/lit/ - Literature

>>6592520
personnaly, I do not eat meat because it is pointless to kill animals and if I must, I prefer to kill the thing myself.

>>6592531
Pointless? Do you really think the whole world can live of veggies and fruits?

>>6592520
Who gives a fuck if it's ethical to eat meat or not, what matters is that it's definitely logical.

>>6592520
>moral
>intelligent
Reread your post and then immediately check your browser's address bar. The results of this test may shock you.

>>6592534

It's easy and more efficient to eat non-animal products. A lot of energy is wasted for every link in the food chain you add.

That said, meats might have unknown benefits. To play it safe, it's reasonable to eat humane farmed meats once or twice a week. That's why my original post only said "eat less meat", not "go full vegan.".

>>6592539
What do you think "logical" means?

You can only do logic by reasoning from set premises. If you start with the premise "suffering is bad", you'll find that factory farming is bad.

You're operating under the premise that if I knew I was participating in an atrocity, I would stop. I will not.

Let the farm animals suffer. Let them wriggle and scream as their necks are slashed and they're hung by hooks through their ankles. I like the taste of their meat.

>Clearly no moral & intelligent person can risk being party to an atrocity.
>implying what is considered an "atrocity" does not change with time and setting very easily
>implying your actions should be dictated by the opinions of your peers
This is easily one of the most stupid things I've ever read.

>>6592725
OP's reasoning might be a bit flawed but i'll take it anytime over your attitude.

>there exists a secret objective morality which we just have to discover
also
>bertrand russell

it's a good argument OP.

the only trouble is that most people's tastebuds have more control of their actions than their intellects - and those are the people you're trying to persuade

it's okay, within 30 years the factory farming business will collapse for ecological reasons, there'll just be too much of us and a meat-eating civilization must remain sufficiently small, or else famine is likely

>>6592520
99% of the world who shop in stores supports factory farming by buying the results. Obviously Russell's "second rule," if applied literally, results in utter non-certainty about all issues (since there is always a dissenting "expert"). The intelligent decision is to look at the weight of evidence and public opinion, and then go eat a fucking burger.

>>6592911
>implying what is considered an "atrocity" does not change with time and setting very easily
Of course you could make that argument, but it's fairly obvious that he means a modern first-world country.
>implying your actions should be dictated by the opinions of your peers
Your actions being dictated by the opinions of your peers is just a characteristic of a normal society. That is not necessarily how it should be, but that's how it is.

>>6592520
>minor inconvenience
I like eating meat. Not eating meat is not a minor inconvenience, it is a major inconvenience. Your argument isn't infallible.

>>6592520
hey, i don't give a fuck about atrocities
so fuck you

>>6592520
>Clearly no moral & intelligent person can risk being party to an atrocity.
Are we burning history today?

>>6592520

I do agree that we should eat LESS meat, purely from an evolutionary standpoint. Grandpa caveman did not have tendies for lunch and dinner every day.

>>6593025
>>>/b/

>inb4 muh jews and estrogen
>muh conspiracy theory

>>6592544
> humane farming
I understand this point and i assure you you dont need to convince me, but something about this doesnt sit well with me. For some reason the idea that its ok to breed animals for the sole purpose of slaughtering them if only we treat them well their whole lives sounds conceited and hypocritical.
I concur with this particular utilitaristic argument and understand many of the reasons its employed; i dont even eat that much meat. It just makes me feel slightly uneasy.

I realized today that I haven't eaten meat in about two months because I'm poor.
>the poor vegan: only eats meat if it's cheap
this is gonna be everyone in twenty years. I'm the future, fuck me.

I'd buy free range shit, but I'm poor as all fuck. In fact, most of my food comes from grocery stores who give their expired shit to churches to distribute to people like me.

If you want to promote vegetarianism, or at least more humane meat, you should engage the problem of poor people getting their protein.

>uncle takes me to slaughterhouse where he works
>see a "slaughtered" cow wake up on the fucking rack. flinching, guttered cries and all.

Slaughterhouses are insane, turned me completely.

>>6593089
>>6593099
Where do you live?

>>6593131
I'm french but also a student.

>>6592520

The argument fails because of low value of replacement diets. The overwhelming majority of non-meat foods, for example, are harvested in a way that entails mass slaughter of mammals - combine harvesters etc kill thousands of small mammals during harvesting; I've heard it said that a vegetarian diet can cost more mammalian lives per calorie than a meat-only one.

The only way to be sure of avoiding this is to eat fruit-only diets (impractical and dubious health-wise) or grow your own.

>>6593131
California

Meat is tasty, and one day I'll be dead and nothing I have ever done will ever matter.

