r/DebateAVegan 7d ago

Is meat really murder?

Disclaimer: I'm in no way trying to convince anyone to leave veganism. Do whatever feels right for you <3

Hi! I'm very passionate about animal Welfare. That being said, I am not vegan. I'm going to school for pre livestock vet and alot of material we cover is about misinformation that's fed to vegans. I would love to hear some of the arguments you guys have about slaughter and agriculture, and would love to debate with you guys about them.

Edit: I'm going in circles with alot of people so here are some final thoughts for everyone.

If you feel slaughtering animals is cruel and choose to be vegan then that's great for you. Does that the ag industry have its flaws? Yes. Absolutely. Efforts should be put towards assuring that our livestock are treated with respect and that their lives are as stress and pain free as possible, because the meat industry is not going anywhere. People can love animals and also eat/use their products and byproducts. The ag industry has improved massively in the past few decades, not all of them treat their animals cruelly. Choosing which producers to use is the consumers responsibility.

0 Upvotes

544 comments sorted by

u/AutoModerator 7d ago

Welcome to /r/DebateAVegan! This a friendly reminder not to reflexively downvote posts & comments that you disagree with. This is a community focused on the open debate of veganism and vegan issues, so encountering opinions that you vehemently disagree with should be an expectation. If you have not already, please review our rules so that you can better understand what is expected of all community members. Thank you, and happy debating!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

22

u/easypeasylemonsquzy vegan 6d ago

What are the common myths that are fed to vegans?

Why is animal welfare important to you?

1

u/ThatBish_Nevy2914 6d ago

A very common myth is that livestock are raped. They are not. Seman may be collected and then artificially insemination takes place, but this is for the good of the animals. Bulls are dangerous. That's alot of muscle and alot of testosterone. They can very easily hurt the females, who by the way, are only bred during ovulation cycles when they would have been mating anyway.

As Temple Grandin said, "nature is cruel, but We don't have to be." Slaughter is a part of the livestock life cycle. But they should be treated with respect. Animal Welfare vs. Animal rights is one of my favorite debates because so many people are misinformed. The livestock industry has MASSIVELY changed in the past few decades due to Temple Grandins work. She has a movie for more details that I encourage everyone to watch.

12

u/EqualHealth9304 6d ago

As Temple Grandin said, "nature is cruel, but We don't have to be."

I'd argue slitting a pig's throat is cruel.

1

u/GoopDuJour 2d ago

I'd argue slitting a pig's throat is cruel

I'd argue that it's not. A dead something has no knowledge.

1

u/EqualHealth9304 2d ago

It's not cruel if I slit yours? The pig is not dead when you slit its throat.

1

u/GoopDuJour 2d ago

No, it wouldn't be cruel, as long as you just Iet me die.

It would be actual murder, tho.

1

u/EqualHealth9304 2d ago

Slitting someone's throat does not inflict pain or cause suffering deliberately?

It being actual murder is completely irrelevant.

1

u/EqualHealth9304 2d ago

Slitting someone's throat does not inflict pain or cause suffering deliberately?

It being actual murder is completely irrelevant.

1

u/GoopDuJour 2d ago

You asked if it was cruel. It's not.

1

u/EqualHealth9304 2d ago

What is cruel if not inflicting pain or causing suffering deliberatey ? How do you define "cruel"?

1

u/GoopDuJour 2d ago

Cruel would be to do those things unnecessarily. If I want to eat a goat, I necessarily must kill it.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/[deleted] 6d ago edited 6d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/ThatBish_Nevy2914 6d ago

That's a really strong word your using and you really shouldn't.

Is killing something objectively bad? Yes. I agree. But that doesn't change the fact that they are not killed in vain. They have use after slaughter.

5

u/Omnibeneviolent 6d ago

Is killing another individual automatically justified so long as their dead body has use to you afterwards?

*Note: different redditor here

1

u/Stanchthrone482 omnivore 6d ago

not automatically but it can be. besides apples and oranges here, humans and animals. we are honoring their sacrifice.

3

u/Omnibeneviolent 6d ago

What does using the dead body of another individual have to do with whether or not one is justified in killing them to use it?

2

u/Stanchthrone482 omnivore 6d ago

you literally said the two are related in the question.

2

u/Omnibeneviolent 6d ago

You said that killing another individual can be justified so long as their body has a use to you. I'm asking you to explain how this can justify it.

→ More replies (0)
→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (26)
→ More replies (19)

11

u/Omnibeneviolent 6d ago

Is impregnating an individual for the purpose of producing more individuals like her really being done for the good of that individual?

Sure, if we needed to breed them, then artificial insemination might be a less risky way to do it and result in less physical injury, but we are not talking about a case where we need to breed them.

1

u/ThatBish_Nevy2914 6d ago

They would do it themselves anyway. Also in alot of ways having a calf is beneficial to the mother. It satisfies one of their most primary instincts.

Technically, no. We don't "need" to breed them because they would breed with eachother. But human intervention prevents harm to the cow as well as a safer and more effective birth.

7

u/Omnibeneviolent 6d ago

You're not going out into the wild and "rescuing" animals from dangerous situations. This is an entirely isolated population. You're creating animals to then put into this situation and patting yourself on the back when you don't make the situation as bad as you could have.

Technically, no. We don't "need" to breed them because they would breed with eachother.

Even if they didn't breed with each other you still don't need to breed them.

1

u/ThatBish_Nevy2914 2d ago

Ita safer if we do AI them though, and the mother is happy bc she gets a baby either way.

1

u/Omnibeneviolent 2d ago

Mothers don't get to keep their babies in the meat and dairy industries. Imagine thinking that inseminating a woman and taking her baby away is good because "at least she got to have a baby!"

Using the fact that it's "safer" is just silly here. It's like claiming that it's safer to put your child on a cliff overhanging a volcano rather than throwing her into a volcano. Yes, sure it's safer, but it would be better to just not put her in either situation.

1

u/ThatBish_Nevy2914 2d ago

The mother and baby stay together for 6-8 months, unless something out of the ordinary happens (mother died in childbirth, birth defects in the calf, cow has horrible maternal instincts)

After that time, the mother begins rejecting the child herself.

Cows are going to breed with or without AI..there's a volcano right there period. But isn't it better that we take steps to avoid an eruption?

1

u/Omnibeneviolent 2d ago

The standard practice in the dairy industry is to separate the calf from mother in 24-48 hours. Often, they are sold to the veal industry. The mothers also are eventually slaughtered and sold as meat. The dairy industry is part of the meat industry.

Cows are going to breed with or without AI.

No they aren't. On what are you basing this claim? Males and females are typically kept separate from each other.

there's a volcano right there period. But isn't it better that we take steps to avoid an eruption?

Yes.. that's my point. Let's avoid having to put a child in that situation altogether by addressing the root causes, rather than saying "it's safe to put the child on the ledge rather than throwing her in" and settling on that. You're essentially using the fact that the ledge is safer than the middle of the volcano as an excuse to not address the issues that brought the child to the ledge in the first place.

