Veganism, animal rights & factory farming
Debates & Discussion Discord Channel
By el_make, April 26, 2016 in Debates & Discussion
Eutyphro 2,896
ϟ
I just felt like I needed to call out the "your moral ideas are wrong, because you are not consistently a moral saint, and therefore an insignificant hypocrite" argument, because I see that argument made all the time, and it is based on resent towards progressive ideas, and it is a pure fallacy. Mainstream media and right wingers use it all the time to marginalize and belittle anyone who doesn't ascribe to their ideology. It's an argument people tend to use to justify being an ethical egoist. How it assumes superiority of people who consistently don't give a sh*t about anyone or anything but themselves is what pisses me off most about it.
Not A Nice Person 4,314
Bad boy down
Went to a gathering about sustainable investing (among other things) the other day and the professor whom has spearheaded the research into the first lab grown hamburger was there and held a pretty compelling talk. There are very interesting developments, for one they managed to drive down the price significantly, if my memory serves me right 30 * the price of a normal hamburger, and are now looking to grow other meats in a lab environment as well. All with an eye to having it on the shelves of supermarkets *hopefully* within the next years. It was posed that it was just not realistic to deter let alone stop the vast majority of the developed world away from their meat eating habit, so we should instead should look towards science and technology for sustainable alternatives, that ideally would be as good as identical to the real thing, aside from the massive environmental impact. A stance I agree with. Suffices to say I want to taste such a burger now.
Interesting, I've actually seen it on the newspapers recently, and I believe a NYC market is *temporarily* selling it. As long as it has the nutrients regular meat has and not those side effects milk is supposed to have it's a wonderful development, which might revolutionize how we eat.
Kratos2000 62
I'm not trying to shut down anyone, and my analogy still holds. If you're going to be vegan for your own reasons and ideals, then more power to you. If you're going to be a vegan just to preach to non-vegans about how they are committing murder with every forkful of meat they put in their mouth, then I'll tell you to f*ck off and point the hypocrisy in you.
Your analogy doesn't hold. Meat industry and slavery aren't on the same scope, and if you think so then you're not quite in touch.
Slavery is forbidden basically everywhere we have influence in. Slavery is widely condemned while veganism is barely recognized, the meat industry has an insane grip on the media and when we're trying to make a point about veganism - we still get the goofy "get out of my plate" argument.
Would you ever expect to hear that argument when you're trying to convince someone about slavery?
Btw, a very nice statement to make, is that not all slaughterhouses work the same since nobody can visit "all the slaughterhouses" and prove you wrong, you're just throwing that in to add it up with your other points. I have personally been in several slaughterhouses, seen the moment when there is life and suddenly there is not. I've been through chicken coops (/egg farms). Not a single one operates well and not a single one can ever get moral, they are all about efficieny - and that, is simply unacceptable on its own.
You want to justify, you want to be part of nature's cycle? go hunt. Do not put livestock through this. You want to make an industry around slaughter and profits? No. If you think regulations truly make this right then you have no grip on reality whatsoever. Either this or I simply can't relate to you morally in any way, not even close.
And PS, nobody becomes vegan just to preach to non-vegans. I don't even feel the need to explain how shallow of a remark that is.
And don't put words in my mouth. I'm not saying "Well slavery happens everywhere, let's just ignore it." If that's what you understood, you clearly need to read my post again.
Uh, uh? let me redirect you to what I think you're trying to quote:
So hey, you know about the meat industry and you know about slavery, let's fix none. ~is basically what you're saying.
I said that on the context of when you've written the following:
"And then they pull out their iphone with materials sourced from slave mines, with components assembled in a factory where people sometimes jump out the window of because life is no longer living. Hypocrisy at its finest."
They approach you with veganism, and you make a diversion and point out slavery. First of all it has nothing to do, and at best what you're conveying is "I don't listen to you vegans because they like totally support slavery", which is false logic. It does not in any way affect their vegan argument, and at most you just come across as one who is apathetic to both slavery and veganism. < which is what I've said, and now elaborated.
And don't put words in my mouth. I'm not saying "Well slavery happens everywhere, let's just ignore it." If that's what you understood, you clearly need to read my post again. What I AM saying is that if you are a vegan based on ethical and moral concerns, and you condemn others for doing so on those basis alone, then you better take a good hard look at your glass ceilings before casting your stone. I don't go around judging people based on whatever choices they do. You wanna go fight for animal rights? Go for it. There's lots of mistreatment that happens and forms of production must be improved, and that is something I'm not blind to. Just like I try to make sure the clothes I buy weren't made in sweatshops in asia, and most of the vegetables I eat come from my wife's grandfather's farm. But I don't go preaching around to people who can't/won't do so.
Wait, if Jesus comes on to you and tells you the same thing (and this considering Jesus does not have an iPhone made by children slaves) as vegans do, you suddenly listen and go vegan?
Do you understand how irrelevant that is to the vegan message?, and btw I totally invite you to try and get more social attention on slavery, I will definitely be on your side. Be an activist - strive to make the slave children heard. I promise I won't discredit your message because you're not vegan.
But I will still call you out for giving hand to the meat industry,
and I will point out your attempt at diversion.
And I will remind you what happened to what you ate, becausing its just not right.
And if the day comes, and you'll say - "listen, I've seen it. heard it, hell I've even visited a slaughterhouse. I just don't care" and say it while you're being totally honest with yourself - I'll stop trying to convince you entirely - right now most people don't say that - they just evade the vegan points, they make strawmen arguments to counter the message or they don't hear it entirely.
