Which is why we just need to learn how to grow pure meat, and then everyone will be happy. Call it a cop out if you will; I personally prefer to side-step ethical issues with a third option when possible. Of course, that isn't possible now, so... to be honest, I don't know where I stand. I highly doubt that if I, personally, stop eating meat that any cows or pigs will be better off for it. As such, I see no point in being vegetarian (for me, I respect anyone else's decision to be vegetarian, it just isn't for me). I'm almost tempted, though. Almost.

(February 2, 2015 at 2:12 pm)robvalue Wrote: No. Cows suffer a huge amount in the farming process, I'm not talking about their death. Most people have no idea what goes on, it's a well kept secret sadly.

In -one- of the processes. Sure. The predominate model, sure. It isn't the -only- model (or, in my estimation...even the best model).

So, so long as I don't use -that- model, provided that I use a better, more ethical model...eating meat is .......[_______]?

(February 2, 2015 at 2:13 pm)Faith No More Wrote: The actual act of eating is a non-issue, sure, but I'm talking about what the animal experiences in its lifetime because of the fact that it will eventually end up in my belly, and should I take into consideration that that animal's experiences are ended prematurely due to the fact that I will be enjoying it in a taco later?

Oh, Idk, you let cattle loose and they might not live quite as long as they do. There is a certain trade-off to being a domesticate. In the worst of cases...it;s pretty much business as usual, plagued by disease and malnutrition only to wind up in some predatory animals belly.......but, human beings don't -have- to toe that line. We can ensure that their experience is of a much greater quality, even if it might not live much longer overall. On the other hand, it may, depends on the model and what sorts of arrangements and situation the producer finds himself in. I don't know why anyone would be expected to provide -anything- with the longest life it can possibly manage. We don't even do that for each other...but it should be a consideration for cattle? Hell, I'm willing to give livestock something I don't extend to you, for example...I'll provide a good life and a good death...care to set odds on getting that arrangement from me yourself (or from any other predator)? :wink:

(February 2, 2015 at 1:40 pm)Alex K Wrote: Esquilax, that is a non sequitur. A naturalistic fallacy seems beneath you.
Or I completely misunderstand.
I'm not trying to convince you that meat eating is immoral, the reasoning just seems knee jerky.

When it comes to the morality of my biological necessities, I'm a bit of a pragmatist; I've evolved to eat meat, predation is pretty much a reality, so I don't see any particular reason to abstain from what is, essentially, an unsolvable reality of the world we live in. My personal abstention from eating meat won't change the fact that it's a large component of the global ecosystem, after all.

But I'm not saying it's moral because it's natural, as I don't happen to think that's true; there are plenty of natural things that I would consider immoral. It's just that in my book, morality concerns the well being and biological requirements of thinking agents, and since the eating of meat is a component of who we are as a species, how we've evolved, that is a factor in my moral considerations on the subject.

(February 2, 2015 at 7:42 am)robvalue Wrote: Ah, you don't wanna go down that route with me I've spent my whole life dealing with arguments like that and I could go on for pages. I don't think it's worth it. Let's agree to disagree You said you don't care much care if animals are killed, so there's not much more to say.

But I agree with you, the OP makes no sense at all.

....agree to disagree??
I do not believe you are a true vegan! Your Vegan Society of Tumblr card just got revoked! :p

If god hadn't meant humans to eat animals he wouldn't have made them so delicious.

Though he could have made them easier to peel . . .

Did the devil made the pork so delicious to tempt us? Or did God wanted pork all too himself?

I tried quitting meat. I lasted maybe two weeks. I had no idea what to buy at the store for dinner. I wish I had been raised vegetarian though, because I can definitely see the ethical angle, not so much that animals are killed or eaten, but the way they are farmed with zero regard for the dignity of life. But alas, my conscience just can't defeat my stomach and society says my compulsion is acceptable, so...

(February 2, 2015 at 2:26 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(February 2, 2015 at 1:40 pm)Alex K Wrote: Esquilax, that is a non sequitur. A naturalistic fallacy seems beneath you.
Or I completely misunderstand.
I'm not trying to convince you that meat eating is immoral, the reasoning just seems knee jerky.

When it comes to the morality of my biological necessities, I'm a bit of a pragmatist; I've evolved to eat meat, predation is pretty much a reality, so I don't see any particular reason to abstain from what is, essentially, an unsolvable reality of the world we live in. My personal abstention from eating meat won't change the fact that it's a large component of the global ecosystem, after all.

But I'm not saying it's moral because it's natural, as I don't happen to think that's true; there are plenty of natural things that I would consider immoral. It's just that in my book, morality concerns the well being and biological requirements of thinking agents, and since the eating of meat is a component of who we are as a species, how we've evolved, that is a factor in my moral considerations on the subject.

I appreciate the pragmatic approach you outline, although I suspect that if we were to apply it analogously to other issues, it would lead us down roads you would find unacceptable very quickly - as you say, there are many things in the world, and in our species, which we would never dare use in a similar appeal to nature. The fact that changing the actions of one individual has no significant impact in society or nature at large is also a line of reasoning everyone uses all the time, but which is not exactly material for the morality books. I'd therefore feel more comfortable with arguments for meat eating which actually deal with the animals and the consequences for them.

(February 2, 2015 at 7:42 am)robvalue Wrote: Ah, you don't wanna go down that route with me I've spent my whole life dealing with arguments like that and I could go on for pages. I don't think it's worth it. Let's agreye to disagree You said you don't care much care if animals are killed, so there's not much more to say.

But I agree with you, the OP makes no sense at all.

Yeah sure. The way people are making excuses for their eating meat like health and evolution and food chain, the same way the slave owners in 18th century colonies must've made excuses to justify their keeping slaves.
WHICH will continue until awareness is raised

Blaming either on theology is ridiculous though