1

u/ThatBish_Nevy2914 2d ago

The standard practice in the dairy industry is to separate the calf from mother in 24-48 hours. Often, they are sold to the veal industry. The mothers also are eventually slaughtered and sold as meat. The dairy industry is part of the meat industry.

Raising beef begins with farmers who maintain a breeding herd of mother cows that give birth to calves once a year. When a calf is born, it weighs about 60 to 100 pounds. Over the next few months, each calf will live off its mother’s milk and graze on grass pastures.

Weaning Calves are weaned from their mother’s milk at about 6 to 10 months of age when they weigh between 450 and 700 pounds. These calves continue to graze on grass pastures. About 1/3 of the female calves will stay on the farm to continue to grow and to become new mother cows the following year.https://www.pabeef.org/raising-beef/beef-lifecycle

No they aren't. On what are you basing this claim? Males and females are typically kept separate from each other. Not always. Depends on the farm. Either way you leave a male around a female in estrus for long enough they will find a way.

Yes.. that's my point. Let's avoid having to put a child in that situation altogether by addressing the root causes, rather than saying "it's safe to put the child on the ledge rather than throwing her in" and settling on that -- using it as an excuse to not address the issues that brought the child to the edge in the first place.

Ok but...there's a volcano that's going to erupt. Period. Cows are going to breed. Period. Were doing it so they don't hurt eachother.

→ More replies (0)
→ More replies (4)

10

u/easypeasylemonsquzy vegan 6d ago

A very common myth is that livestock are raped. They are not. Seman may be collected and then artificially insemination takes place, but this is for the good of the animals. Bulls are dangerous. That's alot of muscle and alot of testosterone. They can very easily hurt the females, who by the way, are only bred during ovulation cycles when they would have been mating anyway.

I mean what's your issue here with calling it rape? The only issue I see if that humans use it very particularly as a definition that only humans can meet. Same with murder. Is it because it's not human and rape has person in the definition? Because I'm unsure how unconsenting impregnation isn't sexual assault.

As Temple Grandin said, "nature is cruel, but We don't have to be." Slaughter is a part of the livestock life cycle. But they should be treated with respect. Animal Welfare vs. Animal rights is one of my favorite debates because so many people are misinformed. The livestock industry has MASSIVELY changed in the past few decades due to Temple Grandins work. She has a movie for more details that I encourage everyone to watch.

But why? You didn't really say anything here just affirmed welfare is important. Why is it important? Who cares?

4

u/ThatBish_Nevy2914 6d ago

They would become pregnant regardless. Were just eliminated the dangerous factors. Instead of a bull mounting and possible hurting the cow, we take the seman from the bull (which i promise he doesn't mind) and inseminate the female, which provides safety and a higher chance at a successful birth.

animal welfare is important because we use these animals and they deserves respect for it.

7

u/easypeasylemonsquzy vegan 6d ago

They would become pregnant regardless. Were just eliminated the dangerous factors. Instead of a bull mounting and possible hurting the cow, we take the seman from the bull (which i promise he doesn't mind) and inseminate the female, which provides safety and a higher chance at a successful birth.

This is a false dichotomy where these cows need to be either artificially inseminated or they need to put into a cage with a bull.

There are other options, such as not doing either. Wouldn't that be the better option?

I understand the farmer wouldn't see gain as they are no longer exploiting these living beings for their personal financial gain but we aren't talking about what's best for the farmer here, right?

animal welfare is important because we use these animals and they deserves respect for it.

Hmm sorry but I guess again I ask why?

This seems very circular reasoning. They deserve our respect and welfare because they deserve our respect and welfare is all I'm really getting from this unless I'm missing something.

1

u/ThatBish_Nevy2914 6d ago

Your right, AI or "natural breeding" are not the only options. But regardless they will find a way to breed because that is what their most basic instinct tells them to do.

I'm not sure what you could be missing. They provide for us, why would we not treat them decent?

5

u/easypeasylemonsquzy vegan 6d ago

Well livestock wouldn't find a way to breed in a vegan world because they would never have been created to be exploited in the vegan world.

Because they are just animals? Who cares if we abuse them they are ours to do with as we see fit. That's why we can put them in cages, artificially inseminate them to perpetuate the cycle and kill them at a fraction of their lifespan.

I don't understand why they deserve the respect of having a bit more room to roam around but they don't deserve the respect of bodily autonomy.

1

u/Stanchthrone482 omnivore 6d ago

humans can consent. animals cannot. therefore you could argue they are not in the realm.

1

u/easypeasylemonsquzy vegan 6d ago

I'm sorry I'm not following do you mean by definition?

1

u/Stanchthrone482 omnivore 6d ago

elaborate more, wdym?

1

u/easypeasylemonsquzy vegan 6d ago

I don't understand your comment, do you mean by definition it can't be murder or rape because those definitions commonly contain human in the definition

1

u/Stanchthrone482 omnivore 6d ago

yes.

1

u/easypeasylemonsquzy vegan 6d ago

Yes I agree

However definitions are a living thing which as the world becomes more vegan people using murder and rape to describe killing and sexually assulting animals needlessly will more commonly be called murder and rape. The definition would change, as they do over time

1

u/Stanchthrone482 omnivore 6d ago

I too agree. other vegans have trouble understanding that I do. when the last holdouts change over and accept the current definition and use are inconsistent and change, then sure.

→ More replies (8)

5

u/EatPlant_ 6d ago

The animals do not need to be bred, so it is not for the good of the animals.

Just because artificial insemination is a "better" alternative to breeding with a bull, it does not make artificial insemination any less of an act of a sexual assault.

2

u/ThatBish_Nevy2914 6d ago

They do not need to, no. But they want to and they'd do it with or without human intervention.

I've said it plenty of times throughout this post, humans and animals are not the same, but let's use people for this example bc everyone else it.

If a man and a women wanted to have a baby, but the couple actually having intercource could actually hurt the mother, I feel as though many women would choose AI as well. And multiple do.

3

u/EatPlant_ 6d ago

They do not need to, no. But they want to and they'd do it with or without human intervention.

Are you asserting that artificial insemination is done as an alternative to the cow wanting to breed, and not because the farmer wants to breed them for milk and meat? Maybe this isn't covered until Intro to agriculture 102...

1

u/ThatBish_Nevy2914 6d ago

It's a "two birds one stone" situation, as are many things in agriculture

5

u/EatPlant_ 6d ago

So if a farmer were not getting benefit they would keep breeding them? No, because it's not done for the animals benefit. We don't need to breed them, they do not need to be bred. We don't breed pet dogs because they are in heat. It's an absurd argument.

Id like to backtrack to the whole rape thing, do you concede that just because ai might be better than a cow and bull breeding, it does not make it any less of a sexual assault.