Also, just so you are notified - because you decided you will not participate in activism, does not make anyone else obliged to do so as well. Moral veganism is not a "personal eating habit choice" as you've put it, just like slavery is not a "personal financial choice". If I stop eating meat, does the insanely immoral, cruel, systematic mass slaughtering stop? no. How exactly is that a personal choice you keep to yourself?
Edited May 18, 2016 by Kratos2000
el_make 369
Basically, if you want to be a vegan, then be a vegan. Eat what you think is right. Say you don't want to kill any animals or just simply want healthier living. That's all beautiful and fine. But don't bring in ethical and moral consumption into the fray, unless you practice that same theory on everything else you consume. You wanna be a vegan and tell me it's the moral and ethical thing to do? Well, if you want to enjoy that high horse, your clothes better have been made by you, your house better be built by you or volunteers, you better not use any other product that involves ethical and moral consumption whatsoever, or you'll just be a hypocritical asshole.
I'm constantly developing new ways to help out and drive my cause other than just spreading the word out. I'll continue on doing it because I feel that I got something to fight for. Calling people "hypocritical assholes" on a message board, when at least I'm doing activism on a subject of high importance, then what does that make you? Are you living by the very standards of the morals and ethics that you lectured us about? Because you better be if you're going to moralize anyone about such things.
And yes -- I will bring on the ethical and moral questions about the treatment of animals on the table in the future too. I believe in fair treatment of human beings on the side too (not blindly of course because there are many, many people out there with such twisted and corrupt morals and ethics that it's just sick), but it's really about choosing your battles. The animals don't have a voice, but they have, and deserve, every bit of right to be treated humanely, with respect, and taken care of. And by "taken care of" I meant mostly the domesticated ones, but also the injured wildlife.
If you want to talk about sweatshops and the various topics surrounding it, then please - make an independent topic for that if you must.
EDIT: the video for the "Earthlings" documentary seems to be being removed from youtube every now and then (the video on my opening post for this topic). will have to keep on finding new links if it's not available there.
Edited May 17, 2016 by el_make
"Covering pet stores, puppy mills, and animal profession, Earthlings includes footage obtained through the use of hidden cameras to chronicle the day-to-day practices of some of the largest industries in the world, all of which rely on animals. It draws parallels between racism, sexism, and speciesism."
Racism is born from notions of racial supremacy; sexism is born from notions of sexual supremacy; and "speciesism" is born from notions of special supremacy. But where as the first two are inherently wrong precisely because we are all human and possess no right to place our desires over any other human's, the last is a completely justifiable notion. We are by all accounts in a position of taxonomic supremacy to every other species on Earth.
Morality and ethics bid us never to be cruel to any living creature or subject, but to kill for food and resources is not even remotely equivocal to murder, and not intrinsically cruel. Not any more intrinsically cruel than for a lion to hunt antelope or for a whale shark to consume the whole ocean's worth of fish and mammal variety. While mills and farms and factories are by and large responsible for careless and arguably cruel practices, there are ethical alternatives.
Edited May 18, 2016 by Majesty Dreamworth
I was a Junk 102
Except we don't need animal products. That is the key difference.
'The West' was also in a position of scientific and technological superiority compared to many areas of the world when it started the international slave trade. Supremacy does not justify oppression.
There are many shared semantic properties between racism, sexism and speciesism. Colored people, women, and animals, in common narratives all tend to be seen as relatively more embodied, closer to nature, less rational etc.. than the white male. But how to interpret these common narratives, and how to judge them when they occur in real life, is a complex issue, but that racism, sexism, and speciecism have a common narrative is quite undeniable.
Edited May 18, 2016 by Eutyphro
This is a very anthropocentric world view right here, that I do not agree with at all. I think that speciesism is never justifiable. Seeing an (non human)animals rights to living and well being as only secondary thing to satisfying our own taste preferences. One cannot really defend the consumption of meat by appealing to it's nutritional values because we very well can get out protein (among other important things) from another source.
Another example of speciesism is causing unnecessary harm - which the meat industry very clearly does - to an (non human)animal. Being a speciesist is also present in our everyday lives -- by petting another animals such as cats and dogs, but somehow thinking that eating a pig, a cow or a chicken is okay. Of course there are many, many differences between us humans and other animals - and because of that the other animals can't, let's say vote - but it does not grant us the rights the exploit other animals (and the environment) with the "whatever the hell way we want to" approach.
but to kill for food and resources is not even remotely equivocal to murder, and not intrinsically cruel. Not any more intrinsically cruel than for a lion to hunt antelope or for a whale shark to consume the whole ocean's worth of fish and mammal variety. While mills and farms and factories are by and large responsible for careless and arguably cruel practices, there are ethical alternatives.
This is the only part of your quote worth addressing, since the rest was non-related talk about terminology.
Killing for food and resources is remotely equivocal to murder. It is. not exactly, but remotely.
It is of the same semantic field, which makes it remotely equivocal.
What you have in the meat industry is not even remotely close to nature's cycle of life.
Now, this is again - unrelated. Veganism is 99% about fighting the meat industry. Not making it change - making it disappear, and whether you'll eat meat afterwards or not is technically not the issue.
Your example about nature is unrelated, if you want to go and hunt a calf - oh please, go and do it if you think you are mentally capable of doing so. This is not the issue, if you would like to join nature's cycle for survival then go on.
The practices are not arguably cruel, they are cruel to all accounts. You cannot justify what's going on in chicken coops and slaughterhouses from a cruelty standpoint, these places are beyond repair,
I've personally been to chicken coops, been in slaughterhouses. If you can't make Nazi extermination camps ethical, then you can't make those ethical as well. They stand on the same principles of efficiency against life, the worthwhile difference being Slaughterhouses actually sell the products and make real profit of it.
