677
190

Animals

2y 10mon ago by lemmy.world/u/lawrence in comicstrips

Why would a cat of all animals be confused about which ones to eat? They are obligate carnivores.

Yeah, they totally get it. We’d eat them if we were hungry enough, same as they’d eat us. This doesn’t conflict with our feelings of love and companionship. We’re all animals here

We'd eat them if we were hungry enough

They'd eat us if we were small enough.

And the house cat has such a strong prey drive they'd likely do it for fun. I suspect when Mr. Rorschach bites on my hand he's testing the flavor.

There has been cases in the past of cats eating their owners after the owner died and nobody fed them. They do what they need to survive and I would not begrudge any animal for that. Sure it may be horrendous to see, but I'm dead so what do I care.

Do also note that dogs have been known to do the same. Cats have a lower threshold for that and are more likely to do it in general, but they do tend to wait until they're literally starving before eating a friend.

Another fun fact about cats is that they are more likely to go feral because they have not been domesticated as long as dogs. Dogs and cats basically domesticated themselves to get food, but cats only began domestication 12k years ago which is not long considering the history of humans.

Housecats and chickens both solidly occupy the same slot in my mind:

Things I would be terrified of if they were my size but love cuz they smol.

I sure would eat my cat if I am hungry enough, but I am never hungry enough so I don't eat my cat nor any other animal. There are plenty of other things to eat that don't involve killing animals.

We need to test this, can you not eat anything for 3 days?

Test away :) To answer: yes. I've once done a 5 day fast. Your point?

but they don't taste as good as bbq

There have been cases where cats have started to eat their deceased owners and several places around the world where cats are eaten.

People are up in arms about people eating cats... Which seems kinda ironic.

To paraphrase the Coen Brothers:

It is a fool that looks for logic in the comics of the preachy vegans

How do you get "go vegan" out of this?!

It lines up exactly with other vegan talking points like that "Where do you draw the line" billboard so pretty good chance that's what they're going for.

Pretty much only vegans make that kinda of complaint, of "hypocrisy" by only eating "some" animals

Wow you seem to posses very low comprehensive faculties.

They literally kill for no other reason than amusement.

https://theoatmeal.com/comics/cats_actually_kill

Cats are prey to some larger animals, and considering that many humans have portable machines that can instantly kill almost any living mammal, their concern about our diet is probably valid

Cats are pretty famous for "not giving a fuck", just in general. Also, beyond being obligate carnivores, cats will hunt and kill out of instinct... Not even hunger or necessity.

Like, a pet mouse or something? Gerbil? Actually a guinea pig would be a great choice for the comic since they ARE food in some cultures.

as a cat owner, I can promise you that cats wouldn't be the confused ones

I mean, cats would certainly eat us, given the opportunity.

Yes, and they also affectionate and care about their group in some weird way. I wish people would learn from cats!

Doesn't seem too arbitrary at all.

Eh, horse meat isn't that bad

Neither is rabbit.

Rabbit is actually really testy when prepared well.

Rabbit is more food than horse because you can't ride a rabbit.

Rabbit should be right of horse. Goat and sheep the most right; there is no culture nor religion that bans their consumption. They are that important to human survival.

Yeah, horses are definitely pets and not food in most of the modern world. Rabbits are hard to place. They just don't come up very often anymore as either food or pets.

And some cultures eat dog, and others worship cows.

Why is your culture correct?

Sure, so what's the excuse for 2023?

Because I live in it.

Who said anything about being correct? That's just where his culture draws that line.

...so it's arbitrary

No, there's usually cultural and/or historic reasons for why the line is drawn where it is

And that makes it not arbitrary...how?

And we don't live in those times anymore. Why should we do what a culture tells us to do? Just because it's culture and/or tradition? That's a pretty dark path to traverse.

You know, you are right. I may start eating dog just right now. Thank you

Honestly, I really don't consider eating dog to be any worse than eating pig. The only reason we usually do is because we are culturally attached to dogs.

I know you are trying to get a reaction out of me. But I don't consider that to be more immoral than eating other animals. After all, pigs and cows are roughly as intelligent as dogs, with similar capacities for suffering. At least you would be consistent.

I don't want to get a reaction

Well I'm glad you've given up on making bad faith arguments and realized you don't have any good ones. At least everyone who reads this can see how foolish you look.

First, i was just kidding, but on a serious note, Im sorry if this offends you in anyway, but i eat animals and i dont feel any remorse about it. I dont have any excuses cause i dont believe its a bad thing.

Eating animals is wrong for a number of reasons, mostly environmental.

But I'm sure as hell not going to be left out if everyone else is doing it. Meat is delicious and culturally enforced. I have enough personal protests that I don't need to add this big one on top.

I do think we can and should do more to limit meat consumption, but it's politically impossible. The amount of meat we eat isn't normal or healthy. Once a week is much more reasonable.

But I bet 9 out of 10 of your nearest restaurants serve meat in most of their dishes.

Do you think we should stop speaking out language? Because that is both cultural and tradition. Just because something is based on tradition does not mean it's a bad thing.

That also doesn't mean that it isn't arbitrary, though.

If needed I would eat every single one of them and not feel at all bad about it... Also why is the rabbit there? Rabbit stew is good.

if needed

It literally took your first two words to make your entire perspective on the matter worthless.

There's another one like this where there's a line to the right of the duck and the text indicates it's " when I want to nail that hot vegan"

Priorities!

I would also like to address how horrifyingly close the golden retriever is to the line... Someone really likes cats is my take away.

yeah...golden retrievers are eaten in some parts of China

Hi, China here.

not including horses

Nah, I've eaten lots of rabbit, and I've eaten horse, though I wouldn't do it again, it really wasn't good.

Haha. The answer to the billboard's question is "Yes. Right there. That's right. Glad we resolved that."

Two to the left. I grew up very much enjoying cacciatore. Hunting rabbit and hare is a good time, too.

Ah yes, my cat is so confused she brings me her recommendations to my step door.

Help stepdoor, I am stuck.

Sorry, I'm not a native speaker and that somehow made sense in my head. I will let it stay as i wrote it cause now i found it super funny.

It made sense just fine. The Internet is just being weird.

Cats and dogs both eat meat

Wild animals hunt and herbivores occasionally eat meat

So no animals wouldn't think this as they eat meat the same as us and wouldn't care at all about eating meat

So I don't get what this is trying to say at all

Edit: also forgot to add that some animals are cannibals for example chickens

I'd like to add that domesticated animals that are taboo to eat typically had a use beyond just eating them.

Dogs guard your property, cats kill pests, horses do work and transportation. You'd only eat those if you were desperate.

Chickens, pigs, and cows? Not so much. The only one of those I could think with an alternate use would be a truffle pig, which wouldn't be eaten.

I don't know that that's true, there can be other cultural reasons.

In Hindu-based cultures you wouldn't eat cow, as in largely Muslim ones you wouldn't eat pork.

Eating horse is common in a lot of countries despite falling into your "useful enough not to kill" category. Sheep are useful for wool production but people still eat lamb.

Rat is easy to domesticate and they are frankly useless at drawing a plough but eating them is still taboo in many places. A couple of billion people eat insects daily, but there are still many other countries where it is very rare to eat them at all despite the ease of farming.

