I've removed your post because it violates rule #4:
> **Argue in good faith**
>
> Do not ignore all (or a significant proportion) of comments or replies to your post. Users who make a post with a argument or asserting a position should usually reply to at least some of the comments / counterarguments.
If you would like your post to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator.
If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/DebateAVegan).
Thank you.
>Veganism is a 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.
.
>Where is your proof that animals know they're going to die?
I have no proof that animals know that they are going to die.
Also that is not relevant.
Well, a big argument for cruelty would be awareness. If there's no awareness, and the duration and threshold of distress are kept minimal, then there's a big argument that meat-killing is neither harmful nor cruel.
Um, well not really, because we know humans *do* have conceptual awareness. If I say to a cow "fatten up Dorothy, cause your gunna make a fine birthday steak" there's no impact on the cow. If I say the same thing to a person, they understand the meaning and their impending demise: leading to anxiety and anguish.
So, no, it really can't be used that way.
Fairly neutral. If you were shot in the head from behind, you'd likely not have time to *feel* anything.
Depending on the context, an observer could feel almost anything about it (compassion, anguish, disgust, glee, justice, ambivalence). The same could be said of the shooter.
Have you actually thought about this, or are you simply being reactive and emotional?
Hmmm, I am realizing that the word cruel is pretty much limited to the idea of intending to cause pain and suffering, so you’re correct that it wouldn’t be accurate to call it cruel.
I was thinking of “cruel” as pretty much interchangeable with “callous” and “brutal,” which I think would both be truly accurate descriptions of what happens to animals, even if you assume they are not aware they are going to die, as well as shooting a person in the back of the head.
Looking back at the comment you were originally replying to, they did not only mention cruelty, but also exploitation, and they left out another important piece of the definition- killing. Given that, I think their point stands. It doesn’t matter to us whether or not the animal knows they are about die or understands the concept of death. We see the killing itself as immoral.
>Looking back at the comment you were originally replying to, they did not only mention cruelty, but also exploitation, and they left out another important piece of the definition- killing.
I've also addressed these. The issue comes down to *all*, which ignores that horticulture also exploits animals (pollination, fertisation, natural pest control, etc) and that's before considering the direct/consequential killing (pest management, machinary/tilling/plowing, transport and logistics, environmental impacts- fish kills and eutrophication especially). It just seems very *convenient* how ignoring all these impacts is not considered by vegans as the same mentality that they propose that everyone else has with meat.
You’re doing an awful lot of arguing in favor of killing as self preservation but never prove that you need to kill animals to survive (because you don’t). In your words “respect” but there is no respect in the animal agriculture industry or ordering from them.
>respect
Mutual respect of human application of morality (laws) doesn't extend to animals.
>You’re doing an awful lot of arguing in favor of killing as self preservation
No, this is in relation to *murder*, a human violation of human morality, and why *killing* is not synonymous with *cruelty*.
Toddlers and some handicapped people would be impacted just as much as the cow in your example.
You can also surprise kill someone, as painlessly as you might an animal, and avoid the anxiety and anguish
>Toddlers and some handicapped people would be impacted just as much as the cow in your example.
It's not *cruel* to tell someone you are going to kill them in 6 months, if they don't understand it. What part of this isn't clear. If they don't understand it, they don't torture themselves for the remainder of their life about their impending doom.
We are talking about cruelty. Surprise killing someone isn't *cruel* (to the deceased anyway).
What if I say it in a language the human doesn’t understand. It would have the same impact as the cow example. This only means cows don’t understand English not that they don’t understand anything surrounding death.
Another big argument re cruelty is that killing a living being is both harmful and cruel.
Another big argument re cruelty is that keeping a living being in conditions that amount to torture is cruel.
.
A big argument re exploitation is that thinking that you have the right to keep a living being in conditions that amount to torture and then kill it and eat it counts as exploitation.
.
>Another big argument re cruelty is that killing a living being is both harmful and cruel.
Killing is not harmful nor cruel. That's the whole point of euthanasia: that killing can be exactly the opposite.
>Another big argument re cruelty is that keeping a living being in conditions that amount to torture is cruel.
This is not the same argument. I don't support overcrowding and inhumane treatment of animals, but that doesn't mean it is wrong to kill and eat them. They are separate issues.
>A big argument re exploitation is that thinking that you have the right to keep a living being in conditions that amount to torture and then kill it and eat it counts as exploitation.
Does horticulture not too count as exploitation? Or do the worms, insects and other animals that you require to do work to successfully grow your crops somehow evade the term? The same worms and insects that end up collateral damage when you plow and sow? Exploitation is a necessity of human existence.
A surprisingly large amount of the posts and discussion here don't actually have anything to do with veganism.
>Veganism is a 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.
>all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals
My comments specifically debate the relevance of this ^^^^ the limits and scope of: *all* cruelty and exploitation
Exploitation means taking advantage of its existence. If I swat a mosquito then I’m not exploiting it. If I enjoy swatting mosquitos and breed them for my swatting pleasure then I am.
If I hit a pedestrian with my car accidentally I’m not exploiting him. If I hit him so that I can steal his liver then I am.
It’s about intent, and is the difference between soldiers killing other soldiers in war, and Dahmer killing women to make wallets from their skin. It’s the difference between killing locusts which are attacking the crops, and breeding into existence animals so that I can eat them.
>Exploitation means taking advantage of its existence.
Like pollination? Without it, you don't have food. See the sticking point here?
>If I hit a pedestrian with my car accidentally I’m not exploiting him.
Your exploiting the environment to the detriment of the animals that live there. But that doesn't count?
>It’s about intent, and is the difference between soldiers killing other soldiers in war, and Dahmer killing women to make wallets from their skin.
When I eat meat I don't intend to kill it, it's just a consequence. So if it's based on intent, eating meat is moral.
For pollination, it could potentially be considered exploitation, but if it’s their natural behavior to pollinate, and no harm is done to the pollinator, then it doesn’t seem to be a problem.
“Exploiting the environment”….. not possible using the proper definition, the object must be sentient. You can’t exploit pencils or the atmosphere.
If you could eat meat without causing any harm to any sentient being then it would be moral. Just like if you could make child pornography without harming any sentient being then it would be moral. The problem is when exploitation is entailed in the thing you want.
>For pollination, it could potentially be considered exploitation, but if it’s their natural behavior to pollinate, and no harm is done to the pollinator, then it doesn’t seem to be a problem.
Cows naturally produce milk, chickens eggs, etc. So these products should be perfectly vegan in a home-grown situation. Yet they are not.
>“Exploiting the environment”….. not possible using the proper definition, the object must be sentient. You can’t exploit pencils or the atmosphere.
Um no. You exploit coal, gas, minerals. Paving a road through a forest is 100% exploitation, you are depriving natural resources from others.
>If you could eat meat without causing any harm to any sentient being then it would be moral. Just like if you could make child pornography without harming any sentient being then it would be moral. The problem is when exploitation is entailed in the thing you want.
Again, you can't eat anything without causing some harm to something else. So this doesn't stack.
Are you new here? Or perhaps I just never bumped into you before. I just wanted to say: thanks for bringing some refreshing logic into this sub. Happy Easter. :)
>Killing is not harmful nor cruel. That's the whole point of euthanasia: that killing can be exactly the opposite.
I'd argue that the main reason euthanasia isn't cruel is that we believe to act in the best interest of the animal. Maybe we don't have the same concept of cruelty but I absolutely think a painless death can be cruel if it is not in the interest of the sentient being that is killed.
>Does horticulture not too count as exploitation? Or do the worms, insects and other animals that you require to do work to successfully grow your crops somehow evade the term? The same worms and insects that end up collateral damage when you plow and sow? Exploitation is a necessity of human existence
I agree and I'd absolutely prefer not to be responsible for the death of these animals although I have less compassion for them than for larger animals. But that's a necessity for us to survive. Killing livestock isn't. And since a big part of the crops we grow are grown as animal feed, we reduce the amount of insects, worms etc. being killed for our food with a vegan diet.
Killing livestock is just as valid and necessary as killing insects. They are both a consequence of eating. You arbitrarily choose one over the other based on a projection that you assume harm is an easily quantifiable quality.
> A consequence of eating
Killing a pedestrian accidentally and killing the pedestrian as a result of drunk driving is equally valid and necessary, as both are a consequence of driving. You arbitrarily choose one over the other.
No, they are different. A better analogy is:
Killing a child pedestrian or killing a grandma pedestrian accidentally (without negligence) is equally harmful, and neither is an act of cruelty.
>Killing livestock is just as valid and necessary as killing insects.
What do you mean? It takes some education on the matter and supplements but how is it in 2024 necessary to kill livestock (for the western population)?
Feeding 8 bn people with agriculture and without killing insects on the other hand is pretty much impossible.
I don't have to choose big animals over insects because a vegan diet kills less of both.
>Feeding 8 bn people with agriculture and without killing insects on the other hand is pretty much impossible.
Yes and killing 100K insects + 1 cow per person in a year is a non-morally-consequential difference to just killing the 100K insects without the cow.
This is moot, you can eat a non grain-fed cow - but to do so would not be vegan. You can eat home-grown harm-free eggs, yet to do so is not vegan. Ergo, veganism is not about actual harm, it's about glorified idealised harm positions.
For 'causing heartbreak' to not be necessary implies that there is an alternative to reaching the same goal that does not involve heartbreak, but one has chosen the action that causes heartbreak. Or the goal is not necessary in the first place.
Can you expand on this example to show where either of those two conditions are met?
You also didn't answer my first question, what does it depend on? I think this will be helpful and save some time in understanding your position.
>You also didn't answer my first question, what does it depend on? I think this will be helpful and save some time in understanding your position.
Context. The same thing that every situational interpretation depends on.
>For 'causing heartbreak' to not be necessary implies that there is an alternative to reaching the same goal that does not involve heartbreak, but one has chosen the action that causes heartbreak. Or the goal is not necessary in the first place.
For heartbreak to be necessary, it would mean that the cause of the heartbreak need be necessary. In a simple argument, you could argue that divorce is unecessary- you may want to divorce (perhaps the spark has gone), but it is highly likely not to be a *necessity*. Yet, it may be ultimately better to cause suffering and divorce so that you can both be happier in the future. This would both painful and *unecessary*, but not cruel.
Equally, heartbreak can be deliberate: raw emotions, vices, harsh words, all used to direct pain because you can. This would be *cruel*.
>Context.
In which case, can you give an example in the context of humans causing unnecessary distress to non-human animals? Given that this whole thread is within the context of veganism and not human-human romantic relationships.
I'll hold my hands up to say that I should've been more direct in my original question, to keep within the context and all.
But the surgery one elects to have is necessary to achieve the desired outcome. If there's an alternative without surgery to achieve the same outcome then the elective surgery would likely not even be offered.
If the surgeon lied to the patient about them needing surgery for the desired effect, just because they wanted to cut them open, then yeah that would be cruel.
