation of factory farming is unethical.

>>5876036
All of that's a false dichotomy. For example, an animal not suffering doesn't suddenly mean a human is going to suffer.

>>5876036
1) and 2) don't hold up since the fact that they are worth less than humans doesn't exclude that it's unethical to kill them. 4), 5) and 6) are based on might makes right, which is a pretty weak reason to say it's ethical in my opinion.

3) would mainly be a problem if it's done too quickly to let people adapt to the changes in a timely manner. It'd probably take many decades to let people adapt at a comfortable rate, but changing too quickly would leave a lot of people in a bad spot since they haven't grown up learning how to have a proper diet without meat.

If humans ate meat once or twice a month like we used to there'd be no problem. Ethically farmed meat could be expensive and still affordable since you would only need to buy it at most 4 times a month. As for dairy and eggs again we could probably afford to pay a bit extra to add ethics into the industry. Especially since a real vegetarian leaning diet is pretty cheap.

That's how I look at it anyway. Getting people to quit meat isn't going to work. But I'm sure we can all agree to cut down. It would make eating meat a much more enjoyable experience too.

Meat is expensive and more meat production and consumption leads to more money so we have a better economy
Provides a lot of jobs (farmer/ veterinarians/ butchers/ breeders/ professional hot dog eaters).
Idk man

>>5873321
There's no argument; it's undoubtedly at least a little bit unethical.

The argument is over whether it's unethical enough to be worth giving two shits about.

>>5873445
>blowing him out in a debate.
>debate

Top lel, who the fuck cares what any libertard shitmunch thinks and engages them in a debate of all things? Just like any other sensible meat eater, I continue to eat delicious steaks and no whining's gonna stop me.

>>5873726
>people from the midwest
>being relativistic

>>5873561
>change their instincts within their life time.
Ok please proofread your statements before you make a fool of yourself. Instinct covers the entire species.
In regards to the rest of this thread factory farming of animals as it stands can be a needlessly brutal process. Instead of being a fight between bleeding heart liberals and bloodlust frothing conservitives we should as a society focus on making the process as humane as possible without signifigantly reducing productivity.

>>5873650
My math teacher in highschool killed 4 puppies by accedent by acedently steping on one and trying to dance around the others and failing. He was like 7 when he did that.

>>5873321

There is enough literature that proclaim that animals don't participate in our moral domain. The moral philosophers who argue that eating meat is unethical claim that animals feel pain or can even suffer. If you base your morality on rational agents in stead of avoiding harm to all beings who behave as if they can feel pain you are in the clear.

Google "least harm principle" but don't read it blindly because it makes some unrealistic assumptions (free range meat for the masses, etc).

General pro-meat arguments can be made in favor of sustainability; growing animal feed does not fuck the land over as much as monocultures for human consumption. You can also grow feed locally, whereas a complete vegan diet mostly relies heavily on transportation, contributing to pollution.

Also tell your fag professor that by giving money to anyone who eats meat, he's supporting their "unethical" practices.

It tastes good, and plants are alive too so vegans are hypocritical.

What are his views on small scale farming for a family or community?
If they are at least neutral, go Sorites paradox on his ass.
If he can't identify the point on the spectrum from small scale community farming to factory farming where it becomes unethical, how can factory farming be unethical?
Alternatively, argue that taking an action that isn't unethical and making it more efficient doesn't make it any less ethical.

Though, if he sees all meat production as unethical these both fall through.

>>5873726
I doubt I will get an answer but.....

How do you interpret the "is- ought" problem and related naturalistic fallacy? Don't they make ethics pretty subjective?

A set of ethics can be internally constant but that is not the same as them being objective.

>>5876036
You assert things like 1) and 2) as they're universal objective truths.

They're not.

>>5873384
Agreed. Even if they promise they won't get mad, most of them will.

The argument goes one of two ways:

1) prove him wrong, he looks/feels like an idiot, doubles down on his bias and grades you poorly
2) poorly argue your point, he feels validated and smug, he grades you poorly for not coming up with a good argument

The only winning move is to agree with the prof. He may be a bro and you may luck out, but school isn't about tanking your GPA because you wanted to take a risk.

>>5873321
>people think ethics should apply to chickens
>ethics apply to chickens
>chickens
The best one I can think of is who gives a shit

>>5873321
The only ethical arguement I can make on meat consumption is that it is a complete distraction as a hot topic for the issue of our current population, and its urgent need to decrease immensly to support our current lifestyles of electricity and such

>>5877692
>population reduction
>eugenics
>we need another world war to boost the economy and eliminate the lesser races
>muh Malthus
Implying you wouldn't be the first to go.