Enjoy your vegetables.

>>6592927
rur pepe

>>6592999
i support this

>>6592520

almost all of our early human and pre-human ancestors (including Homo Habilis, Homo Neanderthalis, Homo Hiedelbergensis) ate meat. it is part of our evolutionary diet

I would argue with you but truth of the matter is that your Bertrand Russel premiss is shit and so there is no need.

>"Humans–who enslave, castrate, experiment on, and fillet other animals–have had an understandable penchant for pretending animals do not feel pain. A sharp distinction between humans and “animals” is essential if we are to bend them to our will, make them work for us, wear them, eat them–without any disquieting tinges of guilt or regret. It is unseemly of us, who often behave so unfeelingly toward other animals, to contend that only humans can suffer. The behavior of other animals renders such pretensions specious. They are just too much like us."

>>6592548
Ah but what if my suffering caused by not eating meat outweighs the suffering caused by factory farming? I'm a fucking utility monster

>>6593211
apparently you can't read
OP said "less meat" and "factory farming"

>>6593281
Then it means ur a weeny

>>6593237
>says the meat eater

>>6592544
It ain't that easy habibi, veggies and fruits require bigger fields, if everyone ate less meat probably the space wouldn't be big enough to grow enough for everyone. (Not yet actually, vertical farms might improve the situation.)

Then costs might rise in certain aspects, there a lot of aspects about food that can also be changed and that way easier.

How about we eat less beef and more pork, that would reduce the methane emission by alot.

And why do you so many vegans
care so much about animals but not humans? Before we can reduce the harm caused to animals we should focus more on reducing the harm on our own species.

>>6593211
>>6593067
Naturalistic fallacy

Sorry for my bad sentences and english, non naitive on mobile here

>>6593357
This is also a fallacy.
The vast majority of the cultivated surface is entirely devoted to feeding the livestock.

>>6593357
>And why do you so many vegans care so much about animals but not humans?
Who said they don't? The focus is on animals because they are the issue. They're the ones bred from birth to be slaughtered, usually entailing pregnancy, imprisonment, and an unnatural/unhealthy lifestyle forced upon them.
You will find that the issue is very close to human care. Outside of the obvious negatives that come with meat-focused diets, criticism of the meat industry extends to other factors such as the routine misusing and overusing of antibiotics (it threatens public health when essential drugs no longer work to treat infections), and the continuing pollution of the environment.

>>6592520
Any ethically based reasons for what you should and shouldn't eat are retarded horseshit.

>>6592999
I'm not Opie and this has nothing to do with the thread but on the topic of your pic, the whole idea that if there's an omnipotent god, they must be a benevolent one in order to exist is a retarded christfag meme.

>>6593426
What's wrong with eating fish? Especially fish I've caught from a lake.

>>6593426
>The focus is on animals because they are the issue. They're the ones bred from birth to be slaughtered, usually entailing pregnancy, imprisonment, and an unnatural/unhealthy lifestyle forced upon them.

Same thing happens to most african kids, or chinese sweatshop kids, yet most vegans that I know have no problem owning Nike clothing and iPhones.

Btw, what so you think we shall do with animals? Eradicate them from world? Like PETA wishes to do? Don't you think they'd rather live a life in suffering than dissappear forever? Sorta like black culture is proud of their suffering in the past.

Just some food for thought.

>>6593426
>Outside of the obvious negatives that come with meat-focused diets, criticism of the meat industry extends to other factors such as the routine misusing and overusing of antibiotics (it threatens public health when essential drugs no longer work to treat infections), and the continuing pollution of the environment.

You realize the meat industry has nothing to do with eating meat? That's an ad hominem, I can eat meat that is not treated with antibiotics

>>6592520
>Clearly no moral & intelligent person can risk being party to an atrocity.
Yet your parents conceived you, your doctor birthed you, and your teachers tried to educate you.

>>6593426
>They're the ones bred from birth to be slaughtered, usually entailing pregnancy, imprisonment, and an unnatural/unhealthy lifestyle forced upon them.
Sounds like jobs to me.

>>6593447
You will probably notice the character in the comic is a christian priest.

>>6593281
You think you could possibly weigh your dietary inconvenience against the torment of millions of animals a year?

Kek

>>6593237
Nobody says that animals can't suffer anymore, they just don't care.

>>6592520
>My argument is basically just an application of Bertrand Russel's philosophy

Looks more Russell Brand than Bertrand Russell, tbh. The reason why it "will convince no one" is because you assume anyone cares what any "expert" at all says about the subject--whether for or against.