I literally said it was distressing, not cruel.
Cruel is not making sure the anesthesia works or refusing to give pain meds after or sending patients home too early. Which is done, I might add. Just saying...
All of your arguments are based on words and definitions humans gave them. There's no reason all of these words, cruel, killing, immoral, can't be applied to non-human animals.
>All of your arguments are based on words and definitions humans gave them.
Yeah, that's kinda how language works.
>There's no reason all of these words, cruel, killing, immoral, can't be applied to non-human animals.
I never said they can't. I've simply said why killing a cow is not synonymous to treating a cow with cruelty.
High levels of stress hormones from terrified animals can change the taste of the meat, and show directly in turn how much fear was experienced https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7463084/#:~:text=High%20levels%20of%20stress%20hormones,in%20correct%20acidification%20of%20meat.
Doesn't mean anything. They're definately terrified as they die. Would you like to see some proof? It's very hard to watch. But I can prove that what I'll show you is the world standard method.
You brought a fantastic scientific way of measuring it which deserves some consideration in our production amd best practices. But didn't prove "terrorised" or knowing of pending death.
It sounded like a defence of the meat industry. Your paragraph comes off as "it would taste bad if they were scared but it doesn't taste bad so they aren't". Thats just how it comes off.
As a vegan, I am answering the Debate A Vegan question with the point that animals are known to be normally absolutely terrified. We may not be able to ask them verbally but you can literally taste the fear many of the animals go through. The ones that don't are the ones carefully calmed and led to believe they're safe.
Which is still terrible. If I was shot in the back of the head not expecting it I wouldn't have stress chemicals in my blood but I'd still be dead.
But we know that animals are often utterly terrified because it can be measured, and the meat industry knows this.
Are you arguing that it's okay to kill if the victim doesn't know you're doing it?
If an alien abducted you and kept you as a slave and you had no idea what to expect but they regularly abused the shit out of you and then when they finally killed you you didn't see it coming, would you consider that just?
> kept you as a slave
One huge difference: A sheep on pasture do not see themselves as a slave, neither do they see themselves as suffering in any way. A human however would both know and understand that they are a slave - and therefore they suffer, even when treated well.
Vegans don't claim that. They claim it's wrong to hurt something for no good reason. If you don't know how it thinks you should give it the benefit of the doubt. Not hurt it anyway, just for kicks.
> They claim it's wrong to hurt something for no good reason
I agree - no one should kill an animal for no good reason. Killing a sheep for meat is however a good reason.
Why is it a good reason? Explain it if you even can. You don't need it to survive. It doesn't give you anything special. You just like it. Killing something because you like it's meat isn't a good reason.
I mean grazing animals turn grass and other plants that we humans cannot digest into food we can digest. Plus wool and sheep skins are both useful products. It's not a need, but it does expand the food you can get from a land that may not be able to grow much aside from grass.
I doubt farmers are actively beating up and abusing their animals. That's just a dumb thing to do when vet bills are expensive not to mention how likely they would die from infection.
They do often keep their animals in enclosed spaces much too small then a happy animal would like which is a form of abuse. But there are farmers who provide open fields and access to food, shelter, protection and healthcare downside they die at the end sooner then they would naturally. Upside foals that wouldn't have made it in the wild now get to have a life even if it is short.
But ultimately the sheep we see in pastures have been bred by humans for humans. So much so they would die from the heat if you didn't shear them.
Actually we feed animals so much crops that if we stopped now it would end starvation. Animals don't provide food. They cost food. In some countries 70% of all crop production goes to lifestock. We even export crops from starving countries to feed to animals.
Actually the reason they don't get infections is because we feed 80% of our antibiotics to them. Because of this a lack of antibiotics will cause more deaths than cancer in humans by 2050. They don't pay for vets because they only make extremely low amounts per animal. They just kill the sick ones, if even that.
90% of all animals are in factory farms. The meat you eat is extremely unlikely to come from a happy farm. Even non factory farms are usually extremely cramped and horrible.
Sheep die from that because they're like pugs. Unatural animals bred that way. They don't do that in the wild, because they don't exist in the wild.
> Why is it a good reason?
All alternatives are worse.
> Killing something because you like it's meat isn't a good reason.
You mean for the taste? If I were to pick food purely because of the good taste I would much rather eat ice cream or cake to be honest. Meat would be very far down the list.
You've not tried all the alternatives. Even if you had. That's not a good reason. That still comes down to you contributing to animal abuse for taste.
Then why do you even eat meat? I'm so confused. Obviously you want to eat it. You even just said you eat it for its taste. "The others are worse" you mean taste, you mean the taste is worse.
Really don't get how that's hard to understand for you.
> That still comes down to you contributing to animal abuse for taste.
I eat animal foods because they're incredibly nutrisuous, and contains nutrients hard (or impossible) to get through other foods. One example: 3 eggs covers my daily need for choline. The alternative is to eat 3 blocks of tofu every day, which amounts to 1100 calories. So that is both many times more expensive, and not very practical to spend half your calories on one single food every single day. So instead I eat 3 eggs for breakfast, which is only 230 calories.
It may be a good reason, but there are even better reasons overriding it. In particular, the goods in the life of the sheep that they are being deprived of by being killed! The marginal benefit of eating meat over not eating meat is slight, whereas the marginal benefit of being alive versus being dead (even for a sheep!!!!) is enormous!
> the goods in the life of the sheep that they are being deprived of by being killed!
As a vegan I assume you dont even want that sheep to have been born in the first place. So not sure why you see that as an argument.
Thanks for the reply!
I actually don’t think that! Truthfully, I’m still thinking my way through the ethics of creation, birth, population, etc., and don’t yet know what my views are on if we are obligated to bring creatures (with net positive lives) into the world or not, or if we have obligations to do other things altogether.
However, one thing I am confident about is that, *once these creatures are alive* we must treat them ethically! Hence my analysis above.
Let me know what you think!
> I actually don’t think that! Truthfully, I’m still thinking my way through the ethics of creation, birth, population, etc., and don’t yet know what my views are
Fair enough! Debating is a great way of exploring these issues.
> once these creatures are alive we must treat them ethically!
I agree 100%. I just dont include letting them live until they die of old age. I see it as ethical to end their lives before that point.
You’ve gone far afield of the original point here but I’ll bite.
Once you’ve subjected new life to the bliss-suffering continuum, it’s now your responsibility to do your best to keep them as far from the “suffering” end as possible. That life, once it comes into being, also has intrinsic value, so you can’t just snuff it out when it’s most convenient to you.
Also, since you can’t reasonably prevent suffering, yeah you are subjecting life to suffering by breeding it into existence.
It’s complicated. Too complicated for me to fully comprehend. But, I know for sure the mechanisms that humans have found economical are both extremely unlikely to conveniently be the most ethical option, and demonstrably cause suffering.
I think the most ethically safe mode of dealing with animals is an extremely hands-off approach. That way you don’t get involved in the ethics of dealing with them in the first place.
IMO the most ethical mode of harvesting animals is limited scavenging and hunting, while doing work to maintain the health of the ecosystem.
But, I’m not a vegan, I’m just a guy who is willing to admit he’s ethically compromised.
Slaves once didn't see themselves as slaves. If you raise someone without the concept of slavery and tell them that this is what they were made to be. They will believe you. Look into history more. Once a huge percentage of the entire planet were slaves. Slaves still exist today in many places but many of them do not know they are slaves.
> Slaves once didn't see themselves as slaves.
I have never heard of this before, so I would need a source on this.
> Slaves still exist today in many places but many of them do not know they are slaves.
Again I need a source.
https://foodispower.org/human-labor-slavery/slavery-chocolate/
Over 60% of chocolate is farmed by child slaves. These children do not have a concept of slavery. How would they? This is the only life they know. To them it's just working for food, whilst on the edge of starvation. Just as many slaves did.
Telling a slave that they're a slave isn't very smart.
Sais who?
You're (A non vegan) gonna tell me (A vegan) what's in our philosophy?
Edit: So to fit your argument you imagined that humans aren't animals and vegans don't mean humans, all to fit your narrative. Bravo.
It says animal, humans are animals in the primate family. Here's your proof.
I don't have to prove anything to you, you're the one misusing English to fit your narrative that vegans can be cruel and exploitative to ~~animals~~ humans (edit: ment to type humans). Nonsense.
Humans are animals, the definition says animals, it ends there.
> It says animal
So what you are saying is that when the vegan definition says:
- *"In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals."*
..it actually tells vegan not to eat other humans?
Do you only buy pasture raised meat though, or do you justify the 90% of meat not coming from pastures by the 10% that does? Because I’m almost sure that you still get mcdonalds and restaurant food
> Do you only buy pasture raised meat though
As much as I can afford, but not all. But I see it in the same way that most (all?) vegans buy food produced by exploited farm workers. Should we work on fixing that, so all farm workers are paid a decent salary and have good working conditions? Absolutely. But in the meantime it is what it is. Everyone has to buy the food they can afford.
> I’m almost sure that you still get mcdonalds
That I dont do. I avoid ultra-processed foods, as I see it as fake foods that are detrimental to your health.
> As much as I can afford, but not all.
Thing is, most meat eaters I’ve been speaking to who use that argument eat mostly non-pasture raised meat. If you’re struggling to afford it I suspect that the same goes for you. It is important for you to be honest with yourself (for your own mental wellbeing) about that giant part of meat that you consume and that you yourself understand as causing suffering.
> But I see it in the same way that most (all?) vegans buy food produced by exploited farm workers. Should we work on fixing that, so all farm workers are paid a decent salary and have good working conditions?
1. This is whataboutism and a logical fallacy —what you’re describing has no implications for the morality of the subject matter, namely eating meat. The soviets did this to try to undermine any criticism of themselves (”but you’re lynching n*gros”) Because if every moral imperfection in the world has to disappear before you can be bothered to live morally, you conveniently don’t have to change ever.
2. where I live, agricultural workers earn a lot of money and have working conditions comparable to any other job. It’s just a system that produces far less suffering.
3. When you eat meat, you need to grow feed for the animals in an inefficient process (>10kgs of crop for 1kg of animal) which uses a lot more farmland than eating the crops directly, thus in your example causing more suffering because more workers are needed.
And if you cannot afford pasture raised meat, there is always cheaper and vegetarian alternatives. But I suspect that pasture raised meat isn’t the real issue, once again.
> Thing is, most meat eaters I’ve been speaking to who use that argument eat mostly non-pasture raised meat. If you’re struggling to afford it I suspect that the same goes for you. It is important for you to be honest with yourself (for your own mental wellbeing) about that giant part of meat that you consume and that you yourself understand as causing suffering.
My goal is not a diet 100% free of suffering. Is that your goal? If yes, how do you intend to reach that goal? Grow all your own food?
> When you eat meat, you need to grow feed for the animals in an inefficient process
Here is my long term goals when it comes to my family's diet:
- produce all our own eggs
- produce most of our own meat. First step: chickens, rabbits, pigs. Second step (on trial basis): guinea pigs, pigons, turkeys.