The only ethical alternative is in-vitro meat btw, wonderful choice.
Abel. 5,853
If you can't make Nazi extermination camps ethical, then you can't make those ethical as well.
You're basically equating animals and humans in all of your arguments. Many decent people are not culturally inclined in this way and simply won't conform to that view. You're basically equating farmers and butchers to mass murderers, which is lightyears away from how they're viewed in the UK. Your argument is rather disturbing as it treds dangerously close to trivialising genocide.
They stand on the same principles of efficiency against life
They really don't. Genocide is based on warped ideas regarding race, heritage and the sanctity of life. The Nazi Holocaust had nothing to do with efficiency as it actually took resources away from its war machine. The massacares continued even when the war was all but lost--Himmler wanted to destroy the evidence but Eichmann intensified the genocide becuase of his ideological motivation. It was a macabre sideshow based on warped ideology and pathological hatred. The meat industry is about meeting a demand for a product and making money. One was industrialised murder, the other is private enterprise.
Now, the question of whether this industry is ethical is a fair one. There are definitely ethnical arguments to be made against the meat industry, but comparisons with genocides will just push people away from your arguments. I could live without meat (though certainly not as a vegan), and I don't go out of my way to be cruel to animals, but I'm never going to equate animals and humans. I know your heart's in the right place by caring about animal welfare, but you have to understand that certain classes of people have been regarded as animals/less than animals in the past (and this continues in some places) so the comparison is never going to be receieved well.
This is a very anthropocentric world view right here, that I do not agree with at all
Is it really that hard to understand that people are going to morally prioritise people over animals?
Puppy farms and pet shops which sell dogs are pretty awful. The dog-breeding industry is bad as a rule.
Edited May 19, 2016 by Failure
"Many decent people are not culturally inclined in this way",
you are so full of holes it's incredible.
These perceptions are crooked with no single credible argument for them. In fact, I don't even need to equate the two.
Livestock feels pain, livestock is intelligent enough to comprehend the fact that it's being slaughtered like it or not, it can comprehend the basic feelings of love and heartbreak.
You are necessarily putting living things through hell and it is irrelevant how you launder that term.
Slaughterhouses bear the worst forms of cruelty.
"You are equating farmers and butchers to mass murderers, which is lightyears away from how they're viewed in the UK",
And again, you speak as if this world behaves normally, normalization of industrial systematic mass slaughter is what's disturbing. That is what's dangerous.
The way it is viewed as somewhat normal and fine, is what the vegan movement strives to change.
Slavery was once trivial as well, and I know you'll be all puffed up since I'm equating humans and animals again. This reaction of yours, this completely surprised "are you comparing systematic cruel slaughter of animals with systematic cruel slaughter of humans?!" is what's disturbing, not my analogy.
"Your argument is rather disturbing as it treds dangerously close to trivialising genocide."
You've already trivialised genocide, the moment you've seen what's going on in a slaughter house and rushed here to defend that. The moment you can know what's going on and continue biting through your roast beef. They systematic slaughter of animals for profit is something that seems trivial to you, that's why you're so worked up in your reply. That trivialization is not moral, and I can happily elaborate on meat-industry atrocities if you want.
"The Nazi Holocaust had nothing to do with efficiency" -
at Treblinka extermination camp about 10,000–12,000 people could be incinerated at a time, they put as many people in a cell as they could fit, to kill the most jews in the most efficient way. Concentration camps were at the center of railroad conjunctions so that you could bring as many jews as easy as possible.
That's what I mean by efficiency. The slaughterhouses make profit, the chicken coops make profit. The more chickens you squeeze in the least space, the more profit you make.
If you want to argue on that I suggest you first visit one of these. Slaughterhouses and chicken coops are as industrialized as you can have.
You can never forget the sight of little newborn chicks sliding at masses down into a crushing machine. before you say any more about efficiency I'd like it if you at least had a clue.
To conclude, the fact that the mass slaughter of animals is trivial, is horrendously disturbing. Veganism is the movement against it. This fear of equating humans and animals needs to end, it's the same sort of misery. The "I'll never say something that compares humans and animals" as if that's some moral obligation your have to do, it is not.
I didn't defend slaughter houses. Indeed, I mentioned that arguments against the meat industry are valid. I'm just not going to equate the meat industry with the arbitrary mass murder of human beings. I'm not alone in this assessment.
to kill the most jews in the most efficient way.
You didn't make clear what you meant by efficiency. The death camps were a form of industrialised murder, of course they were efficient. The actual genocide was certainly not "efficient" in the sense that it detracted hugely from the Nazi war effort. You risk making out as though there was some objective purpose to the event, but there was none. The meat industry obviously aims for maximum efficiency because it is a business.
To conclude, the idea that the mass slaughter of animals is trivial, is horrendous and disturbing.
Where did I say it was anything against this? I'm just not about to trivialise the Holocaust by comparing the arbitrary, industrialised murder of millions of people with the slaughter of animals for meat.
The more chicken in the least space, the more profit you have.
Again, I didn't say they weren't, I'm just not going to put it in the same category as a genocide. I don't eat a lot of meat, I'm not cruel to animals, but that doesn't mean I'm going to value an animal's life as much as a human's. Thus, I resent comparisons between the meat industry and the Holocaust.
You should be alone in that assessment. essentially, it's what we're trying to change.
Now, about trivialising mass slaughter of animals - you did trivialise it through and through and I'll explain how:
We can both agree that the holocaust is non-trivial.