How can one even be an "expert" on whether or not eating meat is wrong? You can't. It's nonsense on stilts and everyone knows it.

>>6594950
>>6594964
Anyone ever notice animal-rights activists care far more about the cute ones?

Like, they'll whine about dolphins getting trapped in a net, but never shed so much as a tear for any tuna. Come back when you're cute, tuna.

Same thing for veal vs. beef, typically.

I can't help but think the entire anti-meat rhetoric is based on feelings.

>>6595013
>Anyone ever notice animal-rights activists care far more about the cute ones?
You don't wanna hear about the other type. Trust me. They're literally insane.

Why do people give a shit about animals? Moral vegans and vegetarians make me laugh. If the animals didn't want to be farmed they would revolt. As they are incapable of higher thought they are no better than plants(albeit more cuddly on average)

i think we should save some of the animals.

the others we'll save later.

WRONG WAY

>>6595096
I think it was Edmund Burke who said in defense of animal rights, that the issue here is not capacity to reason, but capacity to suffer.

>>6595195
smart guy.

>>6595195

Thought it was Bentham.

>>6595256
that would make more sense.

BEING AGAINST FACTORY FARMING AND BEING AGAINST THE CONSUMPTION OF MEAT ARE TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ARGUMENTS THAT SHOULDN'T BE CONFLATED

WHY THE FUCK DO PEOPLE KEEP MOVING THE GOALPOSTS AND MAKING CHEAP APPEALS TO EMOTION

>>6595013
Dolphins and cattle are more intelligent I've heard, plus they are mammals. Tuna are supposed to be pretty dumb and not mammals.

>>6594950
That's a disingenuous argument. If you were arguing from a utilitarian standpoint, it would be the dietary inconvenience of all meat eaters against the torment of the animals. To weigh one person's issue against such a large bulk of the industry is intellectually dishonest.

Factory farming is perfectly okay however, and man has the privilege to eat those creatures inferior to us.

>>6596651
Holy fuck you're annoying.

>>6596848

>>6595195
If they're put down quick, they don't suffer. Is it better if they die a couple thoughtless years later?

>>6596848

WITHERING REBUTTAL, CHAMP

TRULY DEVASTATING

>Many

stopped reading there. weasel words aren't an argument

>>6596651
is the meat you buy not from a factory farm?

>factory farming
>eating meat
The problem with your argument is that eating meat isn't necessarily eating meat from a factory farm.

>>6592520

Why is there this pervasive meme that those who eat meat do not know the animals suffer?

I know the animals suffer. I just don't think it is wrong for them to suffer. They were going to suffer anyway; look at nature. A cow could either be eaten alive by wolves when it grows too sick or old to stay with the herd, or it can be shot in the head with a cattle stunner and then butchered alive but (mostly) insensate. Either way there's a considerable degree of suffering, honestly.

The real question should be "what makes suffering bad?"

Nature has no qualms about suffering; it's not a natural imperative.

God (as creator of nature and humankind) should have no issues with suffering. Indeed, if you're Christian, suffering is never the sin in itself, though it is sometimes a means of glorifying Him.

There is nothing in my science or religion that says I have to prevent animal suffering when I can. If I do so in some cases, that is OK. If I do not in others, that is also OK.

>>6597991
You believe it is ethical to inflict unnecessary distress and suffering on a sentient being?

>>6598002
It's not unnecessary, it's needed so i can get meat at good prices.

>>6598009
What makes spending more for a commodity bad?

>>6598002
Different poster. Are the animals conscious of the suffering being inflicted upon them? Animals lack consciousness and could never acknowledge a state of suffering. We can project our ideas onto the animals but to the animals it is just life, neither good nor bad.

>>6598015
capitalism

>>6597991
>they were going to suffer anyway because there was the slight possibility of some event happening, even in countries where this would be impossible
>the only suffering an animal faces on a farm is when it is about to be painlessly killed

can't be bothered reading the rest

>>6598015
It costs more money. I like having money, because that means that I can buy thing that I like.

>>6598022
what a truly old world paradigm. animals are just as conscious as any average Chinese

>>6598002
This is a false choice, however. As I already pointed out, the suffering will happen anyway, whether I act or not. I am not "inflicting" suffering so much as I am being the bearer of suffering.

I am furthermore unconvinced that suffering is in and of itself actually a "bad" or "sinful" thing. Unpleasant does not equal evil, just as pleasant does not equal good, elsewise we'd not have this argument at all, since it is certainly very pleasant to eat meat.

>>6598034
you like animals suffering

>>6598029
I'm glad of it, I don't think you would have offered a cogent defense of your own position in any case.