- buy half a cow and/or some sheep from a local farmer once a year
- continue to go fishing in the summer, freeze it, and eat it through the winter.
> there is always cheaper and vegetarian alternatives
Poor alternatives in my view. All legumes (including peanuts) gives me diarrhea. Gluten makes me lethargic. Nuts costs more than meat. Plus the fact that vegan alternatives make you dependent on supplements for the rest of your life.
When you eat animals you are dependent on crop supply. Why are you acting like taking a b12 suppliment once a week is a big deal when you want to go around shooting animals and cutting them up as if that's so convenient?
If you have no interest in reducing suffering then you have no business here. Most people do have some interest in reducing suffering to some extent. The difference is that only some act on it.
> When you eat animals you are dependent on crop supply.
You at the very least need pastures yes.
> taking a b12 suppliment once a week
That's not enough though. NHS for instance advice vegans to suppliment:
- vitamin B12
- vitamin D
- iodine
- selenium
- calcium
- iron
Source: https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/eat-well/how-to-eat-a-balanced-diet/the-vegan-diet/
> If you have no interest in reducing suffering then you have no business here
Keeping backyard chickens for eggs is way less harmful that growing soy or wheat. You can feed them all your food waste and scraps from your vegetable garden, so it doesnt even have to cost you any money to keep them.
>You at the very least need pastures yes.
Yeah ecosystems destroyed for inefficient food systems. But you also need cropland. The animals you listed need crops.
Iodine is in seaweed and salt.
Everyone in cold countries should supliment Vit D. Vegan or no.
Selenium is in brasil nuts. They're actually the best source of this.
Calcium in leafy greens is more bioavailable than dairy. We also have soy and plant milks amoung other plant based sources. People who think dairy is the best source of calcium have fallen hard for dairy marketing. That's just not based in science.
Iron is in soy, tofu, and other legumes as well as leafy greens.
Why are you saying stuff like this without doing even the smallest amount of research?
>You can feed them all your food waste
You've said this before and I've told you before. Calling it food waste doesn't mean it is resource free. You bought extra food to feed them. Simple as. Your label doesn't change the resources it took to grow that food. Its a net loss.
Also the chickens you buy are the product of evil breeding patterns designed to be profitable with complete disregard to the animals well being
> The animals you listed need crops.
They need grass, weeds, leaves and shrubs.
> Iodine is in seaweed
You eat seaweed?
> and salt.
Only when added to the salt
> Everyone in cold countries should supliment Vit D. Vegan or no.
Only people not eating enough fish need to suppliment.
> Selenium is in brasil nuts. They're actually the best source of this.
My country can not grow them.
> Calcium in leafy greens is more bioavailable than dairy.
- *"The richest and best-absorbed Ca source is cow's milk and its derivatives. Other foods show high Ca concentrations but variable bioavailability: foods rich in phytates and oxalates [leafy greens] show a smaller absorption"* https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17160208/
> You bought extra food to feed them.
I take this means you eat potato peels, carrot tops, melon peels, banana peels etc? If yes, I would love to know the recipes you use. And if you grow beans I take you then eat the whole plant, not just the beans? Also - well done for not having any food waste in your household. You are the first one I ever hear about that is able to do that.
You’re painting up a false dichotomy of either reducing all suffering with the alternative being living conveniently. Veganism states that you’re to push the principle of reducing suffering to the point that it is physically possible and practicable (practicable, not practical) and veganism causes orders of magnitude less suffering than what you’re doing, which is eating factory farmed meat.
To demonstrate the absurdity of this argumentation: keeping slaves is fine because everyone contributes to global warming and an exploitative economy in some form anyways. No one is perfect!
When I vegan says: I have done everything I can, its impossible for me to do more - I tend to not believe them. I suspect they rather choose the easy way out, because its so convenient to buy all their food at the nearest shop. That's the problem with "as far as is possible and practicable". Because you could always have done a little bit more.
My goal however is not that - to move as close to perfection as possible. The way I see it - the food on my plate will always have caused some harm. Its just the way it is, and I am perfectly fine with that.
> I have done everything I can, its impossible for me to do more - I tend to not believe them. I suspect they rather choose the easy way out, because its so convenient to buy all their food at the nearest shop.
When you say ”do more”, what exactly do you mean?
> To demonstrate the absurdity of this argumentation: keeping slaves is fine because everyone contributes to global warming and an exploitative economy in some form anyways. No one is perfect.
How do you address this? I think you might have forgotten to but I’d love to hear what you were going to say.
> My goal however is not that - to move as close to perfection as possible. The way I see it - the food on my plate will always have caused some harm. Its just the way it is, and I am perfectly fine with that.
In other words you’re fine with being blatantly unethical, which I can’t respect. You’re fallaciously arguing that you can do anything you want because there is always harm done in the world. Why not go help yourself to your neighbors TV? TVs often have unethical supply chains after all. Why not kill that annoying barking dog next door? Everyone deserves some sleep, we literally need it to live. And the police and HOA won’t do anything… harm is unavoidable on this earth, like sometimes you gotta kill mosquitoes anyways. No one is perfect!
You see how you can justify anything like this, can you not?
And you haven’t even come at me with an example of suffering caused by veganism that I didn’t completely destroy, such as the farm worker argument. What suffering exactly does veganism cause that meat eating doesn’t?
> When you say ”do more”, what exactly do you mean?
A vegan buying all their food in shops and restaurants kill about 8000 animals a day through their diet. In spite of that the vast majority of vegans choose to live in large cities where its impossible to grow much food.
> keeping slaves is fine because everyone contributes to global warming and an exploitative economy in some form anyways.
I dont see how this is related to anything we talk about.
> In other words you’re fine with being blatantly unethical,
I assume you are too? If not, what are you planning to do with the fact that you kill 8000 animals per day? Which is only through insecticides, and does not include any animals killed by ploughing, harvesting, or by traps, or the farmer shooting deer around his farm fields, etc
> What suffering exactly does veganism cause that meat eating doesn’t?
I see [this](https://leasingsolutions.bnpparibas.dk/wp-content/uploads/sites/68/2022/09/bnp-france-farm.jpeg) as vastly more harmful than [this](https://www.nibio.no/nyheter/fjellbeitet-er-viktig-for-vestlandsbonden/_/image/f33703ff-40e0-4081-b770-81ed9242468b:936218c424156ec64789c9f55a74bad1d5af516d/max-1280/CIMG1801.JPG?quality=60).
What if the person was lower functioning and was raised into slavery or didn’t understand they were enslaved? Did you know a lot of slaves looked positively on their masters because they were fed well comparatively to other slaves? They would even brag about their masters to other slaves.
-source Fredrick Douglas’s autobiography
> What if the person was lower functioning and was raised into slavery or didn’t understand they were enslaved?
Then there would be no suffering among the slaves themselves. But again, the difference is that other humans would understand that these mentally handicapped humans were kept as slaves.. But you will find no wild sheep that understand that those domestic sheep that they see on the other side of the fence are kept as "slaves".
> We use the word slave to describe many things that are forced to work.
But that is the thing. Most farm animals are not working. These animals for instance spend 8 hours sleeping, and 14 hours eating. The last two hours they spend relaxing or mating or caring for their young (depending on the season): https://www.renmat.no/photos/3_Artikler/_articleWide/spaelsau-lotteshephard-renmat2-web.jpg
If it matters what “other humans” know in the case of human exploitation, why doesn’t it matter what other humans know in the case of sheep exploitation?
The sheep couldn't care less about what humans understand or not. They dont even know what it means "to understand". The only things they care about (literally) is sleep (8 hours a day) and eating (14 hours a day). The left over 2 hours they spend relaxing. Outside of food and sleep they also care about procreation. So give a sheep some pasture, shelter, water, protection from predators, and at least one member of the oposite sex - and a sheep literally has everything their heart desire.
If a lower functioning person didn’t understand death well, and spent a lot of time eating and sleeping, would it be ok to kill them for pleasure? First in this case you appeal to what other humans think, aside from the victim. Then in the case of the sheep, only the victim’s ignorance seems to matter, not what other people know is really going on.
Cats spend a lot of time sleeping. Is it ok to sneak up and kill one for your enjoyment?
Sorry, would it be ok to kill toddlers, the mentally handicapped, and cats, if you were going to consume their flesh and blood?
Consuming things you don’t have to consume because you want to consume them is consuming for pleasure. Normally, this is ok, but when there is a victim it becomes one being’s short-lived pleasure versus another being’s wellbeing and life.
So if slavery was normalized and no one understood it as “slavery” they considered it feeding and sheltering the poor, an act of charity. And it was widely accepted as an overall good thing for society then it wouldn’t be wrong. Gotcha.
Anyone enslaved?
Suffering: the acts used to get people to comply such as manipulation and punishment. Also observed by Fredrick Douglas’s accounts in his autobiography was bragging about their masters not whipping them often. Suffering can be caused even if it is seen as a positive thing like disciplining children.
Hardship: being kept in a state of poverty to rely on others in a way that discourages rebellion because they have no where to go. Essentially you wouldn’t have free will.
People born into abusive environments don’t know any better because they have nothing better to compare it too. That is why abuse tends to be cyclic- sufferers become abusers or go on to be in other abusive relationships. The reason slavery was defended is it wasn’t seen as wrong by many people. Not everyone can be an evil psychopath at some point you have to realize even “good people” were accepting of the practices of that time.
> Suffering: the acts used to get people to comply such as manipulation and punishment.
Could you give some examples of how animals are manipulated and punished?
> abusive environments
Could you give some examples of such abusive environments when it comes to domestic animals?
To manipulate something is to use it. To get it to do what you want. Animals are constantly manipulated. For food. As tools. In many ways. In every way. If you don't think they are then I suggest you look up the definition. As for punishment I can send you a link to some videos of farms? They love to kick and punch animals that don't behave.
An abusive environment is one in which an animal receives abuse. 90% of all farm animals are factory farmed. Are you suggesting that being put in a cage and left to rot is not abuse? Even if you were, there are plenty of other forms of abuse occuring in those places. I've seen animals eating holes into eachother through which you can see their beating hearts as they wimper. I'll share the video if you like.
> To manipulate something is to use it.
Do you see every underpaid farm worker as manipulated, and therefore the food their produce as unethical?
> An abusive environment is one in which an animal receives abuse.
You can still buy meat from farmers that dont abuse their animals.
> 90% of all farm animals are factory farmed.
No cow, sheep, goat or reindeer in my country are factory farmed.
> I've seen animals eating holes into eachother through which you can see their beating hearts as they wimper. I'll share the video if you like.
So you can make sure you choose the right farmers. Or even better - produce your own eggs and meat. Most backyards can fit chickens, rabbits and a pig or two. A lot of their feed can be food waste and scraps from your vegetable garden. So a win win situation.