Yet you claim, that by comparing it to the ongoing mass slaughter of animals, I'm somehow trivialising the holocaust.
If both things were non-trivial to you then you would have not complained about how this comparison is trivialising either of them.
Since holocaust is not trivial for you, the other one - certainly is.
If not, you wouldn't have been so asphyxiated by this comparison.
You're not cruel to animals, but in the slaughterhouses and in the chicken coops, in the trucks and ships - they are. whoever does the deed.
And you know? let's actually compare the holocaust to meat industry. What's obviously bugging you with it is that animals are somewhat "sub-everything", inferior.
In a comparison we weigh the data. How about you weigh that inferiority in contrast to the scope of the meat industry's body count?
The nazis infamously killed about 6 million jews, and if we're to add all others (excuse me for this phrasing) we're at a body count of 12 million. That makes for the most widely recognized genocide in the history of mankind, the one most people are first to associate with word.
The meat industry makes for an ongoing body count of 150 billion animals per year, 9.2 billion in the USA alone, per year. per year.
The holocaust is barely a drip by the numerology, is this comparison offensive to you?
They both suffered, both are man made atrocities. Taking offense by this comparison is dumb, neither of the two invalidates the other and that is something you must understand.
The whole talk about how you can't compare humans with animals is ridiculous and serves no point, it is a disgusting yet masterful attempt at evading the subject.
sivispacem 19,945
Trångsynt Och Tragisk
Sorry but trying to draw statistical comparisons between the holocaust and the meat industry borders on the absurd. It's nothing more than a tactless appeal to emotion.
Your entire argument seems to revolve around the premise that human and animal life are demonstrably and inexorably equal, which is a state of affairs that exists largely in your own head and is therefore not a view held by the vast majority of individuals. You also seem to confuse an attack on your appeals to emotion with a defence of the practice rife within the meat industry, when the two are actually completely different things. This makes responding to your comments challenging, largely because they seem to have little to do with the posts you're replying to.
These aren't even in the same plane of existence to me. I've got nothing against, say, a lamb or a baby chick, but if you think I'm going to morally equate even billions of them with the millions of children killed in the Holocaust, you're sorely mistaken.
You are trvialising genocide. You're boiling it down to numbers and ignoring:
1.The myriad after-effects suffered by survivors;
2.The destruction of Ashkenazi and Roma culture which had existed for thousands in Europe, the former never recovering on the continent;
3.The impact on families.
I have a friend whose grandmother suffered nightmares for decades and couldn't talk about her experiences during the Holocaust, during which all but one of her family members were murdered.
I quite like vegetarian food and don't eat a lot of meat, but your argument just makes me want to go out and get a burger out of spite.
I find comparing vegan-ism to something like genocide is bad for the movement in general since in its probably going to result "what the hell" looks. The Holocaust was committed for completely different reasons anyway (hatred towards a certain group of people) while the mass slaughter right now is for food. I doubt anyone here possesses an inherent hatred towards animals lol.
It is still f*cked up what we do these animals but comparing it to the holocaust is probably going to get you laughed off and thus give people the idea that veganism is insane.
I'm not sorely mistaken, you are repeating the same old mantra you have no credible basis for. You not "equating" humans to animals is just an excuse for closing your eyes. I'm not boiling anything to numbers, I present the numbers but am fully aware there's a whole world behind every digit. every digit.
The issue is that you view each digit of the holocaust numerology as a whole world, yet fail to realize the same is true for the death toll of the meat industry. That's why you think I'm trivialising it, when I'm in fact comparing two untrivial subjects.
I am not trivialising genocide, I am comparing it with something horrendous of the first degree.
That is the simple truth you're ignoring, while returning to the same stupid remark - "I'm not equating humans and animals" - so bluntly unaware, again claiming I trivialise genocide. I am not.
I compare two subjects of the highest degrees of immorality, cruelty and inhumanity. I'm not trivialising either one because neither is trivial.
What you're saying is ridiculously infuriating, your whole arguments consist of "the holocaust that, the humans this" - and literally zero about the other side of the scales, you can't even recognize it in your speech.
Don't tell me about your friend's grandmother, I am a jew myself - my whole family went through the holocaust. Some of them are very proud vegans.
Show me one holocaust survivor that is aware of the littlest of details of the systematic mass slaughtering of animals by the meat industry, who is a proud meat consumer after that. half of them would collapse upon entering a slaughter house, neither of them would be capable of watching the piles of bodies after a mass elecrificiation in a chicken coop.
https://www.facebook.com/glass.walls.israel/videos/582019878623671/
Go eat a hamburger out of spite, it just demonstrates how little all of that means to you, and how detached you actually are - but hey, once you close this thread it all goes away doesn't it?
I would in fact love to hear you debate this with a vegan holocaust survivor.
It is considered tactless, yet should not be - it is sad that saying so is considered tactless. And I beg to differ - it bears a lot more insight into the sad loop holes of the majority of individual minds. Human and animal life are not equal, I have not said it and I do not believe that. It is irrelevant to the discussion since the relevant measurement is not species but rather suffering.
Views are changing sivispacem, the view of the majority of individuals is what should hopefully shift.
The attacks on my holocaust comparison are driven by emotion as well, it is an emotional discussion as much as it is a logical one. But more so - it opened a discussion frame and a worthwhile chance for me to touch this frowned-upon subject. There is barely any difference between saying I trivialize genocide and belittling the (I invite you to find a word for) ongoing systematic slaughter of animals within the meat industry. That is what I addressed in the previous post and I did so by replying sentence by sentence. And while I respect your insight, it is certainly not about fighting the defense of meat-industry-practices, it's about fighting the core viewpoint that the animal slaughter is insignificant because the lives at stake are of animals.
