Seal Clubbing

[Desk trauma]

The mechanized or large scale commercial killing is more brutal to me than predation in the wild or primitive, subsistence hunting by humans.

Would a slaughter house with poorly maintained fences or shoots that allowed for animals to escape be more acceptable? If not why the concentration on the point of the possibility of escape when it's irrelevant as the issue is killing animals for food?

It is more brutal when the prey has no chance of escape.

There is no chance for escape but in a properly functioning system they are going to be dispatched in a matter of seconds rather then being torn apart or eaten while still alive as they would be in the wild.

 

[nebulaJP]

Would a slaughter house with poorly maintained fences or shoots that allowed for animals to escape be more acceptable? If not why the concentration on the point of the possibility of escape when it's irrelevant as the issue is killing animals for food?

Yes, it would be more acceptable. What would be more acceptable still is the abolition of animal agribusiness.

There is no chance for escape but in a properly functioning system they are going to be dispatched in a matter of seconds rather then being torn apart or eaten while still alive as they would be in the wild.

Al you have to do is watch videos of a slaughterhouse operating or some other large scale commercial killing of animals compared with wildlife footage of predation in the wild.

I am much more comfortable watching animals be torn alive by predators than the modern slaughter operation. Prefer a nature documentary or the following?:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yy95Btm_2Ow

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I am much more comfortable watching animals be torn alive by predators than the modern slaughter operation.

Animals slaughtered for our use were produced for that purpose, otherwise they wouldn't exist at all in those numbers. Lab animals are another case in point.

 

[nebulaJP]

Animals slaughtered for our use were produced for that purpose, otherwise they wouldn't exist at all in those numbers. Lab animals are another case in point.

You can't use that as a justification any more that you can justify treating humans terribly if you breed them specifically for a certain purpose, such as to do tests on or keep as slaves.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You can't use that as a justification any more that you can justify treating humans terribly if you breed them specifically for a certain purpose, such as to do tests on or keep as slaves.

I don't think 'justification' need be considered. The reason these animals are produced is to provide food and other materials for our use.

What you are proposing isn't really possible anyway.

 

[Desk trauma]

What would be more acceptable still is the abolition of animal agribusiness.

For the sake of discussion, you're made tzar tomorrow and allowed to implement whatever laws you like.

What happens to the tens of millions of head of live stock currently on hand?

As I asked in your other thread, where will the fertilized come from if organic wins out over modern agriculture and livestock is a thing of the past?

 

[nebulaJP]

Believers have permission from God to kill and eat animals.

Non-believers have the tacit permission from science to act as evolved top predators.

Mankind depends on animals to sustain human life, especially in regard to protein.

The morality of it isn't an issue to the broad majority.

As far as mankind’s dependence on animals for food, that is only true of a small percentage of the earth’s population, mostly, those in climates or conditions that don’t allow for planting crops.

Also, if everyone who could went vegan today, which would include nearly everyone with access to a decently stocked grocery store, it would end world hunger. All of the grains that we currently feed to livestock could instead be used to feed the world’s human population. Does the Bible not call for feeding the hungry?

Every plant food has protein. You can’t say that animal protein is necessary to sustain human life when there are so many vegans walking around.

 

[nebulaJP]

For the sake of discussion, you're made tzar tomorrow and allowed to implement whatever laws you like.

What happens to the tens of millions of head of live stock currently on hand?

As I asked in your other thread, where will the fertilized come from if organic wins out over modern agriculture and livestock is a thing of the past?

All of the animals currently on hand are released into the wild, preferably in areas where they wouldn't do much damage to the native fauna/flora. Manure would be a thing of the past, it really isn't entirely safe anyway, but there may be other organic options, such as "worm poop". If not, we would just stick with the conventional, modern fertilizers.

 

[nebulaJP]

I don't think 'justification' need be considered. The reason these animals are produced is to provide food and other materials for our use.

What you are proposing isn't really possible anyway.

Breeding humans for specific purposes, such as slavery, isn't possible? Why, because it's illegal?

 

[Desk trauma]

All of the animals currently on hand are released into the wild, preferably in areas where they wouldn't do much damage to the native fauna/flora.

In the US alone there are 89.9 billion head of cattle, would current livestock operations have to forfeit their land to house them or would state land be used?

 

[Hank]

What about the short one?

If you are referring to the video, I did not watch it. If you were not, ignore the following ...

People have a hard time sometimes accepting ourselves on who we are and what we are and what we are capable of. For forty plus years, I preached for the betterment of mankind, only to find mankind will not change. There were paradoxes in my own behavior that contradicted my preaching. So I stopped preaching. Then I accepted what I am. The best day, to date, in my insignificant life.

 

[nebulaJP]

In the US alone there are 89.9 billion head of cattle, would current livestock operations have to forfeit their land to house them or would state land be used?

State. Or, if that doesn't work, current livestock operations' , and maybe some as pets. Is your position: Carnism is moral because [insert problem if the whole world became vegan here]?

Keep in mind that slaveholders in the antebellum south would have had similar logistic/economic concerns if slavery were abolished. The concerns don't make the underlying rights violation moral regardless of whether it is a human's or animal's.

The word 'carnism' explained:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0VrZPBskpg

 

[Desk trauma]

State. Or, if that doesn't work, current livestock operations' , and maybe some as pets.

State land would be very quickly destroyed if uncontrolled million head strong herds were turned loose on them. Also that's just the cows.

Is your position: Carnism is moral because [insert problem if the whole world became vegan here]?

No I am just curious to see how far you have thought this thru or if you have any kind of endgame in mind.

 

[nebulaJP]

State land would be very quickly destroyed if uncontrolled million head strong herds were turned loose on them. Also that's just the cows.



No I am just curious to see how far you have thought this thru or if you have any kind of endgame in mind.

Why would it matter how good of a public administrator I would be in the case of worldwide veganism? I am not a policy maker. I'm sure there would be utter chaos if I were "czar".

 

[Desk trauma]

Why would it matter how good of a public administrator I would be in the case of worldwide veganism?

You are a vocal proponent of ending a multi billion dollar industry and would like to see society reordered rather radically I am just curious as to if you had thought any of that out or had any real plans for if your goals were achieved.

 

[nebulaJP]

You are a vocal proponent of ending a multi billion dollar industry and would like to see society reordered rather radically I am just curious as to if you had thought any of that out or had any real plans for if your goals were achieved.

No plans.

 

[Desk trauma]

No plans.

Not a recipe for success.

 

[nebulaJP]

It isn't going to happen overnight, as in your thought experiment, so it would be phased out I imagine, and you wouldn't have millions of live cattle to contend with? Right? I dunno.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

As with most moral arguments, there is no solid logical argument for why something is moral or immoral. It simply depends on the set of axioms upon which your argument rests.

Axiom #1: Humans have different moral status to animals.

If you are conversing with someone who holds this axiom, then eating meat is not wrong.

Axiom #2: Humans and animals have the same moral status.

If you are conversing with someone who holds this axiom, then eating meat is equivalent or analogous to murder.


Herein lies the contradiction with Axiom #2. If you hold some version of Axiom #2 then it should be clear that a lion killing a zebra should be some form of murder and the lion should be tried and locked up. However, this is not the case. Why? Because humans have a higher moral responsibility than animals, which implies Axiom #1. This implies that humans and animals are somehow different which then lends to the idea that killing animals is not necessarily wrong.

Circular reasoning.

 

[nebulaJP]

Circular reasoning.

Why would the animal’s lack of responsibility for its actions determine whether or not it is wrong to kill it? Why not base it on whether the animal can experience similar emotions to us, such as fear, joy, sadness, boredom etc.?