I have a friend like this and he's goddamn annoying about it.

Yeah I understand what that would feel like after having encountered similar types on reddit and in this posts comment section

Cats and dogs have no metacognition. They can barely recognize themselves in the mirror. We do. We have the ability to think about our actions, assign them moral value and better ourselves. That ability is completely wasted if you hold yourself to the same standard as a dog or cat. Is it ok to sniff random people's buttholes because dogs do it? To eat your own children because some wild animals do it?

Human beings evolved to eat plants and meat and no you can't get everything from plants as some nutrients in plants are not digestible and don't get absorbed compared to nutrients from meat

Look if you want to be personally vеgаn indent mind and don't have anything against you for it but when you or other vеgаns attack people who choose to not be vеgаn or have a vegetarian diet then that becomes a problem because you step into the territory of bullying and harassment of others

Vegan diets have been confirmed to be as good as omnivore diets, even better in some aspects, multiple and multiple times by research, so this point is moot.

We are not attacking you, though your defensiveness speaks volumes. We simply want a better world where billions of animals aren't tortured and killed every year for a diet that is unnecessary, for the profit of shady corporations and that is contributing to our unsustainable lifestyle.

Yeah you're gonna need to cite your sources when you make claims like that.

i don't know about all of their references, but i do know the canadian paper you linked is dated TWENTY YEARS AGO and the ARCHIVED position paper you linked from the AND is expired: it is not the current position of the AND. the australian government's position is based entirely on that expired position paper.

and, of course, the NHS regularlyly recommends that people eat dairy and seafood. even if a vegan diet can be made to work, it is not recommended by most dietetic associations (none that i know of) for most people.

edit: apparently the only paper with which i had no familiarity was the italian position, but the lead in for that details that you need to take special care to ensure you get enough of certain nutrients.

i'm not a dietitian nor a nutritionist, but even if i were i'm not YOUR dietition or nutritionist, just as you're not the dietician or nutritionist for anyone on this network. further, veganism is linked with depressive conditions like vystopia, so it's clear that nutrients aren't all that is required to be healthy.

The AND paper from 2016 doesn't seem expired, just removed from some site redesign: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27886704/ The fact that the position hasn't changed in more than 13 years should be an indication that it still holds. You don't need to prove that water is wet every few years to make sure it's still a valid stance.

The NHS respects your life choices, and makes recommendations for nutrients based on those choices.

Any talk about nutrition will be prefaced about getting certain nutrients. If omnivore diets had no risk of deficiencies we wouldn't need dietitians. Any talk about an omnivore diet will be prefaced with fiber, which is easier to be lacking in that diet.

I never claimed to be a nutritionist. I was just challenging the outdated notion that you NEED to be an omnivore to have a healthy diet.

Vystopia is just a side effect. If I had a cent for every depressing thing in life I would be a millionaire. Dealing with depressing shit is just part of life. Suggesting that someone shouldn't become vegan because they might get depressed is ridiculous. The same could be said about politics, gay rights, abortion rights etc, etc. Just live in a monastery, don't care about anything worldly and you won't be depressed. And veganism isn't just about being depressed. There is a complementary effect of happiness from feeling connected to and respecting every living being in the world.

This is the exact same thing I linked in the post above. What is your point?

in the paper they tell you it expired in 2021

So it was the same position since '87 to '21 through 5 renewals, but since there isn't a new one since 2021 it's not valid anymore? Did they state this position was not valid anymore?

it expired.

it is not the position of the academy at this time. you can find all their current positions on their website, and some of them explicitly recommend dairy, meat, and fish.

I was just challenging the outdated notion that you NEED to be an omnivore to have a healthy diet.

some people might need to tho.

Of course. I have a friend who is allergic to most vegetable protein. She would be in ER if she ate a tomato. Of course she can never be vegan. But most people have no health risks of the sorts. I don't have any data on this, but I would bet on 90% of the population having absolutely no issue with a vegan diet. The "not all people can" argument is moot.

you don't know what anyone else needs and it's patronizing for you to try to tell them you know their needs better than they do themselves.

Look I'm not telling anyone what they NEED, I said that they can consider a vegan diet because X, Y, Z reasons. You keep twisting my words and offering zero interesting arguments. But since you seem to be a little insecure little troll on an anti vegan campaign judging by your post history, I will not waste any more time responding to you.

I'm responding directly to what you're saying. calling me insecure, antivegan, or a troll doesn't make what I've said untrue. I'm none of those things but I will tell you what I am: I'm right.

I'm pretty sure it's only common to not eat cats and dogs and small birds for no other reason than because they taste bad/don't provide much food while also providing other services we find more valuable than they would have as food. Even if that service is companionship. Cats curb pests. Dogs help do all sorts of things. Even birds have uses other than simply pets.

Carnivores generally aren’t good to eat. That definitely plays a part.

Bear meat is awful - greasy and gamey.

You need a spring bear that fed on berries.

Usually though bear meat is put into sausage meat at like 20% with the remainder being beef and/or pork. It's not much good on its own.

The Chinese and Korean disagree with you. Look up the Yulin festival.

I love my basil plant and take care of it, but one day I'll come along and definitely eat it

Plants are not sentient

Just because there is no indication of their suffering doesn't mean they don't suffer.

Dude common, really?

Plants don't have a central nervous system. Pain and suffering is not in any way an evolutionary need for plants. We have a CNS and get the impulses, because we have the ability to do something about. Hold your hand above a flame and the pain will make you retract your hand. Hold a flame under a leaf and it'll just burn.

Furthermore your claim is currently infalsifiable. We can't proof that you're suffer even if you tell me that you're suffering.

Indeed. Many plants even bear fruit that is intended to be eaten. I don't think any animals intend to be eaten. Fruit is specifically supposed to look and taste good, so that animals eat it and crap out the seeds elsewhere. Even edible leaves are beneficial, as the animals leave fertiliser (more shit).

Though, to say the plant wants to be eaten would be a stretch. There's no evidence of a thought process, it's entirely developed just from evolutionary gain. Animals, however, do think.

Have you considered that certain parts of a plant wouldn't feel pain if plants can feel pain just like we don't feel pain when cutting our hair for example even though our hair is a part of us

Just because they don't have a central nervous system doesn't mean they don't feel. Perhaps there is a different mechanism for pain that we simply haven't discovered yet.

I recently found this website and I was reminded of you:

Have a look: doplantsfeelpain.com

🤡🤡🤡

Just because the moon doesn't have a central nervous system doesn't mean it doesn't feel pain. Perhaps there is a different mechanism for moon pain that we simply havent't discovered.

Ever heard of unfalsifiability? If yes, go join any religion you want, because they'll be really receptive to you.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/climate-and-environment/this-canadian-ecologist-discovered-how-trees-communicate-underground-1.5434980

Prior to about 15 years ago we also thought plants couldn't communicate. Then we discovered a new mechanism through which they do actually communicate.

Ever heard of discovery? Apparently not, and I think any science group you might want to join will be unreceptive to your close-mindedness.