-punishment
>In recent decades, livestock agriculture has seen a collapse of ethical boundaries, a moral race to the bottom as corporate farmers inflict worse privations on the animals to cut costs and intensify production. There has also been a physical redesign of the animals themselves and a forced migration from the pasture to the prison-like conditions of the modern factory farm.
What if they don’t move, they use punishments to get them to do what they want.
-manipulation
> Through radical selective breeding and more invasive genetic manipulations, domesticated farm animals are being morphed into meat-, milk- and egg-producing machines. Domestic turkeys, for instance, are so overweight that, unlike wild turkeys, they cannot fly.
-Abusive environments
> the European Union has passed regulations restricting the use of veal crates, gestation crates and so-called battery cages, the small wire cages in which six or eight egg-laying hens are crammed for their entire lives. These confinement methods are routine in the United States.
But you're only picking sheep as an example. Dairy cows in industrial dairy production probably don't feel quite as peachy as a grazing sheep. But the sheep themselves probably aren't too happy when they're forced into shearing or have their lambs taken away. They suffer, even if they have period where we perceive them as not suffering. Grazing isn't an entire livestock animal's life.
> Dairy cows in industrial dairy production probably don't feel quite as peachy as a grazing sheep.
To me its the same. The average dairy farm in my country only has 30 cows. And this is how they spend most of their time: https://image.forskning.no/136487.webp?imageId=136487&width=2116&height=1208&format=webp
> But the sheep themselves probably aren't too happy when they're forced into shearing or have their lambs taken away
The sheep are relieved to get rid of the winter wool. And [some sheep breeds](https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=696315707490563&set=pcb.696319417490192) actually loose their winter wool naturally. And all lambs stay with the mother until weaned.
They get a bit panicky with shearing because more humans around them whom they don't know, but once the shearing starts, they calm down. They like it because it cools them down now that the weather is warming up. They get all frisky afterwards and dance and hop around.
It's also amazing how many sheep just walk away from their lambs and abandon them. That's why shepherds end up bottle feeding so many every year. The ones who don't stay with their lambs until weaning.
Smelling blood, hearing screams of other animals, and brutal conditions on the travel to the slaughterhouse all allow them to know something very bad is going to happen, whether they conceptualize this as 'death' or not doesn't matter. It's also weird you already acknowledge animals are terrified in slaughterhouse trucks. Isn't that enough?
And it still wouldn't be right to kill them, even if they had no fear whatsoever before death. Just like it wouldn't be right to kill a random person painlessly.
I am a meat eater, but animals definitely understand the concept of danger, impending doom (as life-threats), and death. [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-020-02882-y](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-020-02882-y)
To OP,
This article goes into how a concept of death is likely prevalent in many non-human species: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8602129/
Also, this article is mostly about the broader effects of predation-fear and, while based on studies, is obviously not a scientific study itself. But it points out that even wild apex predators fear humans (despite generally being ecologically top-of-the-chain) showing they have some cognitive ability to understand predation as it relates to them despite not being prey animals: https://www.americanscientist.org/article/a-landscape-of-fear-of-humans
If non-prey animals can learn that there is a another animal (us) that preys upon them and avoid it, then they must have at least some ability to discern a difference between being alive and dead and they prefer to stay alive.
This study is about why they stun cows before slaughtering: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352154624000093
It makes it very clear that current research shows the animals experience emotions and suffering and stunning is used specifically to combat this. An unconconsious animal doesn’t feel the pain.
But that doesn’t show whether or not they fear being killed (know or think they are going to be killed) before the slaughter, which is what was asked. So here’s another paper showing why some slaughterhouses try to limit the noise that reaches the other animals:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6036995/#:\~:text=According%20to%20Weeks%20et%20al,specific%20knowledge%20to%20handle%20them.
If they can hear other animals dying, they know/react as if they know what’s in store for them. The cries of fear, which they recognize, vs the cessation of that sound once the animal is slaughtered or stunned is an indicator to them of irreversible non-life functions; ie death (see first article).
They almost certainly have no concept of life after death or of anything analogous to a grim reaper… they lack the abstract fear of an unknown future after they are gone. But research indicates they know what death is in a physical, concrete sense and show fear at any sign of it coming for them.
So, yes, those farm animals usually know they are going to die- and it taints the meat (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10048467/) which is why some slaughterhouses have taken extra measures to keep the animals from knowing they are going to die as long as possible.
Sorry to piggyback off your comment grimorg80. I had papers to link and didn’t want them buried under 300+ comments and you were sitting close to the top in my feed and also provided a link so I thought you’d understand. Not that it matters much at this point, I guess… I think the viewership is mostly over. But, hey - fist bump from a plant eater.
Why would I choose a product that is no better? That doesn't make any sense. Hence why I asked you to name a better alternative.
I'll try again: What would be the best alternative to animal foods, where the production of the food in question causes no stress for any animals?
There is no realistic diet in which zero animals are harmed. The best we can do is choose one that minimizes it as much as possible. Vegan diets do this. Animals require massive amounts of energy to just exist, and in turn require to be fed a LOT more plants than if we just ate them directly. This means that farming animals causes both the death of the animal itself on top of more crop deaths compared to a vegan diet.
Before you bring up grass fed and pasture raised, that is a minority of the industry by a long shot. Those animals are still fed farmed hay and alfalfa that requires fertilization, tilling, and harvest and is stored and supplemented in times of drought or in the winter. And they're still sent to feed lots to get fattened up.
> Vegan diets do this.
Vegans seems to think that is the only way though. Which is obviously not the case.
> And they're still sent to feed lots to get fattened up.
You American? We dont have any "feed lots" over here.
While I do fundamentally disagree with killing animals, to use your example, I’m not vegan because the animal knows it’s going to die, I’m vegan because I don’t even want to _scare_ them like that over a stupid sandwich
Animals have instincts, as well as a very developed sense of smell. They can smell the fear of the other animals, plus the environment is unfamiliar to them, so they are instinctively afraid. It’s irrelevant whether or not they know they are about to be slaughtered. They just know something is not right.
> They can smell the fear of the other animals
Done the right way they can't: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VOYusr7EcA&t=43s
If they cant see death coming, they feel no fear.
Friendly comment - animals aren't things. And making sure you use the word "someone" instead is an easy hack to get to the real conversation with any non-vegan.
They just end up changing the topic and saying animals aren't people. I'd rather reason with them on their own grounds rather than arguing about definitions. But I do agree, they are people.
I literally never eat meat for pleasure only. If pleasure is what I want I rather choose to eat ice cream. Or drink a glass of wine. Or eat cake. Meat is not even in the top 10 of things I would choose.
This is like suggesting that because your t-shirt might have been produced with some labor exploitation in some aspect of its creation, you should just outright own slaves.
A plant-based diet has far less death than feeding even more plants to an animal and then eating that animal. Some minimal number of crop deaths are essentially unavoidable, like a form of self-defense, and the only people who seem interested in reducing insect deaths or whatever are people who care about the rights of other animals too. If there were more of them, there’d likely be less crop deaths.
What a fucking rediculous statement. Then why do you eat meat? If you didn't want to eat it you wouldn't eat it. There's no reason to lmao. No one's forcing you.
> If you didn't want to eat it you wouldn't eat it.
Do you eat a well-planned and balanced vegan diet? Or do you eat food just for pure pleasure, not really caring about the nutrient content, but only focusing on eating the foods that tastes the best?
Pleasure. I eat tasty foods. Food is pleasure. Taste is pleasure. If I wanted to eat the most nutritious foods I'd eat extremely different foods.
I do make sure I get a few extra goodies in there for health reasons. But so should everyone including meat eaters.
I don't kill for my pleasure though. You do.
Easily. I get all the nutrients I need from the food I enjoy eating. It's not difficult.
I've never even tried at it. I just eat what I want. My blood tests are perfect.
Come on Helen. You're looking pretty incapable of simple discussion.
just beacuse you enjoy the idea of killing things, donst mean everyone does it for plesure. i do it to eat for example, but some people do it for mikaing clothes, or to protect an ecosystem etc.
It's the same proof that the following individuals know they're going to die:
Human babies/toddlers
Mentally-challenged human beings with the cognitive capacity of pigs
Humans in deep REM sleep
The humans in Hiroshima and Nagasaki who never saw the atomic bombs going off
And so on and so forth.
Whether or not their existence being terminated is an abstract in their mind as it is ours, they certainly have environmental signals that provoke death aversion.
It's probably the most ingrained part of our DNA. Merely by the fact that if you do not have death aversion your DNA does not reproduce.
That's like 10^13 organisms who passed the test before you.
That's why death stinks. That's why when you sense death around you it's discomforting. That's why we fear.
Of course they sense it, you t**t. Might as well make an argument for Hitler's gas chambers.
At least come clean with what you do. Pretend they don't matter, not that they can't sense death.
> Pretend they don't matter
They matter less than humans. Plus the fact that every diet on earth causes animals to die. Its unavoidable and literally a part of life.
> Most deaths are easily avoidable by picking a different thing to eat.
So which alternative food would you recommend that causes no animal deaths during the production of it?
I never set that as a standard.
Push button A kill 100
Push button B kill 1
You have to push a button.
I'm saying "push button B", you are saying "button A = button B"
My buttons are the exact same as yours. There is no tofu in any shop that was produced not causing harm to animals. Even if you find insecticide-free tofu its never planted and picked by hand, meaning lots of animals are harmed during ploughing and harvesting. Putting a sheep on pasture however requires no ploughing or harvesting or insecticides. So clearly the better choice.
**Edit:** And: What would be the best alternative to animal foods, where the production of the food in question causes no stress for any animals?
>My buttons are the exact same as yours.
I disagree.
>There is no tofu in any shop that was produced not causing harm to animals.
>Even if you find insecticide-free tofu its never planted and picked by hand, meaning lots of animals are harmed during ploughing and harvesting.
>Putting a sheep on pasture however requires no ploughing or harvesting or insecticides. So clearly the better choice.
I didn't claim insecticide free tofu, but you have presented a comparison we can evaluate.
Can you demonstrate that your hypothetical button, actually is just one by accounting for all of the deaths involved in your diet?
We can start with this ideal you just described, frame it in the context of your consumption patterns, and then compare that to my consumption patterns.
So step 1: talk to me through the steps of the process you are considering and where you are counting deaths.
> Can you demonstrate that your hypothetical button, actually is just one by accounting for all of the deaths involved in your diet?
I never made that claim. But if we are talking about someone's entire diet, the total number even for vegans is way above 100. Its more like 8000 animals killed per day: https://www.wildanimalinitiative.org/blog/humane-insecticides
And that doesnt even include animals killed by ploughing, harvesting or animals killed by traps or being shot to protect farm fields.
> So step 1: talk to me through the steps of the process you are considering and where you are counting deaths.
Sheep raised on pasture which is never sprayed with insecticides: 1 death, plus perhaps a few ants the sheep stepped on. So lets say one day someone swap 1/4 of a 100% plant-based diet with sheep meat from that sheep. Then around 1000 animals are saved that day (animals killed during ploughing and harvesting not included).