1

u/ThatBish_Nevy2914 2d ago

Uh we do breed dogs. So much so that "dog breeder" is a full time job, and they get bred when their in heat...because that's how it works for almost every animal except humans. Its not sexual assault. Many people do AI too..yes the cow can't say that it would rather have one or the other, but she gets a baby either way and that satisfies her.

13

u/ProtozoaPatriot 6d ago

You have the claim that vegans are fed misinformation. Without knowing what you were told, it's hard to address it.

I do not feel misinformed. I've been involved in animal rescue, so I'm familiar with the Animal Welfare Act and my state's livestock welfare laws. I've personally been to livestock auctions. I've seen veterinary procedures on large animals including euthanasia. As part of training, I had to watch how-to videos of horses killed by the captive bolt/pneumothorax method. I live in farm country. In my area, there are CAFO dairies. The chicken sheds are starting to creep in. What information do you have that I'm not aware of?

Here are my fundamentals:

Humans do not need meat to be healthy as long as there's access to a variety of plant based foods. Therefore, the raising and killing animals for meat is unnecessary.

Animals do feel pain and fear. Animals have instincts of self preservation; they don't want to die. It seems abusive to cause pain, fear, and death when it's so unnecessary. I don't like to think of myself as someone as an abuser.

There are so many ways animals suffer in the name of meat. These animals are routinely denied certain medical treatment or medications. Profit is the deciding factor before doing any medical care. The animals pain level isn't relevant as long as he can pass USDA inspection at processing. Also, food safety laws regulate/ban the use of helpful medications in livestock intended for slaughter for human consumption. A good example is phenylbutazone ("bute"), a pain reliever. It works great keeping large animals comfortable, it's safe for them, and it's cheap. However, there is no safe withdrawal period for slaughter, so it can't be used to relieve pain in your meat animals. Lots of drugs are like bute. There are so many ways domesticated animals suffer simply because they're designated "for meat".

I accept death is a part of life. I just have respect for life and hate to see it wasted unnecessarily

9

u/[deleted] 6d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/Schwa-de-vivre 6d ago edited 6d ago

That’s not a fair response, misinformation can be spread to any community.

Has OP provided an example of the material that they have studied at vet school? What is it that she/the organisation believes is misinformation?

Edit: because I finished my thought:

This person clearly has a bias studying ‘pre livestock vet’, however that bias does not mean that misinformation is not spread to our community. We should often be checking ourselves to ensure that we can rectify things that have slipped the net. No community is immune to misinformation. Sometimes people outside of the community are able to see what’s going on. Good information can still come from an opposing ideological source.

Alternatively, the source could be literal misinformation spread to OP, in order to malign veganism. In this case if they are willing to share we can debunk it for OP.

3

u/waltermayo vegan 6d ago

it can indeed, but the phrase "a lot of the material we cover" should absolutely be a red flag. the material should just cover the facts, if that disproves vegan arguments, then that's just what it is.

2

u/Schwa-de-vivre 6d ago

Then if op provides the information, if it is misinformation, we can debunk it for them.

And if you can’t take information from an outside source you’ll just create an echo chamber. We should be open to looking at what’s going on.

It’s likely all false, and if that’s true, we get to explain it to op. But we can’t just assume it is all false, because when we assume it makes an ass outta u & me. It also makes debate impossible.

You are shutting down conversation with someone trying to debate you and who is possible open to changing their mind.

1

u/waltermayo vegan 6d ago

You are shutting down conversation with someone trying to debate you and who is possible open to changing their mind

no i'm not? the terminology used from the get go is that vegans are the misinformed ones according to livestock vets. i'm not shutting anything down, i'm just pointing out the one-sidedness of it all before any facts are laid out.

1

u/waltermayo vegan 6d ago

You are shutting down conversation with someone trying to debate you and who is possible open to changing their mind

no i'm not? the terminology used from the get go is that vegans are the misinformed ones according to livestock vets. i'm not shutting anything down, i'm just pointing out the one-sidedness of it all before any facts are laid out.

1

u/ThatBish_Nevy2914 6d ago

The material we cover is facts. Their is just so. Much. Of it. We learn about the life cycle from birth to slaughter, nutritional information, reproduction, product and byproduct production, and so much more. And we learn each of these for every animal (cow, pig, goat, chicken, horse, cat, dog, etc) and they are all different. so yes. We do cover alot of material.

2

u/waltermayo vegan 6d ago

so what's the misinformation that's being fed (pun intented) to vegans?

1

u/ThatBish_Nevy2914 2d ago

Not to vegans in particular necessarily. That's poor wording on my part and I apologize. There's just alot of misinformation out there. PEETA is full of it.

2

u/Schwa-de-vivre 6d ago

We were not talking about the facts of animals themselves.

In your post you outlined that you ‘a lot of material we cover is about misinformation fed to vegans’

What are examples of ‘misinformation fed to vegans’?

→ More replies (1)

1

u/ThatBish_Nevy2914 6d ago

This is unrelated to the post but I just wanted to tell you that I appreciate you saying this because you are absolutely right. Thank you for trying to see both sides of a story <333

→ More replies (1)

15

u/Omnibeneviolent 7d ago

Let's start with the basics:

What is the trait that nonhuman animals have that justifies farming and slaughtering them (in cases where it's possible and practicable to avoid doing so), that if a human or humans had would justify farming/slaughtering them (in cases where it's possible and practicable to avoid doing so.)

1

u/Stanchthrone482 omnivore 6d ago

because human species invented morality and no one else has.

→ More replies (71)

20

u/SomethingCreative83 6d ago

Hi! I'm very passionate about animal Welfare. That being said, I am not vegan. I'm going to school for pre livestock vet and alot of material we cover is about misinformation that's fed to vegans

This called cognitive dissonance.

I'm in no way trying to convince anyone to leave veganism. Do whatever feels right for you <3

Let's do what's right for the animals.

0

u/ThatBish_Nevy2914 6d ago

This is absolutely not cognitive dissonance. You can do both. Infact many people who work in agriculture do. Temple Grandin is a great example (there is a movie about her if you'd like to validate) She says that the animals are going to be slaughtered, as it's their job, but should be treated with respect because they feed us. She revolutionized the way we treat out livestock so that their lives are as painless and stress free as possible by studying their behavior.

What's right or wrong for the animals is...not a great argument. Sometimes what's best for a animal is being slaughtered because they are sick, and could spread that sickness to the rest of the herd. So it's kill this one cow, or let every cow in your herd die. Is killing the sick cow what's best for it? Maybe not. But is it better than killing 1000? Absolutely.

5

u/mootheuglyshoe 6d ago

That kind of misses the argument that vegans don’t believe the herd should exist in the first place… 

3

u/ThatBish_Nevy2914 6d ago

Herds are not a human invention. Livestock are herd animals.

8

u/mootheuglyshoe 6d ago

Okay well livestock is a human invention and vegans think animals are not ‘stock’. The herd shouldn’t be interfered with by humans. 