There are exactly zero good scientific reasons to believe plants feel pain my dude. I'm not being close minded nor open minded, I am just being sensible. Being "open minded" about anything without any solid justification isn't being open minded, it is being naive. Are you going to call me close minded for not believing purple swans exist? We didn't use to know that black swans existed, so maybe purple swans exist? I believe just as much in that plants feel pain as I believe in that santa exists, which is effectively nil.

To quote the website I found (doplantsfeelpain.com):

"We consider the likelihood that plants, with their relative organizational simplicity and lack of neurons and brains, have consciousness to be effectively nil". That is not entirely zero, but for all intents and purposes zero.

This is not only based on non-extrapolation, but also based on our knowledge of consciousness, feelings and pain.

We used to say those same things about communication and decision making.

We used to think rocks were completely solid, then we discovered they are actually mostly empty space. Perhaps one day we'll discover rocks feel pain too.

Have you ever heard of epistemology?

Since you think it's possible plants suffer, you should go vegan, since more plants are consumed to provide an omnivorous diet than a vegan one. All those cows/pigs/chickens/etc need to be fed before you get to eat them. So your comment is actual an argument for going vegan.

I don't know whether plants can suffer or not. I just think it's silly for someone to use it as a reason not to eat meat when there is not strong evidence that plants don't suffer.

If plants don't suffer, then a plant based diet has less suffering. If plants do suffer, than a plant based diet has less suffering.

Only if you assume the suffering of a plant to be less important than the suffering of an animal.

It takes more plants for an omni diet than it does for a vegan diet. So even if plants suffering is worse, a vegan diet is still better.

This post isn't about the ability to feel pain or sentence, it's about the paradox of people eating something they claim to feel compassion for. I can feel compassion for both animals and plants but will still eat them

Yes, it is simply a fact that people can be hypocrites.

They aren't but they're not far off... Trees communicate with each other through fungus in their roots, if one is being attacked it let's the others know, I can't remember what evasive action the others take but still...

So what? Traffic lights communicate with each other as well. That doesn't mean we should grant them moral worth. The ability to suffer and be conscious does.

Perhaps. It all depends on how you look at it. Personally I don't think of plants as moral agents, because they don't have a capacity to consciously suffer. At least that is according to my definitions.

But perhaps for some definition of consciousness and some definition of suffering even a plant can suffer. Perhaps according to those definitions even a traffic light can suffer. Sounds crazy, but it all depends on the definition. If something responding to stimuli to serve some goal is consciousness then a traffic light has consciousness. There is no universally accepted defintions.

Yet then the difference between a pig and a traffic light is so extreme that a cut off point seems reasonable. I certainly also don't consider mosquitoes as important as pigs. Then we can assign certain moral weight to anything within some range of intelligence and capacity to suffer. At some point we might even have to consider sufficiently powerful AI moral agents. Perhaps the neuron count would be part of that scoring equation.

The least amount of harm that we can inflict on other living creatures weighted by this set of scores while maximizing our own happiness, yet not over estimating our own worth, should be the goal.

Under those conditions eating plants is still better than eating animals, because animals eat plants and thus you indirectly cause more plant death by eating animals.

We would then have some suffering index and could calculate that by going vegan you lower your suffering index by a factor 10, similar to how we know it reduces your carbon footprint by a factor 2 or so.

That depends on how you define sentience, how you intepret the definition of sentience and the fact that science could change the definition

Read an account of a guy lost at sea, after a while fish eyes and liver were delicacies where mere weeks before he was repulsed by the idea... When the brain decides "ok I'm taking over to keep us alive" you will not only eat things that you normally wouldn't - you'll enjoy doing it too.

Of course they will. I'm sure that I also would've reverted to cannibalism if I would have been involved in the crash of Uruguayan Air Force Flight 571. But considering normal circumstances: what's the point of killing animals when you don't need to?

That's great, but the question still remains. Why kill any animal at all when you don't need to? Unlike the cat in the comic, you've got a choice.

So you do it because you like it. A cow needs to be killed because you want taste pleasure?

Why so defensive? I was politely asking questions. Perhaps you don't feel too comfortable with your answers?

Sure, we all die, but that cow got a bolt gun too the head at approximately one fifth its lifespan. That's an important difference, I would say.

I don't want to control you. If you are fine with killing animals for your taste pleasure than that's your choice. I don't think that shows a lot of empathy, but that's my opinion and there's no logical argument against it. We're not all the same.

I want to chime in on what NumbersCanBeFun said.

Yes, an animal has to die because I want meat. That's how it works for now. We are still omnivores, we are able to eat both plants and meat and both taste good to us. If we wouldn't be able to process meat we wouldn't eat it. Koalas can sustain themselves on eucalyptus, we can't. Which brings up another important topic when it comes to meat.

Most Farm animals are an intermediate step between inedible plants and us. We can't eat gras or weeds even though they are plenty, require minimum care and grow mostly everywhere. Grasing animals can, so we let them turn inedible gras into edible meat or drinkable milk. Pigs and chickens go even further. They eat basically anything we would consider inedible food waste. End stems, roots, seeds, shells, peels everything we would usually throw out into compost, pigs or chickens can and will eat. So animals and therefore meat are a way to get the most nutrition out of you environmental flora and fauna.

This, I am totally fine with. But once we started growing crops specifically to feed livestock to capitalize on cheap meat is where I disagree with the morality of eating said meat. If you want meat, buy the expensive gourmet stuff from the butcher not the packaged meat from the freezer. Also vegetarian or vegan alternatives like "Beyond Meat" are getting pretty close in taste, texture and price to regular ground meat.

Thanks for being reasonable and presenting coherent arguments.

Yes, we are able to process meat and are omnivores. However to the best of scientific knowledge you can thrive on a well planned vegan diet throughout all stages of life, including pregnancy (my vegan wife is currently pregnant), childhood and old age. This is not a matter of debate, but a scientific question and it has been thoroughly answered. All the major health institutes in the world say this: American Dietitians and Nutritionists Associations, NHS, etc. You can look it up yourself, I am on mobile.

So just because we can eat meat, does it make it right when we don't have to in order to be healthy and happy? Animals posses a consciousness according to science as well. You can look up the cambridge declaration of consciousness.

You make a fair point about animals eating plants that we can't digest. From a climate perspective I agree with you. IF it were better for the environment than that would be an argument in favor of eating animals, if you are willing to completely disregard the sentience and right to life of these animals. However the current statistics don't lie. Again this is a scientific question. A vegan diet emits almost half the green house gasses than the omnivore diet. Even the so-called sustainable meats don't outperform a vegan diet: https://ourworldindata.org/less-meat-or-sustainable-meat

As it stands eating meat is bad for the animals, bad for the environment and unnecessary to anyone who has the means and ability to eat a well planned vegan diet. Would you agree?

I partialy agree. And I want to preface this by saying I'm in full support of a heavily reduced meat consumption in out daily lives, even to the extend of vegeterianism, for the sake of animals and the enviroment. The negative consequences of our current rate of consumption are clearly evident in scientific data from mutlple sources, some of which you already presented. Empirically this is also evident in our daily lives through disgustingly low discounter meat prices and summer heat hot enough to melt ashpalt. I won't dare to argue about consciousness either.