>>5873321
The purpose of ethics is to guide people in their interactions with one another.

Animals, be definition, cannot be ethically significant.

>>5873321
>Anyone know any arguments for meat consumption?
it's legal
that's all ethics is, legislated morality.
since it's not illegal, it's not wrong.

the only unethical part of factory farming is unauthorized abuse carried out by negligent employees

Factory Farming is completely unethical. There is no other way to put it. (animal torture, horrible for the environment)

Humans do not require meat consumption to survive, therefore meat consumption in general is unethical. Why kill a living being when you don't need to. We're move evolved than that. Plant based proteins are abundant.

>>5877938
>Why kill a living being when you don't need to
you dont need to kill plants to survive

>>5873321

Animals do feel pain in a ''meaningful way''
Factory farming isn't sustainable. (it takes a massive amount of natural ressources to raise livestock and their excrements pollute a fucking lot)
Factory farming is equivalent to the Jewish holocaust in my opinion.

>>5877956
k
feel free to not eat meat

>>5877938
>. Why kill a living being when you don't need to.
because it tastes good. Why kill a plant? What about antibiotics, are those unethical? Think of all the poor microbes. Why does your religious like beliefs hold animals in such high regard?

Is health not an ethical concern?

Surely it's not unethical to eat if you are starving. Similarly, it should not be unethical to eat meat for more testosterone

ask back your lecturer if we suspend factory farmed meat where could we get meat to sustain our entire population?? you should stop if he starts spouting some vegan philosophy cause you cant beat their logic.

>>5877963

>because it tastes good.

OP, this is why you can't make an ethical argument for meat-eating

>>5873321
>I'm sure there's some food philosophers in here.
Stirner - The Ego and Its Own.
short version: ethics is bullshit, do what you want.

>>5877999
>short version: ethics is bullshit, do what you want.
i don't know why more people don't understand this
it's secular morality, and we all know morality is fluid

>>5877966

>Similarly, it should not be unethical to eat meat for more testosterone

Are you one of those guys who thinks eating tiget penis will increase your penis size?

It is beneficial for you and tastes delicious with no downside. Why not do it?

>>5874267

>Domesticated animals have no default place in nature, and therefore are not extended the rights of a nonhuman natural being

That kind of arguing doesn't make sense to me. It would be like a mother and father killing their child and then saying "the only reason Timmy existed was because we created him, so it's fair that we can take him out of existence too"

>>5878013

>beneficial

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30gEiweaAVQ

>>5878021
eating meat in proper amounts is much better for you than avoiding it altogether

Its like beer, but drinking beer is probably unethical towards yeast in your silly worldview

>>5878026

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9860369

China Study though

>>5877999
Egoism is one the biggest sentimental and bourgeois ethical theories out there along with utilitarianism and deontology. I don't think there is a single person out there wakes up in the morning and thinks to himself "hmm, what'll I do today to maximise my pleasure and minimise my pain according to some retardedly vague and shaky calculus that could change from moment to moment". I mean you need only think for a minute about how ridiculous it sounds and superfluous it is to actual life.

>>5878019
Except humans understand that killing humans is bad because we are self aware and killing humans gains you less than keeping them alive, opposite with cows unless they are for dairy.
Keep your weak woman mind on topic of domesticated farm animals and away from valuable children.

>>5878032

>Except humans understand that killing humans is bad

No, that's just your opinion.

>Killing humans gains you less than keeping them alive

You ought to go back in history and tell every warlord, every assassin, and every violent mugger that they stand to gain nothing from killing people. If only they were as wise as you.

>>5878041
you can only rob a dead man once

>>5878044

But dead men tell no tales

There are no convincing ethical arguments for meat consumption. It's quite disappointing.

>>5878041
stop arguing like a cunt you cunt.
I meant compared to killing a cow. You can get good money for a cow carcass but not for a human and if the human turns out average they provide far greater value, even more than a dairy cow.
Also show me a written explanation of the morality of killing written by an animal other than Homo sapiens.

>>5878048
nor do they generate theft vulnerable economic activity

>>5878056

Backpeddling does not become you, my friend. Another example, is slave labor ethical? America gained a lot from African and Chinese labor, but those are illegal now because we see it as immoral. By the logic of "we stand to gain from it, so it's moral" we should be able to have slaves again.