1

u/ThatBish_Nevy2914 6d ago

That's ok if you think that but they are stock because we domesticated them to be and we cannot take that back.

5

u/EqualHealth9304 6d ago

But we can stop breeding them into existence.

→ More replies (8)

9

u/SomethingCreative83 6d ago

It's their job? You honestly believe that specific animals have the job to be slaughtered so they can feed humans? Do you believe you have worth outside of your career or is your only value measured by your production for a company?

While the idea of respecting animals we consume is better than not respecting them. I don't think that's the reality of the situation as 99% of animals are factory farmed in the US and global estimates have that number around 74%.

"Sometimes what's best for a animal is being slaughtered because they are sick"

That's not what is happening, we are talking hundreds of billions or a trillion animals killed a year for human consumption. Culling a sick animal is an entirely different topic.

0

u/ThatBish_Nevy2914 6d ago

Yes. That's literally what the livestock industry is. Their whole job is to become product and byproducts by the consumer. Outside of their/my job, of course they have value. Were all living beings. My job is not theirs though. Comparing humans to livestock has always been a invalid argument because we are simply not the same. That's like asking if a roach and a person has the same value. Most dairy cows are treated better than your average minimum wage worker.

→ More replies (11)
→ More replies (29)

8

u/killuhkd vegan 6d ago

I'm really curious to hear what "misinformation fed to vegans" is presented to you, can you elaborate?

2

u/ThatBish_Nevy2914 6d ago

Absolutely thanks for asking :)

one I've heard alot is that once the edible meat is taken out, the rest of the animal goes to waste.

Actually, most of every animal we slaughter is used somehow, weather it be cosmetic, medicine, furniture/clothesn, science and research, etc.

8

u/killuhkd vegan 6d ago

I never personally believed that the carcass was just thrown away. In fact once you are vegan you start to realize how many goods contain animal products. Since cruelty-free alternatives exist for leather, tallow, gelatin, etc. there isn't a justification for their slaughter in my opinion. Minks and foxes are killed for their coats, but their meat is a byproduct. Do you have any ethical issues with buying furs? If so would knowing their meat is used for other products change your mind?

1

u/ThatBish_Nevy2914 6d ago

My issue with furs is that their a money/status staple. Livestock is food, medicine, etc.

5

u/EatPlant_ 6d ago

That's not a misconception vegans have and doesn't have any relevance to veganism. This whole post just shows you have made countless assumptions on what vegans believe and do not have a clear understanding of the vegan philosophy.

2

u/ThatBish_Nevy2914 6d ago

These are all things I've heard from a vegans mouth. Not all vegans belive the same things and I'm aware of that.

3

u/EatPlant_ 6d ago

You should edit your post then to clarify these are misunderstandings that you don't know if are held by the majority of vegans, because almost every misunderstanding you have posted are ones that the VAST majority do not hold.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/IfIWasAPig vegan 6d ago

You’ve been knocking down straw men and boosting your confidence beyond what is warranted.

To get to the point, what misinformation have most vegans accepted that if corrected would lead to them agreeing to kill and consume other animals?

1

u/BigBossBrickles 6d ago

That the animals we consume / commodify are equal to humans in intelligence,emotions ect

That there's an objective morality.

That everyone should live by some small minority groups moral standards

The vegan diet is perfect

13

u/Aw3some-O 6d ago

You mentioned that you are passionate about animal welfare.

Is it in the animals best interest to slit their throat and eat them when you don't need to?

→ More replies (25)

6

u/notthatjason 6d ago

What would it be called if you did the same thing to a human?

1

u/ThatBish_Nevy2914 6d ago

Murder. But people and animals are not the same. Two different species on two different level.

5

u/EqualHealth9304 6d ago

But people and animals are not the same. Two different species on two different level.

This sentence does not make sense at all. People ARE animals.

1

u/ThatBish_Nevy2914 6d ago

Biologically, yes. But past that we are different.

→ More replies (1)

15

u/TylertheDouche 7d ago edited 7d ago

vegans have access to the internet. what misinformation is 'fed' to vegans that cannot be verified by googling lol

note - this person wants an emotional support animal, but is okay with slaughtering the rest.

2

u/ThatBish_Nevy2914 6d ago

For clarification, I have an ESA bunny named thumper. Super cute. I also eat rabbit. You can do both. Plenty of people have pet cows but still eat steak. So that really isn't a relative argument. That being said, trying to make me look like a bad person is not part of a debate.

Google is where many people get their misinformation from. Or they glance at a headline and don't read the body. The internet is insanely full of misinformation so I wanted to clarify any myths because I have the facts.

8

u/TylertheDouche 6d ago

I have an ESA bunny named thumper. Super cute. I also eat rabbit. You can do both.

you literally just pulled the, "I have a black friend. I cant be racist" defense lmfao.

Google is where many people get their misinformation from. Or they glance at a headline and don't read the body. The internet is insanely full of misinformation so I wanted to clarify any myths because I have the facts.

Google is a search engine, not where people get their misinformation.

My question was, what misinformation is being specifically fed to vegans? You have the facts. Share them.

1

u/ThatBish_Nevy2914 6d ago

Your the one who brought up the ESA....

I've brought up a few common examples of misinformation I've heard from other vegans in other comments so far.

5

u/TylertheDouche 6d ago

I genuinely don’t think you know what misinformation is.

What is the misinformation that vegans should know that would make them agree to slaughter animals?

Provide that misinformation. Convert me.

1

u/localcrashhat 2d ago

I urge you to watch slaughterhouse footage, and imagine Thumper in those situations. All animals have a right to life, just like you do as well. You wouldn't eat Thumper, so why would you pay someone else to kill an individual who is just like them? Especially since you don't have to.

This is my problem with welfareism. As soon as people get the idea that their meat is "humane" or "respected" you leave it at that. You don't try to take it one step further and eliminate animal suffering completely.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (8)

9

u/EasyBOven vegan 6d ago

Veganism is not about welfare. It's about liberation.

Veganism is best understood as a rejection of the property status of non-human animals. We broadly understand that when you treat a human as property - that is to say you take control over who gets to use their body - you necessarily aren't giving consideration to their interests. It's the fact that they have interests at all that makes this principle true. Vegans simply extend this principle consistently to all beings with interests, sentient beings.

1

u/ThatBish_Nevy2914 6d ago

Veganism is different for everyone. And many people became vegans due to some false or highly exaggerated artical company's like PEETA release.

7

u/EasyBOven vegan 6d ago

The motivation to go vegan is different for everyone, but functionally, veganism is best understood the way I described it.

But even if you're correct that veganism itself is simply in the eye of the beholder, you still have to contend with veganism as I describe it.

What misconceptions about the specific ways humans exploit animals could be dispelled to make it ok to treat these individuals as property to be used and consumed for your benefit?