I myself consume only about 20% of my national average meat intake per capita which is still roughly 300-400g per week away from zero. Not because of my effort to consume less, but because I can't phantom how a normal person could have thatuch more meat in their diet. But I'm by no means a saint, my diet still heavily relies on diary products, honey and eggs (which each deserve a discussion of their own). The meat that I still consume is mostly heavily processed like salami, jerky or smoked bacon. Basically things which taste can not be replicated by a meat alternative.

The discussion about eating meat is an ever more prevalent topic in my personal life. And since it's already proven that meat isn't an absolute nutritional necessity, I would never argue on that point and condemn everyone who does. While excessive meat consumption (meat in every meal for example) is an open and shut case, regulated meat consumption is a lot harder to debate. I've been on both sides of the argument and have come across a few points that are very hard to argue against. I would really like to hear some opinions from somebody who is probably more well read on this topic than I am.

1. Entitlement
This is more of an ethical or philosophical issue. We as humans are, according to us, the intellectually dominant species on earth. As for hunting, one of us with a sharpened stick is already a force to be reckoned with. Put a couple of us in a group and nothing but the biggest apex predators or extremophiles are safe from us. We are just that damn good at it. The argument here is that, by rules of nature, we are entitled to hunt and consume our preferred prey as predators with disregard of our preys feeling or opinion of us. Furthermore, we are in general very good to animals, even if they are a threat to us. If a cat starts hissing at us or a goose spreads its wings and tries to bite or ankles most people turn away and try to deascalate, even though we have the physical strength to twist their head of. Since we've been good to most animals we should be excussed from the cruelty to the few. Some argue that this is an excuse to consume meat because (and this is a direct quote I've heard) "If animals don't want to be eaten then they should've grown thumbs and done something about it.".

My personal opinion on that is, that it might apply in the wilderness if you are stranded in the woods or desert, but not if your meat comes prekilled, presliced and prepackaged from the supermarket. Sure you have the rights to your kill, but how many of us would actually like to directly kill for food?

2. Culture
Some cultures are meat centric. You have grill fests or BBQs as family events, most national recipes revolve around meat, or you are regarded as less attractive if you refrain from eating meat. Some see the the non-appreciative stance toward meet as a direct attack because (another direct quote) "Do you know how much this meat costs?". Meat becomes a status symbol and a form of belonging. And while veganism might be the right thing to do, it is hard to take the high road quietly. Food is integral to our sense of community and belonging. Some people are not ready to face those changes and therefore will not refrain from eating meat.

Personally I think that veganism has become mainstream enough over the past 2 decades to the point where this is not a good excuse aside from individuals with the most ironclad hold on their outdated opinions

3. Eating disorders
If you are able to change your diet to be fully plant based you should. But it requires a big adjustment, planning and dedication. Some people struggle with putting food I their mouth no matter whether it's meat or not. If just the thought of eating gives you a mental breakdown, telling that person that they have to put in even more mental work into something that's already draining is not an argument in good faith. For them the research data of the nutritional importance of meat doesn't apply. It just do happens to be that fatty meat is extremely energy dense and nutritious, so less is more in this case.

I'd argue that this is a fringe case and those people are truly not responsible for the problems we are facing. Also veganism or vegetarianism might be the first step towards taking back control from their disorder, because it requires research and an understanding of nutrition.

4. Taste
"There's no accounting for taste" is a vers true saying. There's nothing short of trauma that has to happen to a person to change their taste. While a good caesars salat with a balsamico dressing, bruschetta or pasta with basil pesto and tomato's sound very good. There's also something very good about a medium rare steak, spare ribs drenched in BBQ sauce, hot wings or bratwurst. Becoming vegan is basically locking yourself out of 50% of the available pallet. To make another direct quote: "If god didn't want us to eat beef, he wouldn't have made cows so damn delicious.".

I got nothing on that one. It's the reason why I'm still eating meat. Some meats just taste so good that my monkey brain can forget about all the cruelty done to all the animals. Personal preference and in extend personal freedom is the hardest to argue against. I know it's hypocritical and irrational, but I would never harm an animal but I would definetly eat their meat.

Once again thanks for a coherent stream of thoughts. It seems we're not that far apart.

What you call entitlement has also been called "might makes right". This is similar to saying "history is written by the victors". Yes, we are the ultimate apex predator on this planet, but we should be careful not to view everything we invented as right by default. So many people fall in that trap and this is also the reason why there is an incredible amount of cognitive dissonance around this topic.

People think of themselves as inherently good and can not fathom the idea that they might be doing something bad (are we the baddies?). Being confronted with evidence to the contrary some people get angry, others will come up with all kinds of lame excuses (cough plants feel pain cough). Take for example the NumbersCanBeFun, the guy you picked up this thread from, he just called me an asshole. Why? Sorry, for pointing out the fact that you pay for the murder of animals for taste pleasure, I guess?

You say that in general we are good to animals, but this holds only true on the very surface level of things. Look behind the curtains of the food industry and you'll see that we're causing the world wide death of 80 billion land animals each year. That is 10 times the amount of people we have on the planet. Each year. And then I've not even counted the 200 million of tons of fish killed each year. We act like we care about animals and get all outraged if a dog goes wild in the park and bites a swan, but we see trucks of animals being shipped to the slaughterhouse without blinking an eye. Perhaps we need to be a bit more honest and have a good impartial look at our own actions instead of just acting out our entitlement.

The animals that we abuse are innocent and vulnerable. In all other walks of life we tend to want to be extra caring and protective of the innocent and vulnerable, but because of the way we evolved we now find ourselves in the positions of monsters. If that does not resonate with you than I recommend you watch the documentary Dominion and have a deep dive in what we do to animals.

You are very right that in the jungle the rules are different though. I'd kill a pig if my survival depends on it for sure, but I want to be able to justify what I do in my current circumstances and those are extremely far removed from a survival situation.

On culture I just agree with what you said, but culture changes over time and veganism hasn't been a show stopper for any major cultural events I know of except for the ones that are specifically about hurting or killing animals. I've organised quite a few vegan BBQ's; it's delicious and just as much fun.

On eating disorders I'd just like to quote the official definition of veganism by the vegan society: "Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose". By that definition one could be vegan and still include animal products in their diet if for whatever reason that is as far as is possible and practicable for that person. I know of some vegan activists who need certain medications that include animal products or were tested on animals. They don't like it, but they've got a pretty good reason to not seek to exclude these medications. Same goes for people with eating disorders and people who are still learning to adopt a healthy vegan diet, which does indeed take some time and effort.

Yes, one can't argue taste, but to say that veganism locks you out of 50% of the available pallet is seriously overestimating the taste of animal products. I remember that when I went vegan I also thought I was giving up 50%, but I was very happy to discover it was really only a small percentage. Once you go vegan you discover that most things you love are because of the herbs, spices, sugar, salt, texture, smokiness, umami, fat, etc. This is reported nearly universally amongst vegans, but you've got to give it a fair try before you can discover the truth (or falsehood) of what I say. It takes a little while before you know all the tricks that are available to satisfy all your taste desires without animal products.

I know it’s hypocritical and irrational, but I would never harm an animal but I would definetly eat their meat.

This shows a lot of honesty and I applaud you for it. Yes, it is indeed hypocritical, but it takes courage to be able to admit that. I was a hypocrite too, but I didn't want to be, so I changed my ways. All I can say is that I wish I had done it earlier.