>>5878072
slave labor in america is unethical
its immorality depends on a case by case and person by person basis
if slavery was make legal tommorow, it would be legal

>>5878072
no because your body is your property so being "owned" is a violation of those property rights you tremendous veiny tool
You equated a father murdering his son with a farmer slaughtering his cow, which he owns and can do anything with but be cruel.
go bait and strawman and change topics with someone else
you are tiresome and boring

>>5878105

If simple discussion makes you upset, maybe you should reflect on your own views

>>5878111
>arguing animal morality on an Australian Cave Painting website

>>5878111
now I know you're trolling
a final good day douche

>>5878122
shitheeled college student detected

>>5878051
meat consumption has absolutely nothing to do with ethics. Its neither ethical or unethical, its just a mundane thing

>>5878140
ethics is legislated morality
something is ethical or not based on the law and custom

But eating meat is natural, normally you crazy vegan liberals are all for doing natural things, like being afraid of GMOS and science, avoiding chemical names you are too uneducated to understand, and avoiding vaccines

>>5878153

Everything is natural. Even eating other humans.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/04/0410_030410_cannibal.html

there is no reason to think that the lives of chickens, turkey's, fish, or cows hold any moral or ethical weight. based on the ~consensus of philosophy of mind in the disipline right now, killing a chicken is about the moral equivalent of turning off your computer.
Pigs are a different case. it is unethical to eat pigs.

>>5877956
>Factory farming is equivalent to the Jewish holocaust
>Jews are farm animals
/pol/ please leave

>>5878177

Are stupid people okay to kill?

>>5878177
shalom!
pigs aren't my kin so they are okay to eat

>>5878031
>Egoism
>calculus
One of us is misunderstanding one of these terms.

>>5878184
No
you are vastly underestimating the difference between the dumbest of people and the smartest of most animals. besides, "intelligence" isn't the defining factor. intelligence is just closely related to consciousness and sentience, which are the defining factors

>>5878140
http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=3447
Basically this.

Consider this thought experiment:

>"An alien race visits earth and they are horrified by the deplorable living conditions of us humans. They live forever whereas we die. They are always in a state of near euphoria whereas we sometimes suffer.
They question whether or not it is ethical to let our sun continue to burn, since it only seems to enable perpetual suffering."

No farm animal has anything to thank a vegan for: Every farm animal in existance are still subjected to the exact same conditions regardless. Every beef steer will still suffer exactly the same fate.
If more people are vegan there will be less farm animals, but who is going to thank you for that? Even if the animals who were never born could thank you, I don't think they would.

>>5878203
>They live forever whereas we die.
until we kill the aliens and a celebrity chef showcases their flesh on tv in an array of delightful side dishes.

>>5878223
yeah, any society capable of interstellar transit could destroy us

>>5878226
prove it

>>5873321
>justifying factory farmed meat
nigga i eat the flesh off the still living animal

>>5878239
sucking off niggers in the back of arby's doesn't count

>>5878203
Exactly this.

I know humans who would gladly suffer if they could eat food constantly and be fattened up.
As long as they think the slaughter is far in the future they would not care.

Factory farming is fine.

Yeah there are none

>>5878275
fuck off vegan

>>5878275
Meat consumption is entirely unrelated to ethics, there are no compelling arguments for or against it from an ethic standpoint. So you might as well eat meat because thats what we evolved to do and its delicious and satisfying

>>5878275
there is no ethical justification for your life

>>5878289

Although people looking to be healthy should probably abstain

http://mydoctor.kaiserpermanente.org/ncal/Images/New%20Plant%20Based%20Booklet%201214_tcm28-781815.pdf

unethical doesn't mean illogical, what's the point of arguing?

>>5878306
>10 cups of food a day
>minimum
what the fuck

Ethics are a system created by those in power to control those who aren't. Not even being edgy. The successful people in life are those who are able to be immoral but avoid being caught. The entire meat industry can be described like this by means of loopholes and bribery.

>>5878021
2 minute mark.

What? 1 egg = 5 cigs a day, for a week?

Is this troll vid?

What is the ethics of forcing college students to pay thousands of dollars to take some mandatory class that indoctrinates them into become next generations culture warriors instead of teaching them useful skills to thrive in the business world? You could be studying the art of war or how to win friends and influence people.This is what is wrong with our education system.

>>5878323
>actually wanting the skills and mental defects required to thrive in the business world

this is what is wrong with out society.