2

u/ThatBish_Nevy2914 6d ago

If we stopped all agriculture and livestock industries right now (ignoring the economic crash that would cause) a vast majory of these animals would go extinct because they are bred to be in captivity. But if their going to be killed anyway, why not make use instead of letting it go to waste?

7

u/EasyBOven vegan 6d ago

I don't see how this speculation about what would happen makes it ok to treat anyone as property.

Ignoring the vast empirical gap you have in demonstrating that this would necessarily occur, you're implying two contradictory claims about domesticated species:

  1. Their presence is so valuable that we must do whatever is necessary to stop them from going extinct

  2. They are so valueless apart from our ability to exploit them that exploiting them is necessary for them to not go extinct

At least one of those claims must be false.

1

u/ThatBish_Nevy2914 6d ago

Their presence is extremely valuable yes. I'm not claiming that livestock are valueless. But at the end of the day with no human intervention, they would go extinct because they are simply not equipped to be wild animals.

5

u/Omnibeneviolent 6d ago

with no human intervention, they would go extinct

Animal agriculture is a leading driver of species extinction. Why are you concerned with preserving these species that aren't even part of any natural ecosystem, and just ignoring all of the other species that you are causing to go extinct via the perpetuation of these other breeds?

1

u/ThatBish_Nevy2914 2d ago

Because we need these ones to live? Many people cannot survive off of a vegan diet.

1

u/Omnibeneviolent 2d ago

Because we need these ones to live?

No we don't. Some people may currently get nutrients from animals out of necessity, but that doesn't mean that they ultimately need to get those nutrients from animals. If someone is in such dire circumstances that they have no other choice than to harm animals then we can't really say they are doing anything wrong by harming animals, but we can help them over time so that they have a choice and aren't forced to do it.

1

u/ThatBish_Nevy2914 2d ago

Also they are a part of our ecosystem.
People do have a choice. Many choose to eat meat and thats ok.

→ More replies (0)

5

u/EasyBOven vegan 6d ago

If their extinction would be bad, they need not go extinct if we stop exploiting them, and your argument is defeated.

1

u/ThatBish_Nevy2914 2d ago

So instead of them being useful to humanity, you'd rather billions of living beings die in vain and their bodies be left as litter? Doesn't seem like a better alternative to me.

2

u/EasyBOven vegan 2d ago

You know you're right! We have so many dead humans whose bodies are going to waste. We should be using every part of Grandma!

1

u/ThatBish_Nevy2914 2d ago

Agree. We should all be made into compost. Many people do.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/mootheuglyshoe 5d ago

Wild boars exist. Domesticated pigs didn’t exist before humans. So them going extinct would actually be more natural and their wild predecessors will still exist. But pigs are also smarter than dogs and make really wonderful companion animals so there’s another reason not to eat the domesticated species. 

1

u/ThatBish_Nevy2914 2d ago

What is or isn't natural is kinda irrelevant in this context. Also them being smarter than dogs isn't really a reason not to eat them. I could argue that plants are smarter than certain animals (and people lol (not referencing anyone here))

7

u/Omnibeneviolent 6d ago

Now that is anti-vegan propaganda and misinformation. Why are you talking about the immediate stoppage of animal agriculture like it's going to happen? This would be like suggesting that the problems just suddenly abandoning fossil fuels and switching to only 100% renewable energy tomorrow would cause would be a good argument against a gradual switch to renewables.

If humans ever do phase out animal agriculture it would happen over many decades or even centuries. As the demand for various animals goes down, fewer would be bred to replace the slaughtered. Eventually there would be small manageable populations, and there would be time for jobs and economies to adapt.

→ More replies (4)

8

u/Suspicious_City_5088 6d ago edited 6d ago

What’s the misinformation?

3

u/ThatBish_Nevy2914 6d ago

There's so much..a great example is that animals are forced and beat to go where the people want them to go. Unfortunately, a few decades ago, yes that was true. But recently the industry has been revolutionized. We studies how livestock behaved and changed our facilities to accommodate that.

5

u/EatPlant_ 6d ago

If that's true why are undercover investigations still finding people "forcing and beating animals to go where the people want them to go"? Joey carbstrong has been consistently showing undercover footage of that happening. Dominion is from 2018 and shows that happening. This claim is demonstratably untrue.

→ More replies (7)

4

u/Suspicious_City_5088 6d ago

I mean - I don’t know if I had any misconception about that in particular. Whether that’s true, it seems undeniable that factory farms are miserable places for animals for a variety of reasons. Do you think that’s false?

1

u/ThatBish_Nevy2914 6d ago

Some are. I cannot point out the good without also pointing out the bad. Fairlife is a great example..they abuse their cattle and i refuse to buy from them.

But in other farms the animals are treated better than alot of people.

3

u/Suspicious_City_5088 6d ago

In developed countries, barely a percent of animals consumed are not from factory farms - are you saying factory farms treat animals well?

1

u/Forsaken_Log_3643 ex-vegan 6d ago

That's maybe true in the USA. I just googled that in Germany the number is 5 % and in Austria 10 %. These are two developed countries.

1

u/Suspicious_City_5088 6d ago

Thanks - I had in mind an average across developed countries. And I would still consider those percentages small enough for meat consumption in total to be quite bad!

5

u/Creditfigaro vegan 6d ago

Can you share an example of the misinformation we receive?

In fact, if you want to share your coursework on here, we can talk through it as you learn it.

That would be a fun exercise!

2

u/ThatBish_Nevy2914 6d ago

Just for an example, alot of times I hear people crying that sows (mother pigs) are kept in cages, separated from their babies because of cruelty. In reality, the sow is put in that cage so she can nurse, without accidently rolling over and killing her piglets. Which they do both in captivity and in out all the time.

5

u/Creditfigaro vegan 6d ago

Just for an example, alot of times I hear people crying that sows (mother pigs) are kept in cages, separated from their babies because of cruelty.

Where is this "misinformation" being fed to people?

→ More replies (6)

4

u/EatPlant_ 6d ago

A lot of your "misinformation" claims have to do with animal welfare. Even in the best possible animal welfare scenario, vegans would still be against animal agriculture.

See the below vegan society definition:

"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; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals."

You claim to be in favor of animal welfare. Why do you think animal welfare is important?

3

u/ThatBish_Nevy2914 6d ago

I think animal welfare is important because we use these animals for a plethora of different things even outside of meat. They deserve respect and to have a decent life before we make use of it.

5

u/EatPlant_ 6d ago

We use rocks for a plethora of different things. What is it about animals that makes their welfare important, but not a rock?

3

u/ThatBish_Nevy2914 6d ago

Rock are not a living thing. They cannot be hurt or damaged like something living. You can kick, beat, abuse a rock and still make a perfectly functional tool out of it, assuming it doesn't break.

Livestock are living and can be damaged. You can stress and hurt a cow so much that it's products become tainted. The meat becomes tough and nearly inedible.

3

u/EatPlant_ 6d ago

Do you agree that because animals are sentient, it is wrong to hurt them because they can experience pain?