I invite you to join the debate.
your morals are just crooked.
Thus kind of argument is not going to get you far on D&D. Instead of just repeating yourself as nauseum in apparent ignorance of all the posts made responding to you, why don't you endeavour to construct a coherent argument?
Show me one holocaust survivor
Now you're just being silly. Simple statistics dictates there are a huge number of non-vegan holocaust survivors who have infinite knowledge of the meat trade and yet still choose to condune it. I think the burden of proof here lies on you to demonstrate that holocaust survivors with a knowledge of the meat industry are universally vegan.
I'd love to hear you explain to a meat-eating holocaust survivor how their decision to do so is as morally reprehensible as the Final Solution.
You got me by two minutes. I was making a final edit to the post after I saw your first reply, in which I changed the phrasing of the "crooked morals" part. As I said, it is an emotional discussion.
Do simple statistics really compare knowledge of meat industry horrors to thoughts of meat consumption? would you like to link them up then? Either way your point is essentially based on a strawman argument.
You are replying to this:
"Show me one holocaust survivor that is aware of the littlest of details of the systematic mass slaughtering of animals by the meat industry, who is a proud meat consumer after that"
with this:
"Huge number of non-vegan holocaust survivors who have infinite knowledge of the meat trade and yet still choose to condune it"
Are you aware the two quotes do not answer each other? "choose to condone it" is nice phrasing, actually the majority of vegans do the same, it lies within the definition of the word "condone" which means to accept and allow. I am still begging you to show me a holocaust survivor with such knowledge, who taps that meat proudly knowing what goes on there.
And obviously there have been and would be exceptions, nothing is universal. Are you ever past draggin us all into debating terminology?
I've replied to you in that said edit, btw.
The burden of proof is on you to provide these examples.
For some reason I'll indulge you. Shlomo Goren (former Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi of Israel) became a strict vegetarian after visiting a meat processing factory in Canada. There's also a strong vegetarian movement in the Jewish world, with veganism on the rise in Israel. For reasons of health this is great, and there's obviously a valid moral argument to be made against the meat industry.
However, what you are saying is that anyone who eats meat today is morally corrupt by default. Do you understand how that worldview is going to alienate people? Wouldn't it be better to demonstrate, constructively, that a vegan diet can be just as healthy and enjoyable as any other? Environmental issues and animal rights are real concerns, but the proponents are so insufferable I'm actively driven away.
Just because there's a moral argument to be made against the meat industry doesn't, in any way, put it in the same universe as any genocide. If you argued in this way with descendants of Armenian survivors of their genocide, or Holocaust survivors, you would be met with revulsion. People will take offence when you equate the destruction of millions of people with the meat industry because people tend to prioritise people over animals. Every life lost in the Shoah was a world destroyed given what every victim might've gone on to contribute to human society. Lives lost in the meat industry are the lives of animals bred specifically for meat. Is that wrong? There's definitely a case to be made for it being so, but it's not in any way comparable to the Holocaust.
The attacks on my holocaust comparison are driven by emotion as well, it is an emotional discussion as much as it is a logical one. But more so - it opened a discussion frame and a worthwhile chance for me to touch this frowned-upon subject. There is barely any difference between saying I trivialize genocide and belittling the (I invite you to find a word for) ongoing systematic slaughter of animals within the meat industry.
The "subject" of equating genocide of humans with the meat industry is frowned-upon because the vast majority of people prioritise humans over animals. You're the one with the fringe view.
The attacks on my holocaust comparison are driven by emotion as well, it is an emotional discussion as much as it is a logical one.
Not really. Anne Frank showed promise as a writer and clearly had more to offer the world, whereas a chicken, logically, offers nothing to humanity other than food. I also empathise more with her suffering than that of an animal because, funnily enough, we're of the same species. I prioritise humanity just as animals prioritise their own kind. I am right from both a logical and emotional point of view, but that's only because the premise that genocide and the meat industry are comparable is a ridiculous one.
Arguing about the morality of the meat industry, of eating meat and of our dominion over the natural world could very well be a constructive discussion, but that's not what we're doing. It's a shame because this sort of discussion is one society needs to have with itself. There are some great vegetarian options available at supermarkets, often cheaper than meat alternatives and easier to prepare, which should be talked about. Indeed, my intake of meat has reduced as I've found cheaper, high-protein veg options which still taste decent. People like you have, if anything, pushed me away from pursuing veganism because I now associate it with worshiping the Earth.
An addendum, you fail to understand that the Holocaust was not arbitrary. It was purposefully orchestrated at the behest of warped men in power following a, deluded, but very real and persuasive, ideology. If people bristle when you make Holocaust comparisons it's because it wasn't some random event, it was perpetrated with the tacit approval of an entire society of people. By maintaining an air of seriousness regarding the Holocaust it remains in public memory as a lesson to Western society, not just a historical event.
"However, what you are saying is that anyone who eats meat today is morally corrupt by default. Do you understand how that worldview is going to alienate people?"
That's a blunt misunderstanding of what I say, one has to start wondering if you're reading my points at all.
One might be unaware of the atrocities committed for the consumption of meat - this is not corruption.
Next group is those who know yet close their eyes - those who are aware there is a horror industry of great scope but ignore it for the well being of their already established eating habits or whatever other reasons. They are the ones who show dissonance between what they do and what they believe - those who can agree that these acts are not acceptable, but eat meat because they still didn't fully comprehend how horrific the meat industry is - they are the group on which moral activism is focused since they can be reached by moral arguments. This is the group I'm arguing with all the time.