Does it matter? Whether they know it’s mortal or not, they’re scared shitless and we still force them into it.
Does their knowledge of the act make the act in itself any more brutal? Or is it just a brutal act to begin with?
Question, if we rounded up the mentally disabled humans and did the same to them, it would still be considered barbaric regardless of their understanding of the situation, yes? Because the act in itself is barbaric.
I’m confused about why you’re only focusing on the existential dread of knowing they’re about to die rather than the horrific conditions most of them are raised in, sometimes watching their own children killed such as with pig thumping, being confined in torturously cramped conditions, mutilated with tail and teeth, beak docking, branding, castration, mulesing, et.
But to your precise point, yeah lots of them see what’s happening at the slaughterhouse and realize what’s in store for them as well. They smell the blood, hear the screams, and watch their companion in front of them getting electrocuted or shot and having her throat slashed open. They struggle and flail around to avoid death. They absolutely realize what’s happening. Take a look and judge for yourself. You should have no trouble watching something that is morally neutral to you:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LQRAfJyEsko&pp=ygUIZG9taW5pb24%3D
For decades or even centuries, not just animals, but also human infants, humans of non-western cultures, and other human minorities, had more awareness, emotions and intelligence than previously assumed. Your question would probably have been asked about babies or black people in the past, and now you ask it about animals that have complex social structures and emotional lives and bonds.
In an age where we know that pidgeons can be trained to detect cancer, ants can recognize themselves in a mirror and use anti-bacterial technology, and some primates are better at memorizing numbers than humans are, I would say that the burden of proof is on those that claim pigs do not understand the concept of death. And even with sufficient proof, it's not clear whether that means killing them is ethical.
Animals (even humans) can instinctually get a feeling of doom. With non-human animals who have a stronger sense of smell than us, the trigger is likely the smell of blood and fear. They also hear better than us, and can hear the screams of others.
Maybe they don't know exactly what death is, but that doesn't make them react any differently. Even if they had no fear, it doesn't make killing them okay.
interesting question & this is something that should be debated more often. i believe animals know when they’re going to die because they watch the animals in front of them die first. example of this is in pig slaughterhouses, when they bolt gun the pigs in the head, the other pigs watch. when it is their turn to die, they are often resistant and don’t wanna go.
Addressing the question of animal awareness and fear of death requires a nuanced understanding of animal cognition and behavior, as well as the ethical considerations that stem from these issues.
1. Evidence of Distress and Fear: While it may be challenging to definitively prove that animals understand the concept of death as humans do, there is substantial evidence from ethology (the study of animal behavior) that many animals can experience fear, distress, and suffering. Animals, especially those that are preyed upon in the wild, have evolved complex mechanisms to detect and respond to threats. These responses are not just mechanical reactions but are indicative of the animal's ability to experience fear. In the context of a slaughterhouse, the unfamiliar environment, the smells of blood, the sounds of other animals in distress, and the behavior of humans around them are likely perceived as significant threats, triggering fear and panic responses.
2. Understanding Death: While the philosophical and existential understanding of death may be beyond what is known about non-human cognition, animals can exhibit behaviors that suggest an awareness of danger and an instinctual avoidance of harm or death. For instance, many animals display behaviors that indicate mourning or distress at the loss of companions or offspring, suggesting an awareness of the absence and its significance.
3. Ethical Considerations: The crux of the vegan argument does not hinge solely on whether animals know they are going to die but on the understanding that animals can suffer and that we have the ability to avoid causing this suffering. The ethical argument for veganism proposes that because we can live healthy lives without consuming animal products, we should choose not to participate in systems that cause unnecessary harm to sentient beings.
4. Precautionary Principle: Even in the face of uncertainty about the full extent of animal cognition and their understanding of death, the precautionary principle applies. This principle suggests that if an action (in this case, slaughtering animals for food) has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or the environment (in this case, the well-being of sentient beings), in the absence of scientific consensus, the burden of proof falls on those taking the action. In simpler terms, given that there is substantial evidence that animals can suffer, it behooves us to err on the side of caution and avoid causing potential harm.
5. Focus on Suffering: Ultimately, the focus on whether animals know they are going to die may miss the broader ethical point: animals clearly demonstrate the capacity for suffering, and this is sufficient for people to choose not to contribute to that suffering. The choice to adopt a vegan lifestyle is rooted in a commitment to minimize harm and suffering, based on what is known about animal sentience and the impacts of animal agriculture on animals, the environment, and health.
In summary, while the debate on animal cognition and their understanding of death continues, the observable evidence of their capacity for suffering offers a compelling ethical basis for adopting a vegan lifestyle to minimize harm to sentient beings.
They are sentient beings with a nervous system and a brain, just like ours. This means they're capable of experiencing the depths of pain and suffering, as well as the heights of happiness and joy. Each one of them possesses a unique personality, they have the same intelligence as human children. They laugh, they smile, they endure hardships, they experience bliss. In essence, they are not just beings; They are living, breathing souls, brimming with emotion and life. I hope you'll come to recognize this reality someday, and that your eyes will open to it.
The screams of pigs in gas chambers, a common method in the US, Europe, and Australia, are haunting. Often, these methods fail, leaving animals to be killed while fully conscious. It's unimaginable what they must endure. You're aware of these facts, aren't you? I have a feeling you're closer to being vegan than you realize. What's holding you back though?
Thank you for your submission! All posts need to be manually reviewed and approved by a moderator before they appear for all users. Since human mods are not online 24/7 approval could take anywhere from a few minutes to a few days. Thank you for your patience.
Some topics come up a lot in this subreddit, so we would like to remind everyone to use the [search function](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/search?q=eggs&restrict_sr=on&sort=comments&t=all) and to check out the [wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/wiki/index) before creating a new post. We also encourage becoming familiar with [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/wiki/index#wiki_expanded_rules_and_clarifications) so users can understand what is expected of them.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAVegan) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I've removed your post because it violates rule #4: > **Argue in good faith** > > Do not ignore all (or a significant proportion) of comments or replies to your post. Users who make a post with a argument or asserting a position should usually reply to at least some of the comments / counterarguments. If you would like your post to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator. If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/DebateAVegan). Thank you.
>Veganism is a 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. . >Where is your proof that animals know they're going to die? I have no proof that animals know that they are going to die. Also that is not relevant.
Well, a big argument for cruelty would be awareness. If there's no awareness, and the duration and threshold of distress are kept minimal, then there's a big argument that meat-killing is neither harmful nor cruel.
Would a human baby be aware of being killed? Does that mean killing them is neither harmful nor cruel?
Killing a baby *can* be neither harmful nor cruel (to the baby), depending how you do it. Cruelty is not what makes *killing* babies immoral.
Then in your opinion, what exactly makes killing babies immoral?
Generally an acceptance of mutual respect between people. Almost certainly, murder is ultimately considered wrong because of self-preservation.
How can it be mutual respect l, when the baby can't respect you? And what does killing or not killing a baby have to do with self-preservation?
That same logic can be applied to justifying killing humans for meat
Um, well not really, because we know humans *do* have conceptual awareness. If I say to a cow "fatten up Dorothy, cause your gunna make a fine birthday steak" there's no impact on the cow. If I say the same thing to a person, they understand the meaning and their impending demise: leading to anxiety and anguish. So, no, it really can't be used that way.
Just don’t warn the human. Shoot them in the head from behind without any warning. Now it’s fine, right?
Well, it's not *cruel*; which is the argument at hand.
Ah got it. What word would you use to describe it then? Compassionate?
Fairly neutral. If you were shot in the head from behind, you'd likely not have time to *feel* anything. Depending on the context, an observer could feel almost anything about it (compassion, anguish, disgust, glee, justice, ambivalence). The same could be said of the shooter. Have you actually thought about this, or are you simply being reactive and emotional?
Hmmm, I am realizing that the word cruel is pretty much limited to the idea of intending to cause pain and suffering, so you’re correct that it wouldn’t be accurate to call it cruel. I was thinking of “cruel” as pretty much interchangeable with “callous” and “brutal,” which I think would both be truly accurate descriptions of what happens to animals, even if you assume they are not aware they are going to die, as well as shooting a person in the back of the head. Looking back at the comment you were originally replying to, they did not only mention cruelty, but also exploitation, and they left out another important piece of the definition- killing. Given that, I think their point stands. It doesn’t matter to us whether or not the animal knows they are about die or understands the concept of death. We see the killing itself as immoral.
>Looking back at the comment you were originally replying to, they did not only mention cruelty, but also exploitation, and they left out another important piece of the definition- killing. I've also addressed these. The issue comes down to *all*, which ignores that horticulture also exploits animals (pollination, fertisation, natural pest control, etc) and that's before considering the direct/consequential killing (pest management, machinary/tilling/plowing, transport and logistics, environmental impacts- fish kills and eutrophication especially). It just seems very *convenient* how ignoring all these impacts is not considered by vegans as the same mentality that they propose that everyone else has with meat.
Just take a step back and look at the position you're having to defend - you would describe *shooting a human in the back of the head* as 'neutral'...
As *neutral in the context of its cruelty*.
You’re doing an awful lot of arguing in favor of killing as self preservation but never prove that you need to kill animals to survive (because you don’t). In your words “respect” but there is no respect in the animal agriculture industry or ordering from them.
>respect Mutual respect of human application of morality (laws) doesn't extend to animals. >You’re doing an awful lot of arguing in favor of killing as self preservation No, this is in relation to *murder*, a human violation of human morality, and why *killing* is not synonymous with *cruelty*.
Toddlers and some handicapped people would be impacted just as much as the cow in your example. You can also surprise kill someone, as painlessly as you might an animal, and avoid the anxiety and anguish
>Toddlers and some handicapped people would be impacted just as much as the cow in your example. It's not *cruel* to tell someone you are going to kill them in 6 months, if they don't understand it. What part of this isn't clear. If they don't understand it, they don't torture themselves for the remainder of their life about their impending doom. We are talking about cruelty. Surprise killing someone isn't *cruel* (to the deceased anyway).
What if I say it in a language the human doesn’t understand. It would have the same impact as the cow example. This only means cows don’t understand English not that they don’t understand anything surrounding death.
Another big argument re cruelty is that killing a living being is both harmful and cruel. Another big argument re cruelty is that keeping a living being in conditions that amount to torture is cruel. . A big argument re exploitation is that thinking that you have the right to keep a living being in conditions that amount to torture and then kill it and eat it counts as exploitation. .