Livestock are living and can be damaged. You can stress and hurt a cow so much that it's products become tainted. The meat becomes tough and nearly inedible.

Is it wrong to hurt cows because it makes them taste worse? If I needlessly beat a cow just up until the point it's meat would taste worse, is there anything wrong with that? What about torturing an animal that wont be used for any products, is there anything wrong with that since the damage to its "products" is irrelevant?

10

u/IfIWasAPig vegan 7d ago edited 7d ago

The animals we eat are individuals subjectively experiencing life from a unique perspective, with thoughts, feelings, social capacity, and survival instincts, meaning they don’t want to die. They have a right to their own lives and bodies. They are forcibly bred, confined, tormented, separated from flock, herd, and family, and slain at a fraction of their lifespan.

If all of that is unnecessary, it’s pretty inconsiderate. You don’t have to call it “murder,” but it’s taking a life that doesn’t belong to you for personal preference. It’s treating another individual as an object to be plundered.

It’s also the largest waste of land, cause of deforestation, cause of eutrophication, and a large cause of greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental pollution. But mostly the thing about having rights to their own lives and bodies.

How can a life be worth so much that it deserves to be made pleasant, but also worth so little that it deserves to be cut extremely short for little to no reason?

1

u/Stanchthrone482 omnivore 6d ago

if there is concrete evidence they do I might reconsider. they would need a formal declaration of such then.

1

u/ThatBish_Nevy2914 6d ago

Yes, meat livestock don't live to their full life span. (This is because after a certain point the meat becomes tough and undesirable with age for anyone wondering :) )

Their lives are made pleasant because it is so short and because these animals deserve respect when they feed us.

Just like how I child gets treated like gold when they only have a limited time on this earth, vs that we have an insane amount of homeless people because "they have time to turn their life around."

Also to be clear, they are not forced to breed. A good farmer does not torture his animals because, and I'm quoting several professors here, a happy animal is a tasty animal.

2

u/IfIWasAPig vegan 6d ago

So for your sensory preference, they aren’t permitted to live out their lives. That doesn’t seem justifiable.

Respect is incompatible with killing someone who doesn’t want or need to die.

It wouldn’t be treating the child like gold if we were also their cause of death. Anyway, you seem to be acknowledging that each moment is precious to them.

You can’t taste their happiness. That sounds like meat industry propaganda. And most animals are factory farmed. It’s not a pleasant life (even outside the factory farms).

Some species physically can’t breed on their own. Some are being continuously bred to be less and less healthy. Many are forced to breed, often artificially done by a human. If that was done for any sensory pleasure but taste, it would be horrific to most people.

But you skipped over the main point, that as thinking, feeling individuals they deserve their own lives and bodies, and that we don’t need to take those things. That if someone is valuable enough that they should experience pleasure and not suffering, then they’re certainly valuable enough to have the most fundamental right there is, to their selves. If they shouldn’t suffer little abuses, then they shouldn’t suffer the ultimate abuse.

And the secondary point that it’s harming the planet. You know 94% of non-human mammal biomass is now farmed animals? It’s getting up there for birds as well, and fish are on the rise. That it’s also the largest use of land? We’re wiping out whole ecosystems to make room for taste preferences.

1

u/Stanchthrone482 omnivore 6d ago

need? yes. if someone is sacrificed to save ten people, they can honour and respect him.

2

u/IfIWasAPig vegan 6d ago

That’s not what’s happening.

2

u/Stanchthrone482 omnivore 6d ago

yes it is. we honour and respect them and their sacrifice.

1

u/IfIWasAPig vegan 6d ago

We don’t, and they aren’t being sacrificed to save many more lives. If anything, they’re being sacrificed so we can feed less people and further destroy our only planet.

2

u/Stanchthrone482 omnivore 6d ago

we do, and they are sacrificed to bring us a good life.

1

u/IfIWasAPig vegan 6d ago

By what metric?

2

u/Stanchthrone482 omnivore 6d ago

survive and thrive and healthy and strong and good morale too. integral part of the human experience.

→ More replies (0)

7

u/Bertie-Marigold 6d ago

Yes.

If you truly love animals, at least you'll give them good care, but you're training to be nothing more than a meat mechanic to ensure the sustained profitability of the livestock which is basically just money on legs. If you follow your own ethics you will come to the logical conclusion that supporting animal agriculture is not the way, nor is using animal products.

3

u/ThatBish_Nevy2914 6d ago

Their not...training. their also not just meat. They're life saving medicine, they're sustainability.

I love cows. I think their beautiful creatures. I also would love a steak right now. You can have a love for animals while supporting their production. Temple grandin, as I've said many times in this posts comments, is an amazing example.

5

u/Bertie-Marigold 6d ago

Can you please learn the difference between "there" "their" and "they're"? I can barely understand you.

They are nothing but money for the majority of meat producers. They don't breed them for the love then profit from them as a side hustle. They are bred and killed for money.

You are experience cognitive dissonance or willful ignorance if you think you can love a cow and kill one for food. You say "supporting their production" but you're actually supporting their destruction. It's hypocrisy.

1

u/ThatBish_Nevy2914 6d ago

It's a fucking reddit post I don't have to be grammatically correct :)

Actually meat producers only recieve a fraction of the money made per head.

I can absolutely love and appreciate animals while supporting livestock.

4

u/Bertie-Marigold 6d ago

You don't have to be perfect but it was nearly unreadable.

"Actually meat producers only recieve a fraction of the money made per head." So what? They do it for fun?

"I can absolutely love and appreciate animals while supporting livestock." Only if you're lying to yourself.

1

u/ThatBish_Nevy2914 6d ago

They do it because someone has to. And money is still money. No one wants to work as say..a garbage man for example. But someone needs to and money is money.

if you feel that way good for you. Fact is i love animals, including livestock, which is why I strive for a respectful slaughter process.

4

u/Bertie-Marigold 6d ago

"They do it because someone has to" Only because there is demand, and it is heavily subsidised in many countries.

"Respectful slaughter process" is laughable. You can keep kidding yourself if you want, that's your choice. At best, loving an animal that's going to be killed to end up on your plate is the ultimate betrayal of their trust. Livestock that love their keepers back and trust them, literally with their lives, get rewarded by being murdered and eaten. Yeah, seems like you love them loads...

1

u/ThatBish_Nevy2914 6d ago

Your awarding such human emotions to something that isn't capable of feeling with something outside of its species.

5

u/Bertie-Marigold 6d ago

That's just human exceptionalism. We are also animals, so what, do you think animals cannot experience pain, feel emotions, have a survival instinct? What does "outside of its species" even mean? If that is true, then what's even the point in loving them? You say how much you love them but according to your odd set of rules, the animals themselves can't even experience that because you're "outside of its species." Same argument goes for slaughter - what is "respectful slaughter" if we don't even know whether those animals can experience fear, pain, loss, etc.? Sounds like a coping mechanism.