Pic related; I'm suffering just to post in this thread, but I don't think it is bad for me to suffer.

“Try to exclude the possibility of suffering which the order of nature and the existence of free wills involve, and you find that you have excluded life itself."

- CS Lewis

>>6598048
what would i be defending against? you're going to throw more of your own logical inconsistencies at me until i go away? my position is that you contradict yourself in your argument and it's not worth engaging with your argument on any level other than 'lmfao sort your shit out m8'

>>6598075
You just don't understand the argument. For me to believe otherwise, I'd have to see some evidence of understanding, but currently all I see is you misunderstanding the argument.

You could avoid that pitfall by explaining to me where you think the logical inconsistencies are, and we could have a real conversation about it... or you could just continue shitposting, which I gather is what you created this thread for, and in which I am happy to oblige you (since I think it makes your position look foolish).

>>6598044
not really

I just don't lose any sleep over it

>>6598092
>misunderstanding the argument.

no, there's a blatant contradiction when you say animals -will- suffer in the wild because of a -possibility-. there's no misunderstanding; just your inability to present a logical argument

>explaining to me where you think the logical inconsistencies are

that's what the green text was.

and no i didn't create this thread

>>6592520
>Bertrand Russel


You can't be serious.

>>6598167
Ah, I see the problem now. You think that life in nature is bucolic and carefree; in other words, you are utterly disconnected from reality.

Literally to be an animal in the wild is to suffer. Evolution ensures this, because it is only ever going to make you "just good enough" to scrape by at the barest level of poverty and struggle, so that you can pass your genes on and then die - there is no intelligent hand guiding it further than that. In nature, almost no animal dies of old age (although even that is suffering as well) - the almost inescapable fact is that they will die horribly from predators, disease, parasite, starvation, exhaustion, or natural disaster.Furthermore, throughout almost their entire life, they will struggle daily against the incessant terrors of life.

Living in nature is like living in the most terrifying ghetto neighborhood you can imagine, except it's everywhere and there's no escape and your killers have been practicing on your family members for millions of years.

So the question is not even about whether or not animals will suffer most of their lives. They most certainly will, unless we intervene to help them. The question is whether it is WRONG that they suffer.

But then you wouldn't have known that because you stopped reading, since you allowed your emotions to get in the way of actually doing something intelligent.

>>6598212
He merely said you contradicted your own words.
This isnt difficult.

>>6598212
>You think that life in nature is bucolic and carefree; in other words, you are utterly disconnected from reality.

no, i'm saying an animal isn't guaranteed to suffer because of the possibility that they will be eaten by a wolf, which is what your post suggests. it's baffling that this is the third time i have mentioned this and you still don't get it

>>6598219
Jesus christ. If you're in the 10th grade, stay out of this discussion.

>>6598234
I'm saying the animal is guaranteed to suffer because of what life is like in the wild. Being eaten by a wolf is an example of a myriad of possibilities which add up to be much more of a certainty than even the certainty that a factory farmed cow will be mutilated by machine.

The suffering IS guaranteed. Moreover, the meat of my argument DOESN'T EVEN DEPEND ON WHETHER SUFFERING IS GUARANTEED, THAT WAS MERELY AN ASIDE.

If you're a troll, I have to hand it to you, you got me.

>>6598246
>If you're in the 10th grade, stay out of this discussion.
Why?

>>6598499
Because you are evidently having trouble keeping up.

>>6598541
I think it depends from the fact I didn't actually read your ramblings.
Nevertheless, that was his point.

>>6593357
>habibi
Shu khayeh

>>6592520
People are going to eat meat regardless of your view on eating meat. I for one eat meat and have never once looked back because we need meat to survive and I like the taste of it - simple.

>>6598555
>I think it depends from the fact that I didn't actually read your ramblings
>Depends from the fact
>from the fact

>>6593357
>if everyone ate less meat probably the space wouldn't be big enough to grow enough for everyone.
this is just wrong

>>6598022
Pigs actually have an intense feeling of fear when they know they're going to die....

>>6597933

Different person here, but I buy my meat from a small farm up the road that raises 4 steers a year. They diversify what they produce, not leaning too heavily on any one part. Last year they produced a few steers, 20 shoats, a few acres of turnips, and the rest of their income was from organic vegetables. I bought half of a steer and another two neighbors split the second half.

Is that ok with you?

>>6598255
I get it, If something is alive it is going to suffer. Life is pain. the difference from the wolf, disease, parasite, and the slow but sure process of starvation and exhaustion is that as a human I am aware of it. I can't remove suffering, but I can try to minimize the amount of suffering that I inflict on the world. It's basic utilitarianism at that point.