Guilt free Sausages?

[LiE]

You don't find many wild dogs out there so that is a bit of a silly question. However I have no issue with people eating dogs provided they are not mistreated, culturally we don't eat them in the UK.

At least your are morally consistent. I'm personally against killing an animal unnecessarily. Given the abundance of plant based foods, we don't need animal based products anymore. Fortunately more and more people are choosing plant based which is a great win for the animals, the environment and our health.

It's so easy to be plant based these days. Beyond burgers taste pretty damn good!

 

[Basher]

At least your are morally consistent. I'm personally against killing an animal unnecessarily. Given the abundance of plant based foods, we don't need animal based products anymore. Fortunately more and more people are choosing plant based which is a great win for the animals, the environment and our health.

It's so easy to be plant based these days. Beyond burgers taste pretty damn good!

I agree with you for the most part, but is it a great win for the animals? I am against barbaric conditions, but if we all go plant-based, surely the animals won't exist to begin with?

 

[413x]

I agree with you for the most part, but is it a great win for the animals? I am against barbaric conditions, but if we all go plant-based, surely the animals won't exist to begin with?

This is a fallacy. And it's peddled by farmers a lot.

Put yourself in the animals shoes. I think you'd pretty quickly decide it was better to never be born than to undergo the suffering they experience

 

[Jono8]

That's not really true.

Worldwide mammal population is estimated at 130 billion, and most don't experience a whole lot of 'cruelty'. We eat 2 billion mammals per year, just in pig, cow, sheep and goat numbers, and most face human cruelty in some form.

We also kill 50 billion chickens each year, for meat, which excludes male chicks in the egg industry.

By all means eat meat, I do, but don't pretend it's not an awful industry.

how do you define cruelty though? For something to be cruel, it would have to be physiologically damaging/stressful for the animal. An animal has no concept of how long it should leave, or what it is has been bred for. If good levels of animal welfare are upheld, then livestock likely has a less stressful/cruel life compared to what it would experience in nature without humans. In nature, non apex predators are constantly on edge and having to evade predators/protect their young from predators etc.

So therefore what is more stressful for an animal? Do you know?

 

[adolf hamster]

This guy thinks he could beat an Elephant, Croc and Shark for sure from that yougov poll

1v1'ing those animals unarmed is not the same thing as not being the ultimate predator, those animals have all been hunted extensively by humans, sometimes for no better cause than entertainment.

There is no animal on this planet that humanity fears on anything but the very localised scale.

So yes, calling ourselves the ultimate predator is a valid statement to make.

 

[Jono8]

This is a fallacy. And it's peddled by farmers a lot.

Put yourself in the animals shoes. I think you'd pretty quickly decide it was better to never be born than to undergo the suffering they experience

Suffering compared to what though? i could argue that if humans did not exist, these animals would live a far more stressful existence as they would likely be hunted all day every day by other predators.

 

[413x]

Suffering compared to what though? i could argue that if humans did not exist, these animals would live a far more stressful existence as they would likely be hunted all day every day by other predators.

Small crates, sometimes no room to move. Cramped conditions. Brutal Deaths. Chickens unable to move. Burns and. Sores from sitting in faeces. This is no life.

Yes. They don't know the alternative. But you can't say farming for most animals isn't cruel.

 

[LiE]

how do you define cruelty though? For something to be cruel, it would have to be physiologically damaging/stressful for the animal. An animal has no concept of how long it should leave, or what it is has been bred for. If good levels of animal welfare are upheld, then livestock likely has a less stressful/cruel life compared to what it would experience in nature without humans. In nature, non apex predators are constantly on edge and having to evade predators/protect their young from predators etc.

So therefore what is more stressful for an animal? Do you know?

All animals want to be free of pain and discomfort, to inflict that upon them is cruel. They are born so very innocent, into a strange world where they are seen as livestock, not individual animals with their own little personalities.

It makes no sense to justify animal agriculture by saying "well a deer is killed by a wolf in the wild tho".

 

[Basher]

This is a fallacy. And it's peddled by farmers a lot.

Put yourself in the animals shoes. I think you'd pretty quickly decide it was better to never be born than to undergo the suffering they experience

Sure, but I just wouldn't call "never being born" a win for the animal.

 

[Basher]

They are born so very innocent, into a strange world where they are seen as livestock, not individual animals with their own little personalities..