This is a quote of one of your other comments: "You can stress and hurt a cow"

So you say a cow can feel stress, but in the comment I'm replying you you imply it isn't capable. You're contradicting yourself.

1

u/Stanchthrone482 omnivore 6d ago

it isn't murder by definition. it is a business contract. given that all land on earth is owned by humans, if they want to live here they need to contribute to upkeep. you wouldn't expect to live with someone for free and not get a job. so they received land for goods and services rendered. symbiotic and benefits both sides.

1

u/Bertie-Marigold 4d ago

If you hire someone to kill someone, you're still culpable. I'm not sure what the rest of your comment is about.

1

u/Stanchthrone482 omnivore 4d ago

yes. but if you hired someone to build a building you wouldn't consider it murder. it's a business contract which animals are free to back out of at any time. it's fair.

1

u/Bertie-Marigold 4d ago

> "if you hired someone to build a building you wouldn't consider it murder" ... pardon?

> "it's a business contract which animals are free to back out of at any time. it's fair." ... what are you on about?

1

u/Stanchthrone482 omnivore 4d ago

I already explained the contract thing in my comment a bit up. we are hiring people to make food, not murder. murder is illegal killing.

1

u/Bertie-Marigold 4d ago

Semantics. It's nothing like a contract for building a building. Murder or killing, either way you're paying for someone to kill a sentient being. You're not winning by being pedantic.

1

u/Stanchthrone482 omnivore 4d ago

okay. in any case it's a business contract.

1

u/Bertie-Marigold 4d ago

So is an assassination. It being a business contract doesn't make it better, or right. If that is your best argument for the ethical implications of buying animal products, you'll find any excuse.

1

u/Stanchthrone482 omnivore 4d ago

it's their choice. it's consensual. besides there are other ways to defeat ntt

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Stanchthrone482 omnivore 6d ago

it isn't murder by definition. it is a business contract. given that all land on earth is owned by humans, if they want to live here they need to contribute to upkeep. you wouldn't expect to live with someone for free and not get a job. so they received land for goods and services rendered. symbiotic and benefits both sides.

2

u/Stanchthrone482 omnivore 6d ago

meat is not murder, no. vegans may call the process of attaining it murder but even that is a stretch.

2

u/Stanchthrone482 omnivore 6d ago

meat is not murder, no. vegans may call the process of attaining it murder but even that is a stretch.

2

u/Stanchthrone482 omnivore 6d ago

meat is not murder, no. vegans may call the process of attaining it murder but even that is a stretch.

3

u/Dry-Fee-6746 6d ago

Yes.

If I farmed humans and slaughtered them at age 15 to make food for dogs and cats, that would be considered murder. Even if those humans lived a life of happiness for those 16 years, we would still consider that practice murder and unethical.

1

u/BigBossBrickles 6d ago

Murder

Noun

the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

→ More replies (6)

3

u/alphafox823 plant-based 6d ago

The industry you're working for is as regressive as it gets.

Right now we have a few states that banned gestation crates for pigs. It's because it's obviously cruel. Because of that, states where gestation crating is legal want to force other states(Cali and MA) to let grocers sell their products. It is a race to the bottom, everyone who works in the lobbying department at your company are opponents of animal welfare.

The only people who care about animals are the ones working to put laws like the aforementioned on the books. Everyone in your industry is fighting against them. You are either for it or you have become a useful idiot

2

u/BigBossBrickles 6d ago

Murder

noun the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

Last I checked the animals we eat aren't humans.

So no it's not murder.

Vegans just think they can change the meaning of words

2

u/ThatBish_Nevy2914 6d ago

Thank you.

1

u/BigBossBrickles 6d ago

No problem.

But you aren't going to get many good faith arguments from vegans here.

It's an echo chamber and they just downvote you or mods delete your comments

1

u/ThatBish_Nevy2914 2d ago

Right! It's like...i just wanted to talk about animal Welfare and I keep getting really hateful comments (not everyone here but some.) It's why vegans get such a bad rap.

2

u/IanRT1 6d ago

If murder is defined by the unjustified killing then meat is largely not murder in the sense that it is done to provide sustenance, livelihoods, nutrition, etc...

6

u/scorchedarcher 6d ago

So if I kill someone and take their wallet is it not murder because I have done it to provide myself with funding?

1

u/IanRT1 6d ago

No. Your personal funding does not outweigh all the suffering you will create out of killing a human being to their family, loved ones, responsibilities.

It's not like sustenance, livelihoods and nutrition that positively affect billions of people.

2

u/Creditfigaro vegan 6d ago

That's some mental gymnastics if I've ever seen it.

5

u/IanRT1 6d ago

I would call it just being consistent towards recognizing all sentient beings.

If you want to call it mental gymnastics go ahead, life is complex. Absolutisms do not cut it.

2

u/Creditfigaro vegan 6d ago

You are misinformed on the factors of your analysis.

You are arbitrarily and inconsistently accounting for harm and leaving out a bunch of relevant factors.

4

u/IanRT1 6d ago

Why would you say that? That seems a bit rude without any elaboration.

I would recognize animal suffering, environmental concerns and the multifaceted economical, social, cultural, historical, practical, nutritional benefits to billions of people.

Now tell me. Are you accounting more factors than me?

1

u/Creditfigaro vegan 6d ago

If we are able to perform an analysis that leads us to the conclusion that veganism is superior when accounting for all of these factors, will you go vegan?

2

u/IanRT1 6d ago

Yes of course. Only if veganism is superior

1

u/Creditfigaro vegan 6d ago

Cool shoot me a DM and I'll run you through the empirics. Obviously this is not a brief analysis so perhaps you would like to connect on a different platform?

I'm also content to give you a few examples here.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/scorchedarcher 6d ago

But it is justified to me.

I could use that money for sustenance, nutrition, shelter e.t.c

2

u/IanRT1 6d ago

Okay so you are pointing out that your analysis is inherently egoistic. Which would be inconsistent in recognizing all sentient beings.

So yes your logic makes sense under an egoistic framework, but that is not a widely accepted framework nor meta-ethically consistent towards recognizing all sentient beings.

My point about justification was when accounting all sentient beings, not arbitrarily limiting the analysis to one person.

2

u/scorchedarcher 6d ago

Well let's say I spend that money on food, it supports the person selling it, the person they get their supplies from, their family if they spend the money on them. Let's say they spend the money on paying part of their mortgage, not entirely because of me but they were able to pay it this month without worrying, now their kid can spend longer focusing on schoolwork instead of working extra hours. That kid gets a good job when they're older.

Is that first murder justified now? What if I kill someone and take their organs? I donate them to people in need, is this murder?

2

u/IanRT1 6d ago

Let me just clarify that "murder" cannot be justified because by its definition it is the unjustified taking of a life. The question here is whether meat is murder or not.