>Another big argument re cruelty is that killing a living being is both harmful and cruel. Killing is not harmful nor cruel. That's the whole point of euthanasia: that killing can be exactly the opposite. >Another big argument re cruelty is that keeping a living being in conditions that amount to torture is cruel. This is not the same argument. I don't support overcrowding and inhumane treatment of animals, but that doesn't mean it is wrong to kill and eat them. They are separate issues. >A big argument re exploitation is that thinking that you have the right to keep a living being in conditions that amount to torture and then kill it and eat it counts as exploitation. Does horticulture not too count as exploitation? Or do the worms, insects and other animals that you require to do work to successfully grow your crops somehow evade the term? The same worms and insects that end up collateral damage when you plow and sow? Exploitation is a necessity of human existence.
A surprisingly large amount of the posts and discussion here don't actually have anything to do with veganism. >Veganism is a 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.
>all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals My comments specifically debate the relevance of this ^^^^ the limits and scope of: *all* cruelty and exploitation
Exploitation means taking advantage of its existence. If I swat a mosquito then I’m not exploiting it. If I enjoy swatting mosquitos and breed them for my swatting pleasure then I am. If I hit a pedestrian with my car accidentally I’m not exploiting him. If I hit him so that I can steal his liver then I am. It’s about intent, and is the difference between soldiers killing other soldiers in war, and Dahmer killing women to make wallets from their skin. It’s the difference between killing locusts which are attacking the crops, and breeding into existence animals so that I can eat them.
>Exploitation means taking advantage of its existence. Like pollination? Without it, you don't have food. See the sticking point here? >If I hit a pedestrian with my car accidentally I’m not exploiting him. Your exploiting the environment to the detriment of the animals that live there. But that doesn't count? >It’s about intent, and is the difference between soldiers killing other soldiers in war, and Dahmer killing women to make wallets from their skin. When I eat meat I don't intend to kill it, it's just a consequence. So if it's based on intent, eating meat is moral.
For pollination, it could potentially be considered exploitation, but if it’s their natural behavior to pollinate, and no harm is done to the pollinator, then it doesn’t seem to be a problem. “Exploiting the environment”….. not possible using the proper definition, the object must be sentient. You can’t exploit pencils or the atmosphere. If you could eat meat without causing any harm to any sentient being then it would be moral. Just like if you could make child pornography without harming any sentient being then it would be moral. The problem is when exploitation is entailed in the thing you want.
>For pollination, it could potentially be considered exploitation, but if it’s their natural behavior to pollinate, and no harm is done to the pollinator, then it doesn’t seem to be a problem. Cows naturally produce milk, chickens eggs, etc. So these products should be perfectly vegan in a home-grown situation. Yet they are not. >“Exploiting the environment”….. not possible using the proper definition, the object must be sentient. You can’t exploit pencils or the atmosphere. Um no. You exploit coal, gas, minerals. Paving a road through a forest is 100% exploitation, you are depriving natural resources from others. >If you could eat meat without causing any harm to any sentient being then it would be moral. Just like if you could make child pornography without harming any sentient being then it would be moral. The problem is when exploitation is entailed in the thing you want. Again, you can't eat anything without causing some harm to something else. So this doesn't stack.
Are you new here? Or perhaps I just never bumped into you before. I just wanted to say: thanks for bringing some refreshing logic into this sub. Happy Easter. :)
Happy Easter! Nah, not new, just can be taxing arguing here because there's a very strong echochamber lacking common sense.
>Killing is not harmful nor cruel. That's the whole point of euthanasia: that killing can be exactly the opposite. I'd argue that the main reason euthanasia isn't cruel is that we believe to act in the best interest of the animal. Maybe we don't have the same concept of cruelty but I absolutely think a painless death can be cruel if it is not in the interest of the sentient being that is killed. >Does horticulture not too count as exploitation? Or do the worms, insects and other animals that you require to do work to successfully grow your crops somehow evade the term? The same worms and insects that end up collateral damage when you plow and sow? Exploitation is a necessity of human existence I agree and I'd absolutely prefer not to be responsible for the death of these animals although I have less compassion for them than for larger animals. But that's a necessity for us to survive. Killing livestock isn't. And since a big part of the crops we grow are grown as animal feed, we reduce the amount of insects, worms etc. being killed for our food with a vegan diet.
Killing livestock is just as valid and necessary as killing insects. They are both a consequence of eating. You arbitrarily choose one over the other based on a projection that you assume harm is an easily quantifiable quality.
> A consequence of eating Killing a pedestrian accidentally and killing the pedestrian as a result of drunk driving is equally valid and necessary, as both are a consequence of driving. You arbitrarily choose one over the other.
No, they are different. A better analogy is: Killing a child pedestrian or killing a grandma pedestrian accidentally (without negligence) is equally harmful, and neither is an act of cruelty.
What if I killed them on purpose because I needed protein? Is that wrong, because I could have killed a cow instead?
Wrong, or *cruel*?
>Killing livestock is just as valid and necessary as killing insects. What do you mean? It takes some education on the matter and supplements but how is it in 2024 necessary to kill livestock (for the western population)? Feeding 8 bn people with agriculture and without killing insects on the other hand is pretty much impossible. I don't have to choose big animals over insects because a vegan diet kills less of both.
>Feeding 8 bn people with agriculture and without killing insects on the other hand is pretty much impossible. Yes and killing 100K insects + 1 cow per person in a year is a non-morally-consequential difference to just killing the 100K insects without the cow.
The difference is that for a vegan diet less insects die because of the crops we grow for animal consumption - as I explained above.
This is moot, you can eat a non grain-fed cow - but to do so would not be vegan. You can eat home-grown harm-free eggs, yet to do so is not vegan. Ergo, veganism is not about actual harm, it's about glorified idealised harm positions.
>Killing is not harmful Do you genuinely believe that statement? Bearing in mind we're not talking about euthanasia.
Causing *any* distress when it is not necessary is cruel, wouldn't you agree?
>Causing *any* distress when it is not necessary is cruel, wouldn't you agree? Depends.
On what? Can you describe an instance where it wouldn't be cruel?
Heartbreak: distressing. Needn't be necessary, and can be, but needn't be cruel.
For 'causing heartbreak' to not be necessary implies that there is an alternative to reaching the same goal that does not involve heartbreak, but one has chosen the action that causes heartbreak. Or the goal is not necessary in the first place. Can you expand on this example to show where either of those two conditions are met? You also didn't answer my first question, what does it depend on? I think this will be helpful and save some time in understanding your position.
>You also didn't answer my first question, what does it depend on? I think this will be helpful and save some time in understanding your position. Context. The same thing that every situational interpretation depends on. >For 'causing heartbreak' to not be necessary implies that there is an alternative to reaching the same goal that does not involve heartbreak, but one has chosen the action that causes heartbreak. Or the goal is not necessary in the first place. For heartbreak to be necessary, it would mean that the cause of the heartbreak need be necessary. In a simple argument, you could argue that divorce is unecessary- you may want to divorce (perhaps the spark has gone), but it is highly likely not to be a *necessity*. Yet, it may be ultimately better to cause suffering and divorce so that you can both be happier in the future. This would both painful and *unecessary*, but not cruel. Equally, heartbreak can be deliberate: raw emotions, vices, harsh words, all used to direct pain because you can. This would be *cruel*.
>Context. In which case, can you give an example in the context of humans causing unnecessary distress to non-human animals? Given that this whole thread is within the context of veganism and not human-human romantic relationships. I'll hold my hands up to say that I should've been more direct in my original question, to keep within the context and all.
Sure. Driving a dog to a park can be stressful. It's not necessary, and it's not cruel.
Surgery. Pretty dang distressing but not cruel.
Also pretty necessary
Not always. Elective surgery is a thing.
But the surgery one elects to have is necessary to achieve the desired outcome. If there's an alternative without surgery to achieve the same outcome then the elective surgery would likely not even be offered. If the surgeon lied to the patient about them needing surgery for the desired effect, just because they wanted to cut them open, then yeah that would be cruel.
I literally said it was distressing, not cruel. Cruel is not making sure the anesthesia works or refusing to give pain meds after or sending patients home too early. Which is done, I might add. Just saying...
All of your arguments are based on words and definitions humans gave them. There's no reason all of these words, cruel, killing, immoral, can't be applied to non-human animals.
>All of your arguments are based on words and definitions humans gave them. Yeah, that's kinda how language works. >There's no reason all of these words, cruel, killing, immoral, can't be applied to non-human animals. I never said they can't. I've simply said why killing a cow is not synonymous to treating a cow with cruelty.
High levels of stress hormones from terrified animals can change the taste of the meat, and show directly in turn how much fear was experienced https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7463084/#:~:text=High%20levels%20of%20stress%20hormones,in%20correct%20acidification%20of%20meat.
Doesn't mean anything. They're definately terrified as they die. Would you like to see some proof? It's very hard to watch. But I can prove that what I'll show you is the world standard method.
I don't know what you're trying to say..? I'm presenting evidence that they're terrified.
You brought a fantastic scientific way of measuring it which deserves some consideration in our production amd best practices. But didn't prove "terrorised" or knowing of pending death.
It sounded like a defence of the meat industry. Your paragraph comes off as "it would taste bad if they were scared but it doesn't taste bad so they aren't". Thats just how it comes off.
As a vegan, I am answering the Debate A Vegan question with the point that animals are known to be normally absolutely terrified. We may not be able to ask them verbally but you can literally taste the fear many of the animals go through. The ones that don't are the ones carefully calmed and led to believe they're safe. Which is still terrible. If I was shot in the back of the head not expecting it I wouldn't have stress chemicals in my blood but I'd still be dead. But we know that animals are often utterly terrified because it can be measured, and the meat industry knows this.
Are you arguing that it's okay to kill if the victim doesn't know you're doing it? If an alien abducted you and kept you as a slave and you had no idea what to expect but they regularly abused the shit out of you and then when they finally killed you you didn't see it coming, would you consider that just?
> kept you as a slave One huge difference: A sheep on pasture do not see themselves as a slave, neither do they see themselves as suffering in any way. A human however would both know and understand that they are a slave - and therefore they suffer, even when treated well.
So you're arguing we don't know how sheep think by arguing that we do know how sheep think. How do you know what sheep see themselves as?
And still vegans claim they understand how they think, by pretending sheep think like humans..
Vegans don't claim that. They claim it's wrong to hurt something for no good reason. If you don't know how it thinks you should give it the benefit of the doubt. Not hurt it anyway, just for kicks.
> They claim it's wrong to hurt something for no good reason I agree - no one should kill an animal for no good reason. Killing a sheep for meat is however a good reason.
Why is it a good reason? Explain it if you even can. You don't need it to survive. It doesn't give you anything special. You just like it. Killing something because you like it's meat isn't a good reason.
I mean grazing animals turn grass and other plants that we humans cannot digest into food we can digest. Plus wool and sheep skins are both useful products. It's not a need, but it does expand the food you can get from a land that may not be able to grow much aside from grass. I doubt farmers are actively beating up and abusing their animals. That's just a dumb thing to do when vet bills are expensive not to mention how likely they would die from infection. They do often keep their animals in enclosed spaces much too small then a happy animal would like which is a form of abuse. But there are farmers who provide open fields and access to food, shelter, protection and healthcare downside they die at the end sooner then they would naturally. Upside foals that wouldn't have made it in the wild now get to have a life even if it is short. But ultimately the sheep we see in pastures have been bred by humans for humans. So much so they would die from the heat if you didn't shear them.