It is hard to become vegan if you're only thinking of yourself and what you sacrifice, but it is easy to become vegan if you're thinking of the victims involved in your food choices. For those who have rid themselves of society's carnist brainwash and actually see a steak for what it is, the flesh of a cow that was murdered in cold blood, these foods start to lose their appeal. Usually that happens after people become vegan and have properly dealt with their meat addiction. You may feel some of that disgust after you've watched Dominion though.

Dominion is what completely turned me off of chicken. I was always on the fence about chicken meat. I never saw the appeal in chicken fillet anyway. Even the best I've ever tasted was barely OK. Its just not worth the way we treat those animals, and especially the way we "process" them. Allthough I miss the time our neighbors had a couple of chickens and we got fresh surplus eggs from them for free.
The reason why I overestimated the importance of meat flavor is probably due to my upbringing. When I was a kid a meal was mostly something - with meat on the side. So meat was basically half the meal. Now I've gotten a lot better with balancing my diet, this is also partially due to vegan friends that showed me recepies I haven't tried before.
I think that is a fairly healthy approach to reducing your meat intake. Every new vegan meal I find that I also enjoy reduces the relative prevalence of meat in my diet. I'm at a point were I sometimes go a full week with no meat without noticing. Besides salmon trout which my dad catches on his fishing trips as a hobby, I don't eat any fish. Its just to much work to get the bones out of smaller fish, and bigger foshbdoesnt fit on the freezer. And again the taste is "meh" at best. I can't really speak on this topic from personal experience because I live in a country that has no access to larger bodies of water and has therefore no real fish cuisine.

My main gripe is the unnecessary cruelty at industrial farmers and butchers. I think If we could all drastically reduce our meat demands, there wouldn't be any necessity for the cruelty in meat production. I live in a rural area with a lot of farmers. Some of them (or more precisely their sons and daughters) I even know personally. I've seen how well the animals are treated. Farmers usually don't like parting with their animals as much as we don't like to part with our pets. Thats why butchers are a profession of their own. That meat is also expensive, 40-50€ a kilo, as opposed to the 10-20€ at the supermarket. That in my opinion is OK. The animals live a fulfilled life past their prime, have top of the line medical care and are protected from all predetors and natural threats. They also have a grassing area multiple times the size of the town. Meat should be a benefit of rural areas and be priced higher or be straight up unavailable in bigger cities. That is basically how it was before industrial refrigerators and mobile refrigerators became a thing. Now you can get a burger for cheap in a city that hasn't seen a living cow in a century.

I've seen how well the animals are treated. Farmers usually don’t like parting with their animals as much as we don’t like to part with our pets. Thats why butchers are a profession of their own. That meat is also expensive, 40-50€ a kilo, as opposed to the 10-20€ at the supermarket. That in my opinion is OK. The animals live a fulfilled life past their prime, have top of the line medical care and are protected from all predetors and natural threats. They also have a grassing area multiple times the size of the town

We're breeding these animals into existence purely for economical reasons and deciding for them what a good life is and when they've had a "fulfilled life" and "past their prime" just so we can send them to the slaughterhouse? How is that not entitlement? I mean put yourself in the position of the victim. How would you feel if I controlled your entire existence then told you that've "you have a fulfilled life" and send you off to the slaughterhouse. Would you think I am being compassionate? Common man, can't you see how fucked up that is? Even if we would do this to our pets, people would be outraged: "oh yeah, my dog is getting a few gray hairs and is not able to run so fast anymore as he used to. He is past his prime, let's just put him down and get a new one." People would be outraged! When we do put pets down at the vet it is because we know that the rest of their life would be miserable, not because they're "past their prime".

And then you tend to forget that when you're talking about cows, that we're also stealing their babies from them constantly. Where are all the bulls roaming around? Male calfs reach their prime at the ripe old age of 6 to 9 months and their mothers reach their prime at the ripe old age of 5 to 7 years. Cows can live up to 25 years! If you're not going to eat chicken, you should definitely not eat beef.

And what about pigs? Where do you still see pigs roam around at all? They're all in big barns. Pigs usually reach their prime in less than a year and never even see daylight properly.

Farmers may not hate their animals and even may delude themselves that they really care about their animals, but this all within the constraints of the economical system that they feel is immutable and the natural order of things. If you love an animal and that animal is still healthy and wants to live, you're not going to send it to the slaughterhouse. Can you come up with a counter argument to that statement? If not, then you've got to conclude: farmers do not really love their animals. Farmers are part of an economical system in which animals are the products and producers. Farmers are mainly looking out for their investments.

And then another thing. Don't step into the trap of comparing these farm animals to wild animals (you didn't, but I want to preempt this argument). They are not. First of all, there are waay too many of these farm animals. I mean, we're killing 80 billion a year, so go figure how much artificial insemination farmers are doing. Second of all, these animals are total frankenstein monsters. You've got chickens who lay 300+ eggs a year (which is nearly 30 times what they used to lay). You've got cows that produce 10.000 liters of milk a year. Broilers chickens that can nearly not support their own weight after 50 days. Pigs that grow to 150kg in 6 months. These animals are not part of nature's order and nature would wipe them from the face of the planet in a second if all cages would be opened. It's an abomination.

You know, I get a little frustrated with this conversation, because at least you're willing to be honest and present coherent arguments, but then you still don't see how fucked up our human supremacy over animals is and want to paint rosy pictures about animals who are well cared for by farmers. Have you ever visited a pig slaughterhouse? I challenge you to it. In most places you can hear the pigs screaming even when you stand outside the gate. The pigs that are shipped there are terrified out of their mind, you can see it in their eyes. You look at a few cows in a pasture on a sunny day and think: oh, they've got a good life, but you're not there when their babies are taking away from them or when they stand in the stables for 6 months during the winter time. You're also not thinking of all the cows that never even get to be in a pasture. Did you know that 99% of animals in the US are factory famed? Maybe you should do some actual research into what you're actually contributing to when you order that pizza pepperoni. It's not a rosy picture. (By the way, processed meats are also classed a group one carcinogen by the WHO, which means the level of evidence that it is carcinogenic is as strong as the level of evidence that we have for asbestos, plutonium and tobacco).

And one more thing. How come it is okay for your dad to go into the wild and actually kill salmons when he totally doesn't need to do that? What kind of a hobby is that? Fish are way more intelligent than we think and, yes damnit, they feel pain. Killing animals for sport is the summum of human entitlement.

Sorry, I would have answered sooner but my Lemmy instance was down and I took some time to look into the things you've mentioned.

Regarding cows and cattle. I have to admit I was wrong in my conception of a cattle cows lifespan. The cattle I was familiar with are dairy cows with the longest productive lifespan of roughly 5-6 years. Most other cattle for meat production are being culled at thr age of 2-3 (Bulls) or <1 (Calves). Which compared to their avarege natural life expectancy of 20-25 years is a lot lower. Here's a nice Article, detailing the reasons for said culling age as well as implications of higher or lower culling age. An interesting factor is that an increase in culling age of dairy cows suggest an increase in offspring and therefore the surplus of cows being used for meat purposes and therefore being culled younger.