>>5878320

5 cigs a day for 15 years, that is, not necessarily lifelong smoking, and it's in reference to eggs' effects on arterial health. John David Spence, known as "the father of carotid plaque measurement," one of the world's leading researchers of stroke and stroke prevention, sometimes uses the phrase "egg yolk years" when talking about eggs and arterial plaque, the same way we have a system of "pack years" to estimate arterial health based on cigarette smoking

http://www.atherosclerosis-journal.com/article/S0021-9150(12)00504-7/abstract

>Total plaque area (TPA) increases exponentially with egg-yolk years.
>The effect size of egg yolks appears to be approximately 2/3 that of smoking.

>>5878328
Hasn't the whole eggs are bad myth thing been thoroughly debunked

>>5878336

You must learn that if anyone has a point to prove, they are probably full of shit

>>5878336

People have tried to paint eggs in a good light, especially the Egg Industry who spend millions of dollars annually to protect the image of their product as a health food, but unfortunately science isn't very favorable to egg consumption.

>>5878348
>millenia old superfood is just now suddenly bad for you

i smell a kike

>>5878325
Looks like someone has a problem with the reality of nature.

>>5873321
I don't know about ethical, but meat is an inefficient way to grow calories, except in cold and arid conditions. Of course, the way we structure our economy, demand influences supply. Americans insist that meat be the centerpiece of every meal. I don't have a problem with meat eating, but I'm sure we produce and eat far too much of it. Factory farms are dirty places, and the animals are pumped full of antibiotics, which used en masse can destroy their potency and potential for helping people. If just for that reason alone, we ought to get the animals out of unnecessarily cramped conditions. Public health is a far larger concern than a large meat supply.

>>5878358

>superfood

Another myth of egg industry marketing.

And it's not "suddenly bad for you," it's just that now we have the ability to study diet and health more closely and it turns out that a ball of saturated fat and cholesterol isn't very health-promoting, especially for your cardiovascular system

>>5878369
whatever you say, moishe
i'll keep eating my delicious eggs and toast, you can enjoy your matzo

>>5878394

Fair enough, not telling you that you can't eat what you like, just pointing out that it may not be the optimal food choice from a health perspective

>>5873598
>cows aren't conscious
>you can't prove they are, so they're not
The title "animal" implies a consciousness, dipshit.
Saying that it is impossible to tell if animals can suffer because they can't tell you they do despite the overwhelming evidence against that claim is the same bullshit logic used to "prove" solipsism.

>>5878306
>no citations
>graze like a fat cow
I'll give it a shot anyway. time to break out the crock pot

>>5878026
nice sugarcoating

if meat is so bad why do we eat it

game set checkmate, veganists

>>5878425
Flawless logic

>>5878425

#shotsfired

I am professor Radisson and this is philosophy 150. I'd like to bypass all senseless debate and come to the conclusion every sophomore is already aware of: meat... Is.... Murder.

>blah blah cows have feelings and stuff
>so cows have individuality
>the factory farming system has brought infinitely more individuals into existence than alternatives
>experiencing life is infinitely better than the void
>the large amount of animals brought into existence via the factory farming system is a good
>to allow the most individual unique consciousnesses to experience the world, they can't live for long because of a strain on resources.
>and they taste good.

>>5878585
The calves in the veal industry would have a much better time not existing at all than existing and having to put up with the shit that they're born into

>>5878641
I would still wager most people, who can grasp the concept of non-existence, would prefer a miserable short existence to none at all.

Also, if that's what they're born into, they know little else. They may not think things are peachy, but we can't compare our modern preferences to how they feel.

>>5878641
>personal sheds to keep them isolated from sickness

yeah man veal industry is fucking terrible.

>>5878585

Is it morally alright for parents to kill their children since they're the reason their children got to exist anyway?

>>5878650
>morals
it's immoral to me
but maybe not to someone else

>people hate factory farms because their schools and jobs are factory farms and it's easier to stop eating meat than it is to change bigger problems

>>5878649
Fuck off that looks awesome.
Don't have any other cunts fucking with your shit, have your own personal space with a garden.
I don't have a fucking garden and that motherfucker does, what a prick.

And for all you know these cows are horny to be eaten. Like they get off on the idea of being cooked and eaten. Like the nurse in Spain that was horny for Ebola so she was getting her gash out and rubbing her flaps on all the surfaces. I heard she was hid in the toilet so she could push medical waste up her arse hole while fingering herself.