I think I see what you mean here, but it's also important not to apply a human level of consciousness to an animal. Our interpretation of their personalities may not be as conscious to them as it is to us. Obviously depends on the animal, of course.

 

[Jono8]

Small crates, sometimes no room to move. Cramped conditions. Brutal Deaths.

Yes. They don't know the alternative. But you can't say farming for most animals isn't cruel.

Well, like i have said before in this thread, i am all for better animal welfare standards.

But as long as animals are looked after well and given a stress free life I see zero ethical problem with farming them for meat or produce. Almost every animals in existence is part of the food chain and food for something else. Also, animals do not have any concept of ethics or morality, or what is eventually in store for them, so if they are given a relatively stress free life, i fail to see the cruelty aspect.

I do see both sides of the argument, but I dont think either could be considered as 100% correct, because it is more of a philosophical question than anything else.

If the argument is that it is cruel/unethical to give life to animals, just to kill them for food, then that is rejecting the entire premise of how the natural world works.

So you have a choice -

Does the life not exist at all

or

Does the life exist to eventually feed another life.

 

[413x]

Well, like i have said before in this thread, i am all for better animal welfare standards.

But as long as animals are looked after well and given a stress free life I see zero ethical problem with farming them for meat or produce. Almost every animals in existence is part of the food chain and food for something else.

I do see both sides of the argument, but I dont think either could be considered as correct, because it is more of a philosophical question than anything else.

If the argument is that it is cruel/unethical to give life to animals, just to kill them, then that is rejecting the entire premise of how the natural world works.

I don't have a problem really with this scenario.
- incubate and hatch chicken.
- rear chicken free range (I mean proper free range like my hens at home)
-kill chicken quickly/humanely.


Unfortunately that is basically non existenent in real world

The conditions the vast majority of animals endure is truly horrific. And this isn't even touching on some of the disgusting things that go on abroad

 

[413x]

Sure, but I just wouldn't call "never being born" a win for the animal.

What would you choose? I guarantee it would be the non exist.
Remember, this massive population of animals isn't natural. It's only because of us they exist. You're not 'ending a species' by Ending animal farming.

 

[Jono8]

I don't have a problem really with this scenario.
- incubate and hatch chicken.
- rear chicken free range (I mean proper free range like my hens at home)
-kill chicken quickly/humanely.


Unfortunately that is basically non existenent in real world

Well i would agree that it should be, and i would be willing to pay more for meat if the country/world government ensured better animal welfare in farming.

 

[Janesy B]

I think I'd rather just go veggie than eat meat grown in a test tube.

 

[200sols]

Unfortunately that is basically non existenent in real world

It isn't, but your chicken wont cost £3.

 

[LiE]

If the argument is that it is cruel/unethical to give life to animals, just to kill them, then that is rejecting the entire premise of how the natural world works.

There is nothing natural about the industrialisation of animal agriculture.



It's interesting seeing people doing the mental gymnastics to make eating meat work. This tells me that people do care, but changing is hard. I get it, I was there too. Going plant based is a very easy way to solve this for many people.

 

[Jono8]

All animals want to be free of pain and discomfort, to inflict that upon them is cruel. They are born so very innocent, into a strange world where they are seen as livestock, not individual animals with their own little personalities.

But the animals have no concept of this. I think it is important not to personify animals too much and think that they can understand the situation they are in. they don't. The cow happily grazing in the field has no idea it will eventually be killed and eaten.

 

[Jono8]

There is nothing natural about the industrialisation of animal agriculture.



It's interesting seeing people doing the mental gymnastics to make eating meat work. This tells me that people do care, but changing it hard. I get it, I was there too. Going plant based is a very easy way to solve this for many people.

It isnt mental gymnastics at all. Like i said in an earlier post, it is actually a more philosophical question than anything else.

You may think that never giving life to the animal in the first place is better, where as I think giving the animal a life is better.

There isn't a factually correct answer

P.S. and as i have said before, this is on the basis that i do think high animal welfare standards are important.

 

[413x]

It isn't, but your chicken wont cost £3.

No. It wouldn't. And it wouldn't work. Not enough resources. So to that means people have to accept that meat is a treat.
I don't think governments will move against farmers. I hope these changes will come about from the rise of veganism