In an effort to find out the averege lifespan of wild cows (to make a comparison between forced culling and natural death causes like predetors and disease) I've stubbled oppon the fact that there are no more wild cows left in Europe. The reason being that the orignial european wild cows called Aurochs have gone extinct a couple of centuries ago. The main reason being our own expansion into their habitant and hunting. We cut down forests that they used for shelter to get wood and claimed their grassing land for our own domesticated animals and farms. Domestication efforts of Aurochs in Europe, Africa and Asia began somewhere around 9000BC and let to the cattle that we have now.
But this still didn't answer my question about a wild cows averege life span. So I looked into a place were killing cows is considered illegal - India. Turns out their cattle is treated just as badly as you would expect from a third world country. Just as in Europe or the US, dairy cattle in India becomes unprofitable beyond 5 - 6 years of age. Afterwards they are either illegally slaughtered in secrecy or driven to slaughter houses outside of India. An Article (which I dont fully trust because it doesn't provide any sources) mentioned the inability of cattle to survive outside of farms in the modern world, due to extensive energy requirements that simple grasing can't provide.
All this hints at the fact that grasing animals are not compatible with inevidable human expansion outside of domestication and farming. If we were to release all our cattle it would either die due to inability to sustain itself or would become a threat to our other agricultural branches. So its either cattle at farms or no cattle at all. You said it yourself, nature would wipe those freaks out in a second.

As for Pigs, I have the same stance as with chickens. We selectively bread them to produce as much meat as possible in the shortest amount of time and the consequence is that the meat tastes horrible. Industrial pigs meat has the highest water to meat ratio to the point where its basically an inexcusable financial scam on top of an ethical atrocity. Compared to flavor rich and dense wild boar meat (which are hunted because they mutliply like bunnies, are highly invasive/territorial and an actual threat to hikers and other wildlife in europe), its sad to think that people are OK with the billions of pigs beings being inhumanly held and slaughtered to ditch out some subpar watery meat. But on the filp side, I can understand why some find it a lot harder to sympathise with pigs, because, while they are still innocent animals and the cruelty in our treatment is unjustified, a pig would gladly eat you or your family without thinking twice if given the chance. I've found numerous sources that suggest that animals like Pigs have consciousness and feel pain, but none that they have a simple sense of morality - which some animals actually do.

I would like to hear your opinion on the possibility of lab grown meat. Basically just muscle and fat tissue with no consciousness or nervous system.

As for fish, I think fishing as a hobby is absolutely fine, as long as you don't do it because you simply want to kill fish for sport. Mostly it encourages a healthier lifestyle and enviromental awareness. 99% of fishing as a hobby is research, preparation and patience, not the killing part. Here is a beautiful poetic take on that topic by somebody who is far better versed than I am.
Because recreational anglers are not doing it for profit, they also directly oppose the philosophy of industrial fisheries. There is no incentive to take more fish than you need, so every angler potetialy denies a whole family of people as customers of industrial fishieries. As far as my personal experience goes, nearly 100% of the fish caught has been consumed and none of it has gone to waste. The same can not be said about industrial fisheries.
Theres also a big diffence between fishing with a kilometer wide netting on a ship, or a hook and some bread. There's a big lid on the damage you can do to the fish population with a fishing rod. Fishing with a rod is a matter of chance, sometimes you fish for a whole day and nothing bites and thats fine. It just means you got unlucky or haven't fully understood your enviroment.
Furthemore, those are wild fish, they already have many predetors and humans are just one of them. This goes back to what I said earlier about us being "damn good hunters". Fish are literally far outside of our element, naturally we do not excell at fishing to the extend that adapted aquatic predetors are. I've seen caught fish that have clearly been recently attacked by other predetors and saw the bread on a hook as an easy snack. We also kill them way more humanly than nature does. They often get eaten alive and slowly suffocate in a bigger fishes stomach, or have chunks bitten out of them and succumb to the infection or loss of mobility (those are both cases I personal saw). Sure, the process of reeling a fish in by a hook in its mouth is pretty gruesome, but so is fighting a predator with razor sharp fins and teeth. And once we got them we just hit them with a stick and put their lights out. And yes, just like any other being with a nervous system we can expect the fish to feel pain. But we can also expect it to make it's own decision for survival. A lot of fish can swim by a lure and only the ones with bad instict will bite. Their natural predetors are not above using even crueler tactics.
Plus the fish has to be counted, weighed and payed for at a station. That way the population is being tracked and its ensured that the lake is not overfished. That is in my opinion by far the most humane way to get fish if you want one. I think at that point you are not asking somebody not to do something, but rather not to want something, and that's an entirely different story.

As mentioned before I am against any form of industrial mass slaughter of animals. If a farming animals life span and quality of life is solely dependent on it's profitability, then let meat and milk be as expensive as gold, even if it means that I never will be able to afford another steak again.
I am however not against private family owned farms and butchers. I'd rather have them take proper care of their animals all through the late stages of their life, than let yet another species go extinct, because we stopped supporting its existence. Right now the dail of meat production is turned all the way up to corporate and we have to turn it back to local to make eating meat moraly acceptable in my opinion.

I also just don't understand the moral duality of everything on the planet being allowed to kill each other in the most cruel and brutal ways imaginable, except us humans, who must stand above everything and have a zero tolerance policy. Yes we kill tens of billions of animals a year, but what is that compared to the trillions that kill each other? It's just biomass turnaround that has been going on for billions of years. The real issue is the loss of biodiversity in the oceans and on land. We have clear preferences of animals we want and don't want in our surroundings, regardless of the consequences of their vanishing.

The discussion about meat consumption is mostly an environmental one. As evidence shows its far easier for people to look past the cruelty of the subject, but ignoring rising prices and temperatures isn't. And this I believe, is what will eventually cause a global change in regard to our meat based diets. It is getting more difficult to provide food for our growing population due to climate extremes, and radical methods in animal handling are a product of that.
Isn't this the fight that advocates for veganism are actually fighting? It's not about getting every last person to never touch meat again, but rather to get corporations to dip into red numbers long enough to have them do a 180 on meat. The same thing is happening now with car manufacturers and electric vehicles. Before they were industrialized, combustion engines where a luxury item and once the industry moves on, they will become one once again. I hope that the same thing will happen to the meat industry. Thats where my full support lies.

Very nice research into cows. Yes, nature would wipe the freaks out. And that would in my opinion be much preferable, because breeding them into existence just to kill them for their meat isn't ethical at all. If we really want to save this particular species, we should do so in animal sanctuaries where animals are treated with respect. But these are essentially domesticated animals, so we'd have to keep taking care of them ad infinitum just for the love of these individuals.

Indeed the way cows are treated in India is super hypocritical. The cow is revered and treated as shit at the same time. In some Hindu ceremonies they revere the cow by pouring milk over a cow statue. Milk that of course was obtained by stealing baby calves from their mothers and shipping them off to the milk or meat industry. Doh!

We agree on pigs, but whether pigs will gladly eat me or not has no bearing on whether we should be justified in killing them or not. We also don't go around killing lions and sharks. Perhaps only if they form an acute danger to humans, but otherwise we just leave them alone. Pigs aren't lions though.