>>5878649

>fresh grass just out of reach
>lay on rocky dirt

>>5878572

No professor, I will not accept that. I am a carnivore and it is not consistent with my beliefs.

>>5873321
Let's first establish that meat consumption can be ethical:
Meat consumption is part of an established food chain that acts to maintain equilibrium in the global ecosystem.
Animals eat other animals. If you are not dismayed by eating plants, then the thing that bothers you about eating animals is their similarity to us, which is nothing but anthropocentric nonsense.
Plant eating is more sustainable from an energy perspective, but we don't have solid evidence for what a drastic reduction in meat consumption by humans might do to the world's ecosystem.

Now let's establish that factory farming is ethical:
Factory farming is a maximally efficient means of harvesting meat. We know it is maximally efficient because a business so intricately tied to the flow of energy into the earth must minimize energy expended to maximize profit.
If you agree that a valid argument for eating plants is that it is more environmentally sustainable, then you must also agree that a valid argument for eating factory farmed meat is that it is more sustainable than meat procured from a small farm.

Moreover, never forget that vegetarianism is a privilege. The kind of calorie density that meat provides is somewhat singular in many regions and the people who do not have the luxury of being able to choose their diet must get the correct amount of calories however they can.

tl;dr: Eating meat is a fact of human existence because of scarcity of energy. Factory farming seeks to minimize energy expenditure to be able to feed the growing meat demands of a growing human population. If you want to revert to small, local farms, then you must assent to not being able to feed at least part of the growing human population as small, local farms can't possibly produce the volume of meat required.

>>5878649
>isolated from sickness
that's a great way to sugarcoat it, but unfortunately, that isn't fucking true. They're kept in personal sheds so that they get no exercise and accidentally grow a bit of muscle. Also, that's one high-end veal factory you got in that photograph there.

>>5878019

The argument is that Timmy is a natural process - two animals mated as a way to contribute to their population. Reproduction will always be considered holistically natural, as it contributes to preservation. The creation of a new species, on the other hand, is not a natural process; that species has no natural place in the world, and therefore our responsibility to it is different.

>>5873321
ethics with regard to treatment of non sentients is irrelevant

>>5873945
I'm not saying your argument loses validity because of this, but what is the deal with the influx of posters that have a reddit/tumblr tone to their posts?


A typical 4chan post might read more like:

That whole post is fucking bullshit.

1. Meat production is worse for wildlife than vegan agriculture
2. Animals eat the majority of crops, so farming is at least as bad as plant agriculture.
3. You're comparing the least harmful ways to eat animals with the worst ways to eat vegetables


Notice how the revised post lacks lofty, insincere displays of disgust (I can't even, wayyyyyyy), obviously biased sources (http://www.takeextinctionoffyourplate.com/)), and a desire to discontinue conversation simply because someone has made an argument you perceived as poorly structured and at odds with your world view (Fuck outta here. Done with your shit).

As a general rule, quality 4chan posts are characterized by a lack of personal offense (if you've lurked 4chan long enough, nothing should offend you on a personal level except someone saying you're waifu a shit) and an understanding that no one will back you up just because you are ineffably outraged by something.

>>5878723
>morality is a constant

>>5873321
nigga I know that qt, are you french?

>>5878783
>moral relativism can lead to useful conclusions

I don't think that your criticism of my post is wrong, but as long as the point of us being here is to shitpost at eachother, adopting a view that essentially shuts down debate is sort of contrary to the nature of the forum.

>>5878404
>The title "animal" implies a consciousness, dipshit.
Does it?
Jellyfish have consciousness, despite having no centralized nervous system?
That's new information to me!

>>5878790
not saying you can't debate it, but ethics is entirely subjective. this debate could not have been anything but shitposting

>>5878647
>I would still wager most people, who can grasp the concept of non-existence, would prefer a miserable short existence to none at all.
This sentence is how I know you don't grasp the concept non-existence.
It's not a question of no longer existing. I'd agree with you there, most people would prefer existence to that. We even call people who disagree mentally ill.
But the "choice" (I won't go into the problem of not being "allowed" to make the "choice" as you don't yet exist) of non-existence by its nature is the least important choice you can make.

If existence is better and you choose non-existence, you don't exist to experience the tragedy of non-existence.
If existence is better and you choose existence, congratulations.
If non-existence is better and you choose non-existence, you don't exist to experience the joys of non-existence.
If non-existence is better and you choose existence, you lose.