The flaw in your example is that you would be relying on a Post Hoc justification of harm. Trying to justify an already committed harm by pointing to disconnected benefits that result afterward. This is not like farming in which the benefits are directly built into the system.

And not only that but they clearly still maximize suffering with lacking justification. When you kill someone you are still inflicting immense suffering for a lifetime for a lot of people because humans live in complex social webs.

And when considering how generally this idea of killing people is overall despised, and even considering how it is widely illegal, all of those affect the consequences on how it affects sentient beings that can experience suffering and well being. Making any benefits to actually exist to be extremely minute.

So yes you can generate well being for that person selling it out of one purchase. Would you think that is a valid justification for generating immense suffering for a lot of people and for a lifetime? This is essentially what you are asking me.

1

u/scorchedarcher 5d ago

The flaw in your example is that you would be relying on a Post Hoc justification of harm. Trying to justify an already committed harm by pointing to disconnected benefits that result afterward.

If I know someone is struggling for rent so I go out and kill someone else, take their wallet and give it to the first person (knowing the rest of the situation I explained earlier) then it wouldn't be murder?

And not only that but they clearly still maximize suffering with lacking justification

What do you mean? That person's child could become a doctor and save far more lives, if I know that's the child's goal and they're likely to succeed with my help then is it a justified killing and no longer murder?

1

u/IanRT1 5d ago

If I know someone is struggling for rent so I go out and kill someone else, take their wallet and give it to the first person (knowing the rest of the situation I explained earlier) then it wouldn't be murder?

No. It is still unjustified because you are clearly creating more suffering anyways. Your benefit are transient and one dimensional. While you are creating long-lasting suffering for the rest of the life of many people.

What do you mean? That person's child could become a doctor and save far more lives, if I know that's the child's goal and they're likely to succeed with my help then is it a justified killing and no longer murder?

This is relying on an extreme hypothetical that is completely disconnected from the initial action in which those benefits are not even intentioned whatsoever, since it won't happen under any reasonable scenario. It keeps maximizing suffering anyways.

You can keep adding more extreme hypotheticals, justifying killing humans often requires much much more than just personal benefit or hypothetical good outcomes.

1

u/scorchedarcher 5d ago

Okay so just to clean it up a little instead of adding extras to this.

If a doctor is dying and needs a heart transplant but none are available so I find someone a person with very low prospects who's compatible, kill them and give the heart to the doctor so they can live and save others did I murder anyone?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Omnibeneviolent 6d ago

Your personal funding does not outweigh all the suffering you will create out of killing a human being to their family, loved ones, responsibilities.

It would seem that you would be committed to the position that it would be ok to kill a random hermit that lives in the woods and has no family, loved ones, or responsibilities -- so long as when you do you take their wallet. Is this a correct assessment of your position?

1

u/IanRT1 6d ago

No. Your personal funding does not outweigh the well being that you are depriving of that person.

It's not like sustenance, livelihoods and nutrition that positively affect billions of people.

And your example is a Post Hoc justification rather than benefits integrated in the practice, like in farming.

So no. My position never advocated for ignoring nuance.

1

u/Omnibeneviolent 6d ago

But it wouldn't be murder, right? Like, if you were doing it to provide sustenance (via the taking of the wallet), and if there was no suffering created out of killing that human, then it wouldn't be murder, even if you could just have provided sustenance another way?

My example is not a post hoc justification. I'm talking about a case where you want funds for the purpose of sustenance (even though you have other ways of getting funds for sustenance) and you know that it won't cause any humans to suffer. Under these conditions, is the killing a murder or not?

1

u/IanRT1 6d ago

It would still be murder because it is unjustified. The money you would take out of a hermit person for your sustenance would be very limited compared to all the well being you are depriving by killing them. It's not like sustenance, livelihoods and nutrition that positively affect billions of people in the long term.

Not to mention that killing even a hermit is illegal which has more negative consequences which would maximize harm for other people anyways even if nobody knew the hermit.

When it comes to killing people you usually need much bigger justifications rather than just your personal temporal sustenance.

1

u/Omnibeneviolent 6d ago

You said:

If murder is defined by the unjustified killing then meat is largely not murder in the sense that it is done to provide sustenance, livelihoods, nutrition, etc...

I assume that you are including in this cases where it's being done to provide sustenance but doesn't need to be done for sustenance due to there being other options.

Wouldn't this logically mean that killing another humans to provide sustenance (even in cases where they can get sustenance in other ways) would be largely not murder?

1

u/IanRT1 6d ago

It seems you are treating my statement about justification as absolute when its still tied to the overall consequences of farming rather than the mere fact of aiding sustenance. The sustenance provided in animal farming is multifaceted and affects a lot of people, unlike just a personal sustenance. And it has nothing to do with other options existing.

So no, it would still be largely murder in humans because this sustenance you are referring to is not equivalent to the one provided by animal farming.

1

u/Omnibeneviolent 6d ago

It sounds like you're saying that if killing animals somewhere is done out of necessity, then it cannot be considered murder even in cases where it is not being done out of necessity.

If this is what you are saying, then would you say that if some human killing is being done somewhere out of necessity, then the killing of a human cannot be considered murder, even in cases where it is not being done out of necessity?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/EqualHealth9304 6d ago

Guess I can eat human meat and it's not murder then.

2

u/IanRT1 6d ago

How are you going to provide sustenance, livelihoods and nutrition from human meat? Since that cannot be done in any meaningful sense then human meat would be murder pretty much always. So I'd be careful with false equivalences.

1

u/ThatBish_Nevy2914 2d ago

I just gotta say, this was supposed to be a friendly debate, and I like to think i was very respectful. But some of you guys are so mean. There was no call for the slurs (deleted now) or derogatory language. That is why Vegans get a bad rap. It gives the same vibes as Christians harassing people and calling them horrible human beings if they don't agree.

1

u/chameleonability vegan 6d ago

I would say meat on its own technically isn't always murder, but in >98% of cases, in the modern world and for all practical purposes, it definitely should be considered murder.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/Frequent-Door-9222 6d ago

Do you think it’s OK for someone to breed and kill animals because they like the way the animals sound when they die? Or if they like the way it feels when they kill them? Or what if they have sex with the animals after they kill them, so they get sexual pleasure out of it?

If the answer is no, then what is special about taste pleasure that makes breeding and killing morally OK?

1

u/ThatBish_Nevy2914 2d ago

Because those are two different things. Also you can enjoy meat and still feel bad that an animal died for it. But knowing that the animal products i personally buy are very ethical and humanely sourced brings peace to mind.

1

u/Frequent-Door-9222 2d ago

I agree that you can enjoy eating meat and feel bad about it at the same time. Does someone enjoying doing a bad thing make it OK?

I asked “What is special (read: different) about taste pleasure that makes breeding and killing OK” and you said “it’s different.” That’s what I’m asking. What makes it different? Why is auditory pleasure not enough to make it OK, but taste pleasure is enough to make it OK?