Afterwards there's those who can be persuaded into veganism by arguments of health etc. I don't take part in health related arguments because they are not what made me become a vegan.
And at last we have those who know and don't mind - which is self explanatory, I have nothing to offer them.
Some vegans indeed debate veganism without challenging anyone else's worldview. In my opinion, some worldviews are the root of the problem, I don't believe you can disassemble the meat industry without challenging some of those views. There is the soft approach and there are other approaches.
"Wouldn't it be better to demonstrate, constructively, that a vegan diet can be just as healthy and enjoyable as any other?"
Again, different vegans believe in different things. I don't care about the health-pros of veganism, I became a vegan because there's this enormous powerful industry that's causing great harm and suffering. That's all. I believe you shouldn't see veganism as a diet choice because it is so far beyond that.
"doesn't, in any way, put it in the same universe as any genocide......... ..................Lives lost in the meat industry are the lives of animals bred specifically for meat. Is that wrong? There's definitely a case to be made for it being so, but it's not in any way comparable to the Holocaust."
I have to point out how everything from your wording to the way you address the issue is nothing besides bluntly belittling.
"There's a case to be made for it being so", there's not "a valid argument to be made against the meat industry",
there's one hell of such an argument. Get the concept of it being a 'mild issue' out of your mind, it is super serious and since you shut down everytime I compare it with genocide then I've literally run out of things to compare it with, there's no other comparable thing in the world.
Look, we don't even need the holocaust comparison as much as I'd personally agree with it. We simply don't need it, veganism holds true all the same without it.
But how can one convey the level of cruelty to you? You will never understand unless it is linked to humans. Your trouble digesting that comparison is the first step of comprehending
the crazy injustice of the meat industry, without this comprehension you'll think of animals like pieces of meat as you have before.
"Anne Frank showed promise as a writer and clearly had more to offer the world, whereas a chicken, logically, offers nothing to humanity other than food."
A chicken does not conclude its existence by offering itself to humanity, life is significant on its own; but even that is largely irrelevent. Whatever (disturbing) take on their life value you have, they suffer all the same. The meat industry puts living things that are capable of mentally understanding what is going on through inconcievable suffering.
"I am right from both a logical and emotional point of view, but that's only because the premise that genocide and the meat industry are comparable is a ridiculous one."
Different premises make different conclusions. Holocaust and the meat industry is an inevitable comparison, and mind you - comparisons are not soley for things that are equal.
Industrialized murder is all the same, humans or animals. When you strip the living beings out of their rights and forget their mental capacities and trade them like pieces of meat - you disattach them from their significance and you become blind from then on.
"Holocaust was not arbitrary. It was purposefully orchestrated at the behest of warped men in power following a, deluded, but very real and persuasive, ideology. If people bristle when you make Holocaust comparisons it's because it wasn't some random event, it was perpetrated with the tacit approval of an entire society of people. By maintaining an air of seriousness regarding the Holocaust it remains in public memory as a lesson to Western society, not just a historical event."
Neither is the meat industry a random event, it's an ongoing reality and is being legitimized by the stripping of life-value and rights of animals and the muting of their suffering. The meat industry can serve a lesson to society as well.
"People like you have, if anything, pushed me away from pursuing veganism because I now associate it with worshiping the Earth."
And again you come back to the argument of doing things to spite me, as if you truely believe this is about the dialogue between you and me.
It is not, Confusing this with the worship of the Earth is ridiculous, I do nothing more than underline the moral implications of consuming industrialized meat before anything else.
If you do not agree with the comparison, reject it. A mere comparison is utterly irrelevant to the realities of the meat industry, it's words written on a forum in contrast to real, hurting suffering.
My comparison is null, I am null - industrialized suffering is the real issue.
You're misunderstanding me. I suggested a way you might actually encourage people to consider a vegetarian lifestyle, because your current methods are not persuasive and serve only to tarnish the vegan movement. People are inherently wary of extremism, and when you start comparing the suffering of chickens to genocide, you will be considered extreme.
You framed the Holocaust only in terms of loss of life, ignoring nuance like political motivations and after-effects, which nullify your comparison.
You're either equating animals and humans or putting animals above humans.
it's words written on a forum in contrast to real, hurting suffering.
You actually compared the meat industry to the Holocaust. I'm not a sensitive person so I don't care what you say, but you have to realise how badly that's going to be received by virtually everyone, and that yours is the fringe view. You posted, I responded.
I logically deconstructed your comparison. If it came off as cold that's because I was addressing it from a logical point of view, which you sort of asked for by calling me emotional. Nowhere did I suggest that animals don't suffer in the process of being slaughtered for meat. Surely you can see how the following things aren't the same:
*Budding writer being starved to death, seeing her people murdered and dying of typhus at the behest of one of the ugliest political regimes in history;
*Chickens being killed, albeit painfully, to produce food for humans.
My point was that Anne Frank would have gone on to enrich humanity had she lived, but a chicken set free into the wild will add nothing to humanity. Does that mean it's right for the chicken to be slaughtered for meat? That's a moral debate we can actually have.
A chicken does not conclude its existence by offering itself to humanity, life is significant on its own; but even that is largely irrelevent.
Life is sacred, sure, but the life of an innocent human is worth a lot, lot more than that of a chicken. I honestly have no idea how you could argue otherwise. Again, that doesn't mean I think that the meat industry is moral, just that comparisons between it and genocide are ludicrous and insulting to those who were killed, the survivors and their descendants. The meat industry could well be seen as barbaric, but that doesn't put it in the same plane of existence as the Holocaust or the Armenian genocide.