My opinion on lab grown meat is simple: I am all for it. We don't need everybody to go vegan, but just a large enough minority for there to be massive systemic changes. Different figures have been thrown out there: 10%, 15% or 25% of the population needs to change in order for the majority to change. Lab grown meat will likely play an important role in getting us to that tipping point. It'll take a while, but eventually we'll look back in disgust at how we used to treat animals.

On fishing: a fish is an animal, an individual and I believe all animals/individuals should be treated with some form of respect. We shouldn't just kill them for the fun of it. Yeah, but you say: "We do it to eat them. We use every part! And the way we kill it is better than if it would be caught by a predator" I understand, but you don't need to eat them. You can easily eat something else. You've got an abundance of choice, but instead you decide to be a dick to an animal. And it's not either you kill it now or another predator kills it. No it's either you kill it or you don't and it gets to live for however much longer that may be. Even other animals don't tend to just go around killing for fun. Lions typically don't go killing other animals just because they like it. They do it because they have to. However, we do it because it's fun. The fun of the hunt, the fun of the taste pleasure. It's not a survival situation. We are not carnivore predators neither are we in a survival situation. It comes down to fun. And fun isn't good enough of a reason to kill an animal. Care to disagree?

The real reason why we fish is because we used to have to. But now we don't have to anymore and we're either too ignorant and/or too unempathetic to reflect on the situation anew and draw the conclusion that it doesn't make any sense anymore. We're just slow to adapt to the times, just like we were with racism, slavery, gay rights, women's rights, separating church from state, quitting tobacco, etc. It's societal intertia.

And just because the world is a brutal place and lots of animals are killing lots of other animals, doesn't mean we are justified in doing the same or worse. I mean, even if I would be a vegan all my life, but kill one 6 month old pig for fun just one time in my life, I still wouldn't be able to justify that. A bad thing doesn't become a good thing, just because it isn't as bad as something else. Killing a pig when I absolutely don't have to is a bad thing, wouldn't you say? Even if people are ordering pepperoni pizza's as if there are no victims involved. I can't just justify it by saying that other people or other animals do worse.

Look, there is lots of debate about morality and lots of different moral system. I am utilitarian myself, but regardless of your stance: I believe we can all agree that killing is universally considered to not be a good thing to do to sentient beings right? So whether I kill my victim locally on a farm while playing some Bach music in the background and right after a massage and a nice prayer of respect. It doesn't make it a good thing. The victim doesn't give two cents that you kill it on a local farm or in a slaughterhouse with a bolt gun to the brain. It's an individual that doesn't want to die.

If you want to do a deep dive into the philosophy of animal ethics I can recommend the book Animal Liberation by Peter Singer. Or if you'd like to watch an interesting video I can recommend this talk by Gary l. Francione.

If it would be environmental issue then we could also just reduce our meat intake and feel that we're doing a good thing. But we're not doing a good thing when we're needlessly killing innocent sentient beings. Therefore it is fundamentally an ethical issue, because as of yet I have not yet heard anyone make any good ethical argument for the killing of animals when we don't need to. You can also check out this debate wiki.

Simple. If you name it, you don't eat it. Also, most carnivores taste terrible so we avoid eating those.

We name 🐮 They're really super affectionate, smart and playful. Our cow used to watch for my dad around the time he would come back.

We bought a 4H pig at the county fair once. The kid named her Barbie. It was one hell of a BarbieQ.

How the hell is that cruel you?

How is it not cruel to you to buy and kill a living breathing conscious being? Pigs are intelligent creatures. Don't they deserve an ounce of respect? They're not inanimate objects you know.

How would you feel if it was a dog? "We bought a 4H dog at the county fair once. The kid named her Barbie. It was one hell of a BarbieQ."

How would you feel if it was a slave? "We bought a 4H slave at the county fair once. The kid named her Barbie. It was one hell of a BarbieQ."

Why does it all of a sudden become bad if it is a dog or a human? Don't we share the same capacity to suffer? Sure, there is a huge difference between a pig and a human, no doubt, but both are living breathing beings who feel pain and pleasure, have friends and family and have a desire to live freely and till old age.

I don't think it's arbitrary. I think people eat the ones that are tasty...

I think you haven't had much cat.

I've heard enough about how greasy and gamy it it. Just haven't had the opportunity. I will eat any meat put in front of me as long as it was prepared well.

Oh man, I like cats, but they really are the worst when it comes to this subject...

https://theoatmeal.com/comics/cats_actually_kill

For the record, I'd be down to eat both cats and dogs if given the opportunity, I just wouldn't eat my own pets.

I don't eat dog.

Bivalves lack a brain.

How to trigger a vegan with only two words:

Nature cycle.

I mean, its kinda funny at how folks believe that we are an evolution of an animal unable to judge and dream to (suddenly) deny our (natural) purpose towards other animals.

No vegan is triggered by this argument. It is simply the naturalistic fallacy.

I always find it funny that vegans seem to completely ignore fish, they only ever have a pickle with mammals and some birds

Uh, Vegan here. Fish suffer. Fishing is depleting the ocean and creating loads of plastic pollution via fishing nets. Stop eating fish. Do you see how you're like, totally wrong?

My point is that these preachy messages, such as the one in the comic in this post, never show fish, possibly because they're not as "relatable" as other animals humans consume.

lol um, no?

That's pescatarian

So you find something funny that you completely made up in your head and applied to an entire global community to suit your own narrative? Good for you👍

Nope, I find it funny that vegans always like to point people having pets while eating other animals, but never make these preachy messages showing fish, they only ever show "cute" animals

Vegans don't eat fish.

All humans are of equal value.

Not all animals are of equal value. A cow is not of the same value as a fly and a fly is not the same value as a human.

Would you deem someone who swats a fly equal to a murderer? Probably not. Because the value of flies, if any, is irrelevant.

All humans, including vegans, deem animals as of lesser value.

You will never protect a fly to the same level that you protect a human.

There's a distinction to be made, and to deem only humans to be of value, is one such distinction.

I'd assign value in order of sentience, consciousness, comprehension of the world, others and self. How intense do they experience the world? Can they feel pain and suffer? How social are they? Is it really like something to be that animal / does it have a subjective experience? Does it want to live?

Would you generally agree?

How intense do they experience the world?

Hard to say for any animal.

Can they feel pain and suffer?

Yes, we know every animal, even insects, feels pain and fear.

How social are they?

That depends a lot. Most felines and reptiles are not social, neither are sharks or hummingbirds. Canines, equines, bovines, chicken, ants, termites and bees are very social

Is it really like something to be that animal / does it have a subjective experience?

This question didn't make much sense. Are you supposed to compare, say, how a jellyfish experiences life with an octopus?

Does it want to live?

Pretty much everything in this earth "wants" to live, including microbes. This "want" is not a right, however. No animals, not even humans, has any sort of "right" to live. Rights are a human invention.

Of those questions, seems only one actually leads to different answers (how social it is), and whatever comes out of the subjective experience one.

Everyone can choose their own moral values.

In my morale (and in the morale of many others) all humans are of equal value. I won't claim to always act 100% morally. But the morale thing would always be to deem all humans equal.

That is the basis on why discrimination is considered bad. All humans are equal, simple as that.

Do you know why it is not the same for animals? Because animals are not all equal. You just confirmed, you don't care about flies. You don't deem flies equal. You don't deem all animals equal.