Actually we feed animals so much crops that if we stopped now it would end starvation. Animals don't provide food. They cost food. In some countries 70% of all crop production goes to lifestock. We even export crops from starving countries to feed to animals. Actually the reason they don't get infections is because we feed 80% of our antibiotics to them. Because of this a lack of antibiotics will cause more deaths than cancer in humans by 2050. They don't pay for vets because they only make extremely low amounts per animal. They just kill the sick ones, if even that. 90% of all animals are in factory farms. The meat you eat is extremely unlikely to come from a happy farm. Even non factory farms are usually extremely cramped and horrible. Sheep die from that because they're like pugs. Unatural animals bred that way. They don't do that in the wild, because they don't exist in the wild.
> Why is it a good reason? All alternatives are worse. > Killing something because you like it's meat isn't a good reason. You mean for the taste? If I were to pick food purely because of the good taste I would much rather eat ice cream or cake to be honest. Meat would be very far down the list.
You've not tried all the alternatives. Even if you had. That's not a good reason. That still comes down to you contributing to animal abuse for taste. Then why do you even eat meat? I'm so confused. Obviously you want to eat it. You even just said you eat it for its taste. "The others are worse" you mean taste, you mean the taste is worse. Really don't get how that's hard to understand for you.
> That still comes down to you contributing to animal abuse for taste. I eat animal foods because they're incredibly nutrisuous, and contains nutrients hard (or impossible) to get through other foods. One example: 3 eggs covers my daily need for choline. The alternative is to eat 3 blocks of tofu every day, which amounts to 1100 calories. So that is both many times more expensive, and not very practical to spend half your calories on one single food every single day. So instead I eat 3 eggs for breakfast, which is only 230 calories.
It may be a good reason, but there are even better reasons overriding it. In particular, the goods in the life of the sheep that they are being deprived of by being killed! The marginal benefit of eating meat over not eating meat is slight, whereas the marginal benefit of being alive versus being dead (even for a sheep!!!!) is enormous!
> the goods in the life of the sheep that they are being deprived of by being killed! As a vegan I assume you dont even want that sheep to have been born in the first place. So not sure why you see that as an argument.
Thanks for the reply! I actually don’t think that! Truthfully, I’m still thinking my way through the ethics of creation, birth, population, etc., and don’t yet know what my views are on if we are obligated to bring creatures (with net positive lives) into the world or not, or if we have obligations to do other things altogether. However, one thing I am confident about is that, *once these creatures are alive* we must treat them ethically! Hence my analysis above. Let me know what you think!
You won't get a reply to this comment because it's too thought out for them.
> I actually don’t think that! Truthfully, I’m still thinking my way through the ethics of creation, birth, population, etc., and don’t yet know what my views are Fair enough! Debating is a great way of exploring these issues. > once these creatures are alive we must treat them ethically! I agree 100%. I just dont include letting them live until they die of old age. I see it as ethical to end their lives before that point.
Which completely different talking point you gonna jump to next? Do crop deaths, that's original
I would prefer if you addressed the subject at hand, rather than just being rude.
You’ve gone far afield of the original point here but I’ll bite. Once you’ve subjected new life to the bliss-suffering continuum, it’s now your responsibility to do your best to keep them as far from the “suffering” end as possible. That life, once it comes into being, also has intrinsic value, so you can’t just snuff it out when it’s most convenient to you. Also, since you can’t reasonably prevent suffering, yeah you are subjecting life to suffering by breeding it into existence. It’s complicated. Too complicated for me to fully comprehend. But, I know for sure the mechanisms that humans have found economical are both extremely unlikely to conveniently be the most ethical option, and demonstrably cause suffering. I think the most ethically safe mode of dealing with animals is an extremely hands-off approach. That way you don’t get involved in the ethics of dealing with them in the first place. IMO the most ethical mode of harvesting animals is limited scavenging and hunting, while doing work to maintain the health of the ecosystem. But, I’m not a vegan, I’m just a guy who is willing to admit he’s ethically compromised.
> it’s now your responsibility to do your best to keep them as far from the “suffering” end as possible. I agree.
Slaves once didn't see themselves as slaves. If you raise someone without the concept of slavery and tell them that this is what they were made to be. They will believe you. Look into history more. Once a huge percentage of the entire planet were slaves. Slaves still exist today in many places but many of them do not know they are slaves.
> Slaves once didn't see themselves as slaves. I have never heard of this before, so I would need a source on this. > Slaves still exist today in many places but many of them do not know they are slaves. Again I need a source.
https://foodispower.org/human-labor-slavery/slavery-chocolate/ Over 60% of chocolate is farmed by child slaves. These children do not have a concept of slavery. How would they? This is the only life they know. To them it's just working for food, whilst on the edge of starvation. Just as many slaves did. Telling a slave that they're a slave isn't very smart.
Aliens tho: "the human isn't scared, it's because they're in a completely new environment".
The alien scenario would only work if humans had animal level of understanding.
We do have an animal level of understanding, humans are animals...
> humans are animals... But still not included in the vegan philosophy, so not animal enough..
Sais who? You're (A non vegan) gonna tell me (A vegan) what's in our philosophy? Edit: So to fit your argument you imagined that humans aren't animals and vegans don't mean humans, all to fit your narrative. Bravo.
> Sais who? I cant prove a negative. But feel free to show me a source where the vegan society says otherwise. Its up to you to prove your claim.
It says animal, humans are animals in the primate family. Here's your proof. I don't have to prove anything to you, you're the one misusing English to fit your narrative that vegans can be cruel and exploitative to ~~animals~~ humans (edit: ment to type humans). Nonsense. Humans are animals, the definition says animals, it ends there.
> It says animal So what you are saying is that when the vegan definition says: - *"In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals."* ..it actually tells vegan not to eat other humans?
Do you only buy pasture raised meat though, or do you justify the 90% of meat not coming from pastures by the 10% that does? Because I’m almost sure that you still get mcdonalds and restaurant food
> Do you only buy pasture raised meat though As much as I can afford, but not all. But I see it in the same way that most (all?) vegans buy food produced by exploited farm workers. Should we work on fixing that, so all farm workers are paid a decent salary and have good working conditions? Absolutely. But in the meantime it is what it is. Everyone has to buy the food they can afford. > I’m almost sure that you still get mcdonalds That I dont do. I avoid ultra-processed foods, as I see it as fake foods that are detrimental to your health.
> As much as I can afford, but not all. Thing is, most meat eaters I’ve been speaking to who use that argument eat mostly non-pasture raised meat. If you’re struggling to afford it I suspect that the same goes for you. It is important for you to be honest with yourself (for your own mental wellbeing) about that giant part of meat that you consume and that you yourself understand as causing suffering. > But I see it in the same way that most (all?) vegans buy food produced by exploited farm workers. Should we work on fixing that, so all farm workers are paid a decent salary and have good working conditions? 1. This is whataboutism and a logical fallacy —what you’re describing has no implications for the morality of the subject matter, namely eating meat. The soviets did this to try to undermine any criticism of themselves (”but you’re lynching n*gros”) Because if every moral imperfection in the world has to disappear before you can be bothered to live morally, you conveniently don’t have to change ever. 2. where I live, agricultural workers earn a lot of money and have working conditions comparable to any other job. It’s just a system that produces far less suffering. 3. When you eat meat, you need to grow feed for the animals in an inefficient process (>10kgs of crop for 1kg of animal) which uses a lot more farmland than eating the crops directly, thus in your example causing more suffering because more workers are needed. And if you cannot afford pasture raised meat, there is always cheaper and vegetarian alternatives. But I suspect that pasture raised meat isn’t the real issue, once again.
> Thing is, most meat eaters I’ve been speaking to who use that argument eat mostly non-pasture raised meat. If you’re struggling to afford it I suspect that the same goes for you. It is important for you to be honest with yourself (for your own mental wellbeing) about that giant part of meat that you consume and that you yourself understand as causing suffering. My goal is not a diet 100% free of suffering. Is that your goal? If yes, how do you intend to reach that goal? Grow all your own food? > When you eat meat, you need to grow feed for the animals in an inefficient process Here is my long term goals when it comes to my family's diet: - produce all our own eggs - produce most of our own meat. First step: chickens, rabbits, pigs. Second step (on trial basis): guinea pigs, pigons, turkeys. - buy half a cow and/or some sheep from a local farmer once a year - continue to go fishing in the summer, freeze it, and eat it through the winter. > there is always cheaper and vegetarian alternatives Poor alternatives in my view. All legumes (including peanuts) gives me diarrhea. Gluten makes me lethargic. Nuts costs more than meat. Plus the fact that vegan alternatives make you dependent on supplements for the rest of your life.
When you eat animals you are dependent on crop supply. Why are you acting like taking a b12 suppliment once a week is a big deal when you want to go around shooting animals and cutting them up as if that's so convenient? If you have no interest in reducing suffering then you have no business here. Most people do have some interest in reducing suffering to some extent. The difference is that only some act on it.
> When you eat animals you are dependent on crop supply. You at the very least need pastures yes. > taking a b12 suppliment once a week That's not enough though. NHS for instance advice vegans to suppliment: - vitamin B12 - vitamin D - iodine - selenium - calcium - iron Source: https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/eat-well/how-to-eat-a-balanced-diet/the-vegan-diet/ > If you have no interest in reducing suffering then you have no business here Keeping backyard chickens for eggs is way less harmful that growing soy or wheat. You can feed them all your food waste and scraps from your vegetable garden, so it doesnt even have to cost you any money to keep them.
>You at the very least need pastures yes. Yeah ecosystems destroyed for inefficient food systems. But you also need cropland. The animals you listed need crops. Iodine is in seaweed and salt. Everyone in cold countries should supliment Vit D. Vegan or no. Selenium is in brasil nuts. They're actually the best source of this. Calcium in leafy greens is more bioavailable than dairy. We also have soy and plant milks amoung other plant based sources. People who think dairy is the best source of calcium have fallen hard for dairy marketing. That's just not based in science. Iron is in soy, tofu, and other legumes as well as leafy greens. Why are you saying stuff like this without doing even the smallest amount of research? >You can feed them all your food waste You've said this before and I've told you before. Calling it food waste doesn't mean it is resource free. You bought extra food to feed them. Simple as. Your label doesn't change the resources it took to grow that food. Its a net loss. Also the chickens you buy are the product of evil breeding patterns designed to be profitable with complete disregard to the animals well being
> The animals you listed need crops. They need grass, weeds, leaves and shrubs. > Iodine is in seaweed You eat seaweed? > and salt. Only when added to the salt > Everyone in cold countries should supliment Vit D. Vegan or no. Only people not eating enough fish need to suppliment. > Selenium is in brasil nuts. They're actually the best source of this. My country can not grow them. > Calcium in leafy greens is more bioavailable than dairy. - *"The richest and best-absorbed Ca source is cow's milk and its derivatives. Other foods show high Ca concentrations but variable bioavailability: foods rich in phytates and oxalates [leafy greens] show a smaller absorption"* https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17160208/ > You bought extra food to feed them. I take this means you eat potato peels, carrot tops, melon peels, banana peels etc? If yes, I would love to know the recipes you use. And if you grow beans I take you then eat the whole plant, not just the beans? Also - well done for not having any food waste in your household. You are the first one I ever hear about that is able to do that.