Are you even aware that I've tried to concede a few points to you and offered you avenues of discourse to pursue? Is it just more fun to berate people instead?
No, I got exactly that and replied to exactly that, you suggest I change my approach but it's simply not going to happen for a number of reasons,
I believe the soft approach is ineffective waste of time that does not make real progress:
a) Truth-in-the-face eventually sinks in. You might feel anti towards the messenger but you'll eventually get over that since the messege is much more powerful.
b) I simply can't relate to that method, I don't care about health-related benefits and can't relate to them and so I can't advocate it.
c) I don't want to trick you into veganism by searching what you'd appeal to more, it's not the point. I believe the right reasons stem from empathy, not health concerns.
Do you remember the Israeli veganism trend you mentioned earlier? do you know what made the breakthrough?
Tal Gilboa is a female vegan activist who participated and won the Big Brother (a hit series over there), a series with 44% ratings. What made the breakthrough was the combination of incredibly blunt vegan activism and some of the best vegan dialogue I've seen in years in prime time TV. There was never an intention to be apologetic.
I can pat on the shoulder and lure you into veganism with healthy lifestyles while you're deep in your comfort zone taking decisions lightly.
But why can't suffering and cruelty stand for itself? One would expect that when decent people notice extreme injustice they would feel obligated to get away from it, perhaps even stop it. One would expect people to reveal empathy towards the innocent. I would certainly not pat you on the back and ask you "can you please stop supporting the cruel slaughtering and treatment of billions of animals worldwide?"
I would expect you to make the decision yourself. I can provide the information, but I'm largely relying on one's conscience.
I'm equating animals and humans, in your shoes it's an "oh noes!" but not over here.
And can we quit the masterful argument twisting? It is so easy to go back a few and quote me in the exact opposite of what you're trying to paint here.
I'm not boiling anything to numbers, I present the numbers but am fully aware there's a whole world behind every digit. every digit.
The thing you miss again and again is the actual animal suffering, the animals in the industry are not numbers in the same way people are not.
Their suffering boils down to the same elements, trauma and awareness, physical pain and mental capacities are all qualities present in livestock. We're not talking about just the moment they die and how, it's the beforehands that makes the suffering; and it is the whole picture that makes it immoral from a humane standpoint (which is a point on its own)
I logically deconstructed your comparison.
You presented a disturbing view that a living thing's worth is determined by its contribution to humanity.
Is this premise what you consider logical? mind you, (and I'm not suggesting anything about you with the following just so we get this clear..) this evaluation of life was part of the nazi excuse for the execution of the crippled (the physically and mentally crippled were viewed among other things as "useless" to society, and thus unworthy of life), this premise is ridiculous.
Evaluation of life is a philosophical issue, you want to dwell on that?
*Chickens being killed, painfully, to produce food for humans.
Lovely comparison!
And you knew exactly where you wanted to elaborate and where to cut words short. Where to provide a goal and where not.
Anne Frank's memorial is just as dear to me as it is to you, but how about we try this:
*Budding writer being starved to death seeing her people murdered and dying of Typhus at the behest of one of the ugliest political regimes in history;
*51.4 billion chickens are artificially hatched, fattened up and slaughtered as 42-day-old babies every year globally, are confined from birth to slaughter, squeezed within battery cages with injured, dead, sickly and deformed chickens, every hatching chicken will be electrified to death at the age of 2 at most and thrown into a pile of dead chickens, hatched chicks will be disposed of in masses by being fed into a high-speed grinding machine, all done as efficiently as possible to maximize profits, for the unnecessary luxury of meat consumption.
As I've previously pointed out that argument is ridiculous, it makes no dillemma and stands on a very shady premise, it tries to justify very slippery-slope concepts about life evaluation I am pretty sure you don't entirely stand behind (unless you are, I don't know).
We can let go of that 'point' and focus on the question - If you are hunting for your own food in a condition where you absolutely have to slaughter the chicken, do it.
If you're buying a meat product that isn't in-vitro meat*, don't. It's fairly simple. While 'immoral food' is a cliche - it's true.
*In vitro meat: lab-grown meat, suffer-free, the only right alternative.
Life is sacred, sure, but the life of an innocent human is worth a lot, lot more than that of a chicken. I honestly have no idea how you could argue otherwise. Again, that doesn't mean I think that the meat industry is moral, just that comparisons between it and genocide are ludicrous and insulting to those who were killed, the survivors and their descendants.
The life of an innocent human is not contested with that of a chicken, mind you - meat is not mandatory diet. Who's posts are you reading? I don't say the life of chicken is more sacred, in fact I've said the opposite, here:
"Human and animal life are not equal, I have not said it and I do not believe that." ~search it in the topic I can't quote more.
The meat industry could well be seen as barbaric
It is, dear sweet jesus on a bike, we're like back to square one, it simply is. I want to ask you a question, how is it not?
I'm reading your replies, mind you. I've seen, all I do is to reply to your points.
My intention currently is largely to convince you that dialogue and tone, messengers, etc, all are secondary to the realities.
When you eat a burger to spite me, you basically ignore the larger picture. It does not spite me, all it does is indirectly harm the animals who've done you no wrong.
I'm trying to clarify to your that the dialogue between you and me should be independent of the dialogue between you and the issue itself.
Sorry but any argument from moral objectivism is going to fall flat on its face. Veganism as a movement doesn't possess the moral authority to decide whether or not society should see the consumption of meat as ethical or unethical. That's the joy of moral subjectivism- you can argue until you're blue in the face about something being morally or ethically wrong but that doesn't actually mean it is. What you actually mean is that you personally think it's wrong.