So why do you deem the adult pig equal to the three years old child? Because of its mental capacity?

My (and many others') morale does not make someone's value dependant on their mental capacities.

A human with higher mental capacity is not of more value than a human with lower mental capacity.

I will repeat myself again: All humans are equal.

By making this distinction, you apparently deem a human with less mental capacity as of lesser value.

That is horrible. Your morale is horrible.

All humans are equal. Not all animals are.

Do you honestly believe that a perfectly moral person would have a hard time deciding whether to give an donated heart to a sick 90 year old or to an otherwise healthy 30 year old? Doctors have to make decisions like these all the time.

If you think this somehow doesn't count as a valid counterexample, please explain why.

I don't think anybody called pigs or cows morally inferior?

Our farming practices were arrived at mostly through utilitarianism. What was easy to raise, what tasted good, what animals had food readily available for them nearby, what would sell, etc.

I don't think anybody called pigs or cows morally inferior?

Many, many people say or think "they're just animals, so it's not wrong to kill them", which is the same argument.

Our farming practices were arrived at mostly through utilitarianism.

Maybe you meant pragmatically? Utilitarianism would include the suffering of the victim, but 99% of meat eaters I met (also my former self) buy meat from supermarkets and restaurants with no regard or even thought of the living conditions that the animals had to endure.

Our farming practices were arrived at by the free market. Farmers have to continually lower production costs to stay cost-competetive, because most customers buy the cheapest products available. If two restaurants had the same meal, one at 12$ and the other 10$, almost everyone will choose the cheaper option of course, no questions asked.

Cost reduction had been the main driving factor for our farming practices in the last few decades. Suffering is irrelevant for capitalism.

Many, many people say or think “they’re just animals, so it’s not wrong to kill them”, which is the same argument.

Morally inferior would be "they have a differing belief structure that is lesser than mine". Like how most religions on the planet see each other, for example. To speak broadly, animals do not have morals because they do not have beliefs unless you broaden the word heavily.

Maybe you meant pragmatically?

No, farmers / people who raised their own livestock all across the world independently did what was convenient for them at the time and most arrived at similar practices. To look at your examples, you may be meaning post-industrialization. I was meaning the most of the rest of human history. Although after industrialization, I could argue they were both both pragmatic and utilitarian. Suffering does not factor into either of those things. It's a byproduct, not a goal.

Morally inferior would be "they have a differing belief structure that is lesser than mine".

Oh, that's the misunderstanding. I meant morally inferior in terms of their moral value (how much their lives are worth to us).

To speak broadly, animals do not have morals because they do not have beliefs unless you broaden the word heavily.

I agree that they don't have moral systems. When we save people from burning buildings or oppose murder, thats because we see them as having moral value, their beliefs have nothing to do with that.

To look at your examples, you may be meaning post-industrialization.

Yes, our farming practices changed a lot after the industrialization, and current practices are what's relevant now. In the past people just scrambled not to starve or be malnourished in the winter, which fortunately isn't a concern in most societies anymore. Almost everyone has access to supermarkets and can live a healthy life without meat, which wasn't possible in the past.

If some people have to steal food to survive, that doesn't justify stealing when it's not a necessity anymore. So talking about historic situations is besides the point here.

Although after industrialization, I could argue they were both both pragmatic and utilitarian. Suffering does not factor into either of those things.

That literally goes against the definition of utilitarianism:

In ethical philosophy, utilitarianism is a family of normative ethical theories that prescribe actions that maximize happiness and well-being for all affected individuals.

If you take the negative effects on affected individuals out of the equation, that's not utilitarianism, that's egoism. Putting animals on miserable factory farms for their whole life to get a few minutes of taste pleasure doesn't maximize utility, it minimizes utility. Not to speak of the resource cost and environmental destruction which is a huge negative for human society.

utilitarianism

It's odd to me that definition is the primary one on Wikipedia as it doesn't match with the definition I knew of. I have never seen the word "happiness" used in conjunction with the definition of that word in my entire literary history, but it seems to be a viable definition.

The definitions I knew of are: "Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that asserts that right and wrong are best determined by focusing on outcomes of actions and choices."

Or to use the dictionary definition, "the doctrine that actions are right if they are useful or for the benefit of a majority."

To use the primary definition for the moment - for the farmer, raising the animals, slaughtering them in an efficient manner, and getting them to market is utilitarian. Doubly so if you don't consider animals on the same level as the humans (which many, including the animals themselves due to a lack of broad thought, do not).

If you factor in that plants can also feel pain, you're left with a real moral quandary if your primary reason to be vegan is to not harm living things.

Not understanding the pain or finding a way to measure the pain does not mean there is no pain.

plants can also feel pain

Seems like a baseless claim, we have a pretty good understanding of plant experience.

[Mallatt, J., Blatt, M.R., Draguhn, A. et al. Debunking a myth: plant consciousness. Protoplasma 258, 459–476 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00709-020-01579-w](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8052213/)

Hamilton, Adam & McBrayer, Justin. (2020). Do Plants Feel Pain?. Disputatio. 12. 71-98. 10.2478/disp-2020-0003.

Even if plants could feel pain, we could reduce suffering by skipping the inefficient middleman that endures suffering and causes "suffering" to many more plants than what is needed for anyone's sustenance.

Not baseless. There are many sources and studies claiming the opposite of yours, and as someone who worked in forestry (and lived on a non-corporate farm that produced mostly alfalfa), it's somewhat more apparent once you're there and present in that world.

To quote myself on another thread:

I trust you know how to use search, but: https://www.sciencetimes.com/articles/24473/20191218/a-group-of-scientists-suggest-that-plants-feel-pain.htmYou can find many more if you look. We’ve known for a while that trees do this, and fungi are absolutely notorious for this. Plants respond to warnings from their peers about dangers, brace for pain, and signal pain to others.

Do not make the mistake of ignoring the evidence because you don’t like the outcome. You not understanding the pain does not mean there is no pain. Life for some means death for others. Period. You can not avoid it on a micro or macro scale, all you can do is change WHAT you kill.

Yeah. I don't eat bacon because pigs are racists. I eat it because I can, and I like it

bro animals eat animals, it's kind of a thing if you haven't noticed

Animals also rape other animals of its same species or kill their own children. Not sure we should take animals as inspiration for our own decisions

Of course not. Most people are happy to accept that humans are intellectually superior to animals but conveniently ignore that extra intellectual ability when it comes to applying empathy towards them.

There are even humans that eat other humans. Therefore eating humans is fine?

Animals also commit infanticide, so lets all kill some children I guess.

false equivalency dude, meat is a normal part of life and your absurd ass arguments aren't gonna change that

appeal to nature fallacy

Racists say racism is a normal part of life too. If you can't argue why it's a false equivalency that isn't an argument at all.

Using racism to attempt to promote your comment is disgusting because it flies in the face of awareness of the inequality and discrimination from racism itself

You are disgusting and I'd hope your behavior wouldn't migrate over from reddit, yet here you are unfortunately

There is also the possibility that your comment is a bait comment

How so? If I were to compare racism and sexism to argue that sexism is bad, that doesn't play down racism in any way, to the contrary. The same is true for comparing the ideological basis of racism and speciesism. Please explain why that's disgusting.