The only way to lose and experience the loss is to choose existence. Thus you can't lose by not existing.

>>5878807
You ever read Hamlet?

>>5878791
can jellyfish feel pain? uh, yeah. and as long as something has nerves, it can be aware of its surroundings, regardless if they are aware of being aware of it.

>>5878585
Problem with this point:
>experiencing life is infinitely better than the void
Is a life full of suffering better than not existing at all?

>>5873321
You want:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>/pol/

>>5878882
But pain is just negative feedback for negative stimuli. Being able to feel pain is an evolutionary advantage because you can tell when your body is being harmed and try to avoid it.

Being able to suffer as a result of the pain is different.

>>5878882
Just because something has nerves doesn't mean it has a complex enough neural system to interpret them as the pain a human being knows and feels. We can't say with any definition at this point whether or not animals like the jellyfish experience anything like we do.

>>5873321
1. Darwin's "Origin of Species"
2. USDA guidelines on steer production
3. Common fucking sense

We did not rise to the top of the food web to eat cereals.

"Factory farmed" cattle are raised on RANCHES where they roam the range and eat whatever they want, supplemented occasionally as necessary. They are then treated to a life of luxury where they are fed yummy corn. They then get herded into a building and killed in as humane a manner as is generally possible.

Meat is delicious.

Human beings choose nonexistence over suffering all the time, it's called suicide and there's one happening every minute or so.

My take is that factory conditions that don't allow a meaningful neural system to develop are preferrable. Is a battery farmed chicken suffering when it has never had enough stimulation to it's already tiny nervous system to even learn how to walk?

Neurally stunted animals are a stepping stone to ethical, problem free vat grown meat.

Trying to make food animals "happy" before summarily killing them is hypocritical sophistry, you might as well raise them as pets (Which, incidentally my grandparent's generation did, here kids play with this little lamb for a few weeks, lol)

Concerns over the taste and sanitary properties of factory meat are a separate issue, and of course they should be maximized. But making food animals happy so they taste better is a different argument altogether.

>>5873321
>tfw she looks almost exactly like my girlfriends sister
>tfw I want to fuck my girlfriends sister so bad

>>5873321
As soon as you accept that sentience and preventing suffering are the basis for morality, you've already lost.

The way I would argue it is that A: Morality is subjective and B: Only reasoning creatures should have morality extended to them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason

Also, since I'm Australian I like to point out that most of our land is not arable; it could not grow crops. So while they may argue is it more economic to be vegan because you have to feed animals with grains etc grown somewhere, the truth of the matter is that at least in my country you don't.

You leave cattle/sheep out to graze and they just eat whatever grass grows there, without instead needing to till the land, and basically terraform the soil to grow crops. They just wander around munching, and you might occasionally supplement this with special feed or molasses or w/e.

I don't know enough to say just how hard it might be to make arable land out of our almost-deserts, but I imagine the economical and labour costs would be very high.

>>5880606
Also when I say grass grows there, it's like pic related, at least in the good months.

>>5873321
I'm hungry.

>>5880071
It's complex enough for the jellyfish to get the fuck away from whatever is hurting it. Naturally, something in its body doesn't like it

>>5873415
unethical and efficient are not mutually exclusive, anon, where did you get that impression

it's efficient.
it's also unethical

>>5873342
well
people do care
that's why there's plenty of literature saying it's unethical

the point was there's no literature of the opposing view, and OP is looking for arguments

>>5873396
that's not what ethics is

>>5873582
I don't disagree with you anon but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and it doesn't make it ethical

you've just presented a bunch of reasons why it's such a difficult industry to change, and why it's so much easier not to care.

I'm especially guilty of it

>>5874024
that is not what constitutes morality anon
you can't torture a blind, mute man just because can't communicate his experience to you

>>5880653
A blind mute man is not a steer, you queer

My 200 level socialism class taught me that the amount of food that livestock needs to grow is gargantuan. By feeding the livestock you essentially take that food away from starving people that can't afford to buy the meats from said livestock, causing hunger problems.

But my prof is stupid and regularly makes things up, so take this with a grain of salt.

>>5881702
I agree with that, except most of that corn is unfit for human consumption.

I know we could replace livestock feed with crops fit for human consumption, but I don't know what the exchange rate is. Maybe like 2kg livestock feed : 1kg edible by humans? Still better probably.

>>5881702

Nowadays hunger problems are caused by military crises, people being evicted or chased from their homes and aid shipments being blocked by armed men who want enemy civilians to starve.