The current objective is not turning moral beliefs of X into Y, it was never ever about that.
I'll quote what I said previously on the targets of vegansim:
One might be those unaware of the atrocities committed for the consumption of meat - this is not corruption.
Bulletpoint #4 is the only group whose moral beliefs you need to turn around for a moral vegan message to sink in, and as in the quote - there's no point in arguing with them and that's totally obvious.
But from personal and overheard experience I found that there's a huge amount of people who posses similar moral beliefs, who simply are not enough aware of what's the practice in the meat industry.
It's very safe to say that the ordinary individual would find actual 1st hand experience of factory farms and slaughterhouses completely appaling and immoral to an extent.
In the most simple form, this causes dissonance. Too many people would not dare to participate there directly, they largely can not even see their final products as what they previously were, yet they consume them.
This is what moral veganism intends to linger on, and it works, believe it or not.
Do you have first experience of the meat industry? As in, actual direct, proper first hand experience rather than repeating things you've seen on handicam videos. I don't claim to have intimate knowledge, but I have visited abbetoirs before and seen the process.
You're missing two kinds of people from your rather arbitrary groups:
5) The large numbers of people who are aware of the suffering in much of the meat industry but simply don't care, or more accurately don't care enough to stop consuming it. I'd say this is distinguished from not minding, as most people do mind, just not enough to stop.
6) Those of us who are acutely aware of the suffering in much of the meat industry, but who believe that animal consumption done in such a way as to minimise suffering is morally acceptable.
Continuing to make lowest common denominator arguments about battery farming and crating sort of misses the point. I don't think you'll find much support for these barbaric practice's amongst consumers, and they don't constitute an argument that meat consumption is unequivocally immoral.
I've done some vegan activism over the years, been inside a slaughterhouse and several poultry farm factories - last one last year. Belittling the significance of documentation doesn't help your neither point nor your credibility by the way.
Deeming them "arbitrary" demonstartes just how little attention you pay to whatever you're replying to, your fifth is my second and your sixth is either my fourth or my second as well.
Suffering being minimized is simply untrue, the worthless 'moral measurements' they take are absurd and border on fat nothing, if you've actually seen the process like you claim you did and not on a cartoon - you would've at least known that.
I'm glad you're inventing the group of people who think the current situation is 'moral enough', if you can find such people - they are either severely unaware or lie in group number 4.
Slaughterhouses are being closed left and right because even the ridiculous limitations posed by law aren't being enforced in so many places, making them an absolute joke.
It's industry. You are deluding yourself at best if you think they operate on anything else than profit.
And then again, you're barely paying attention to what's been said here - the consumption of meat is not immoral, the industry is.
I beg your pardon, but these arguments testimonies are enough to make a lot more than mere valid point and mind you there's a great audience of people being vegan today thanks to it, it can not miss the point because it is the whole message.
Belittling the significance of documentation doesn't help your neither point nor your credibility by the way.
As I've already pointed out, most documentaries or media projects on the subject suffer badly from confirmation bias. They're produced by people who already have preconceived moral views on the industry and who go out of their way to find evidence to fit those theories. By virtue of this complete lack of impartiality, it's difficult to make a coherent argument for them being properly representative of the industry.
Deeming them "arbitrary" demonstartes just how little attention you pay
They are arbitrary by the very definition of the word. They're clearly handy categories you've created to try and pigeon-hole people of different views, but they completely lack nuance.
your fifth is my second and your sixth is either my fourth or my second as well.
No, they really aren't. Your second category is people who have some knowledge, but apparently not enough to reach the same concluduon as you. Notwithstanding the fact your assumption that it's some greater intrinsic knowledge which leads to your veganism, which is self gratifyingly delusional, farcical and kinda hilarious.
Suffering being minimized is simply untrue
In your opinion. You have a real tendency towards confusing opinions with facts.
if you've actually seen the process like you claim
"Anyone who has seen the slaughter process must reach the same opinion as me on it, regardless of how it was enacted. Anyone who says otherwise is lying."
Do you hear how utterly delusional you sound? It's like one grandiose, self stimulating no true Scotsman fallacy.
I'm glad you're inventing the group of people who think the current situation is 'moral enough'
Perhaps you just want to believe that group don't exist because you can't bear the thought of people having different ethical views to your own? That's far more likely I would say.
It's pretty interesting to see the lens which you view others through. Your illusory moral superiority is pretty funny; discussing with you is like talking to a living manifestation of cognitive bias.
Uncle Sikee Atric 11,031
Everyone's favorite Uncle, but not Green Badge.
The regulations and hoops abbatoirs in the UK have to jump through, both with UK and EU laws, mean it is impossible to make animals suffer without breaking various welfare laws and licences.
While I appreciate the works animal rights groups do in exposing poor and dubious practises and operators, I do think that those who preach that work do not give credit to the great standards of every other operator and instead smear them all as bad.
I am firmly in the Sivis 6 group. I am a consumer of meat in a balanced diet, but I care that the animal involved was given the respect and treatment it deserved when it reached the abbatoir.
Clem Fandango 5,012
This is Clem Fandango, can you hear me?
Do you also buy from a specialty butcher in rural England, from an abattoir that you've visited personally? Like I'm pretty sure he buys game pheasant and sh*t from a guy with a shotgun and a hound dog, wearing knee high wellington boots.
I'm pretty confident you just shove sh*t in your trolley at Tescos, at best you look for 'free range' eggs or something. While I don't know if factory farming is technically illegal, I know it's the norm rather than the exception. You seem to think it's performed by dodgy crooks who eventually get prosecuted, so I take your claim about being an informed and active consumer with a grain of salt.