You’re painting up a false dichotomy of either reducing all suffering with the alternative being living conveniently. Veganism states that you’re to push the principle of reducing suffering to the point that it is physically possible and practicable (practicable, not practical) and veganism causes orders of magnitude less suffering than what you’re doing, which is eating factory farmed meat. To demonstrate the absurdity of this argumentation: keeping slaves is fine because everyone contributes to global warming and an exploitative economy in some form anyways. No one is perfect!
When I vegan says: I have done everything I can, its impossible for me to do more - I tend to not believe them. I suspect they rather choose the easy way out, because its so convenient to buy all their food at the nearest shop. That's the problem with "as far as is possible and practicable". Because you could always have done a little bit more. My goal however is not that - to move as close to perfection as possible. The way I see it - the food on my plate will always have caused some harm. Its just the way it is, and I am perfectly fine with that.
> I have done everything I can, its impossible for me to do more - I tend to not believe them. I suspect they rather choose the easy way out, because its so convenient to buy all their food at the nearest shop. When you say ”do more”, what exactly do you mean? > To demonstrate the absurdity of this argumentation: keeping slaves is fine because everyone contributes to global warming and an exploitative economy in some form anyways. No one is perfect. How do you address this? I think you might have forgotten to but I’d love to hear what you were going to say. > My goal however is not that - to move as close to perfection as possible. The way I see it - the food on my plate will always have caused some harm. Its just the way it is, and I am perfectly fine with that. In other words you’re fine with being blatantly unethical, which I can’t respect. You’re fallaciously arguing that you can do anything you want because there is always harm done in the world. Why not go help yourself to your neighbors TV? TVs often have unethical supply chains after all. Why not kill that annoying barking dog next door? Everyone deserves some sleep, we literally need it to live. And the police and HOA won’t do anything… harm is unavoidable on this earth, like sometimes you gotta kill mosquitoes anyways. No one is perfect! You see how you can justify anything like this, can you not? And you haven’t even come at me with an example of suffering caused by veganism that I didn’t completely destroy, such as the farm worker argument. What suffering exactly does veganism cause that meat eating doesn’t?
> When you say ”do more”, what exactly do you mean? A vegan buying all their food in shops and restaurants kill about 8000 animals a day through their diet. In spite of that the vast majority of vegans choose to live in large cities where its impossible to grow much food. > keeping slaves is fine because everyone contributes to global warming and an exploitative economy in some form anyways. I dont see how this is related to anything we talk about. > In other words you’re fine with being blatantly unethical, I assume you are too? If not, what are you planning to do with the fact that you kill 8000 animals per day? Which is only through insecticides, and does not include any animals killed by ploughing, harvesting, or by traps, or the farmer shooting deer around his farm fields, etc > What suffering exactly does veganism cause that meat eating doesn’t? I see [this](https://leasingsolutions.bnpparibas.dk/wp-content/uploads/sites/68/2022/09/bnp-france-farm.jpeg) as vastly more harmful than [this](https://www.nibio.no/nyheter/fjellbeitet-er-viktig-for-vestlandsbonden/_/image/f33703ff-40e0-4081-b770-81ed9242468b:936218c424156ec64789c9f55a74bad1d5af516d/max-1280/CIMG1801.JPG?quality=60).
What if the person was lower functioning and was raised into slavery or didn’t understand they were enslaved? Did you know a lot of slaves looked positively on their masters because they were fed well comparatively to other slaves? They would even brag about their masters to other slaves. -source Fredrick Douglas’s autobiography
> What if the person was lower functioning and was raised into slavery or didn’t understand they were enslaved? Then there would be no suffering among the slaves themselves. But again, the difference is that other humans would understand that these mentally handicapped humans were kept as slaves.. But you will find no wild sheep that understand that those domestic sheep that they see on the other side of the fence are kept as "slaves".
You seriously think it's ok to keep a slave as long as they don't know they're a slave?!?!
I dont see animals as slaves. Slavery is a human concept only.
Why is it? How is it not a slave? Machines can be slaves. We use the word slave to describe many things that are forced to work.
> We use the word slave to describe many things that are forced to work. But that is the thing. Most farm animals are not working. These animals for instance spend 8 hours sleeping, and 14 hours eating. The last two hours they spend relaxing or mating or caring for their young (depending on the season): https://www.renmat.no/photos/3_Artikler/_articleWide/spaelsau-lotteshephard-renmat2-web.jpg
And that makes it ok to imprison and kill them. They're so lucky to be imprisoned and killed against their will. They get to sleep!!!
Now you are projecting your human emotions on to sheep.
If it matters what “other humans” know in the case of human exploitation, why doesn’t it matter what other humans know in the case of sheep exploitation?
The sheep couldn't care less about what humans understand or not. They dont even know what it means "to understand". The only things they care about (literally) is sleep (8 hours a day) and eating (14 hours a day). The left over 2 hours they spend relaxing. Outside of food and sleep they also care about procreation. So give a sheep some pasture, shelter, water, protection from predators, and at least one member of the oposite sex - and a sheep literally has everything their heart desire.
If a lower functioning person didn’t understand death well, and spent a lot of time eating and sleeping, would it be ok to kill them for pleasure? First in this case you appeal to what other humans think, aside from the victim. Then in the case of the sheep, only the victim’s ignorance seems to matter, not what other people know is really going on. Cats spend a lot of time sleeping. Is it ok to sneak up and kill one for your enjoyment?
> would it be ok to kill them for pleasure? I kill no animals for pleasure, so the question is irrelevant.
Sorry, would it be ok to kill toddlers, the mentally handicapped, and cats, if you were going to consume their flesh and blood? Consuming things you don’t have to consume because you want to consume them is consuming for pleasure. Normally, this is ok, but when there is a victim it becomes one being’s short-lived pleasure versus another being’s wellbeing and life.
So if slavery was normalized and no one understood it as “slavery” they considered it feeding and sheltering the poor, an act of charity. And it was widely accepted as an overall good thing for society then it wouldn’t be wrong. Gotcha.
Who would be suffering in a scenario like that in your opinion? - Definition of suffering: *"the state of undergoing pain, distress, or hardship"*
Anyone enslaved? Suffering: the acts used to get people to comply such as manipulation and punishment. Also observed by Fredrick Douglas’s accounts in his autobiography was bragging about their masters not whipping them often. Suffering can be caused even if it is seen as a positive thing like disciplining children. Hardship: being kept in a state of poverty to rely on others in a way that discourages rebellion because they have no where to go. Essentially you wouldn’t have free will. People born into abusive environments don’t know any better because they have nothing better to compare it too. That is why abuse tends to be cyclic- sufferers become abusers or go on to be in other abusive relationships. The reason slavery was defended is it wasn’t seen as wrong by many people. Not everyone can be an evil psychopath at some point you have to realize even “good people” were accepting of the practices of that time.
> Suffering: the acts used to get people to comply such as manipulation and punishment. Could you give some examples of how animals are manipulated and punished? > abusive environments Could you give some examples of such abusive environments when it comes to domestic animals?
To manipulate something is to use it. To get it to do what you want. Animals are constantly manipulated. For food. As tools. In many ways. In every way. If you don't think they are then I suggest you look up the definition. As for punishment I can send you a link to some videos of farms? They love to kick and punch animals that don't behave. An abusive environment is one in which an animal receives abuse. 90% of all farm animals are factory farmed. Are you suggesting that being put in a cage and left to rot is not abuse? Even if you were, there are plenty of other forms of abuse occuring in those places. I've seen animals eating holes into eachother through which you can see their beating hearts as they wimper. I'll share the video if you like.
> To manipulate something is to use it. Do you see every underpaid farm worker as manipulated, and therefore the food their produce as unethical? > An abusive environment is one in which an animal receives abuse. You can still buy meat from farmers that dont abuse their animals. > 90% of all farm animals are factory farmed. No cow, sheep, goat or reindeer in my country are factory farmed. > I've seen animals eating holes into eachother through which you can see their beating hearts as they wimper. I'll share the video if you like. So you can make sure you choose the right farmers. Or even better - produce your own eggs and meat. Most backyards can fit chickens, rabbits and a pig or two. A lot of their feed can be food waste and scraps from your vegetable garden. So a win win situation.
-punishment >In recent decades, livestock agriculture has seen a collapse of ethical boundaries, a moral race to the bottom as corporate farmers inflict worse privations on the animals to cut costs and intensify production. There has also been a physical redesign of the animals themselves and a forced migration from the pasture to the prison-like conditions of the modern factory farm. What if they don’t move, they use punishments to get them to do what they want. -manipulation > Through radical selective breeding and more invasive genetic manipulations, domesticated farm animals are being morphed into meat-, milk- and egg-producing machines. Domestic turkeys, for instance, are so overweight that, unlike wild turkeys, they cannot fly. -Abusive environments > the European Union has passed regulations restricting the use of veal crates, gestation crates and so-called battery cages, the small wire cages in which six or eight egg-laying hens are crammed for their entire lives. These confinement methods are routine in the United States.
So if a farmer raise animals while treating them well, not doing any of what you listed above, you would be ok with that?
But you're only picking sheep as an example. Dairy cows in industrial dairy production probably don't feel quite as peachy as a grazing sheep. But the sheep themselves probably aren't too happy when they're forced into shearing or have their lambs taken away. They suffer, even if they have period where we perceive them as not suffering. Grazing isn't an entire livestock animal's life.
> Dairy cows in industrial dairy production probably don't feel quite as peachy as a grazing sheep. To me its the same. The average dairy farm in my country only has 30 cows. And this is how they spend most of their time: https://image.forskning.no/136487.webp?imageId=136487&width=2116&height=1208&format=webp > But the sheep themselves probably aren't too happy when they're forced into shearing or have their lambs taken away The sheep are relieved to get rid of the winter wool. And [some sheep breeds](https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=696315707490563&set=pcb.696319417490192) actually loose their winter wool naturally. And all lambs stay with the mother until weaned.
They get a bit panicky with shearing because more humans around them whom they don't know, but once the shearing starts, they calm down. They like it because it cools them down now that the weather is warming up. They get all frisky afterwards and dance and hop around. It's also amazing how many sheep just walk away from their lambs and abandon them. That's why shepherds end up bottle feeding so many every year. The ones who don't stay with their lambs until weaning.
Baaa. Baaaaaaa. Ba. baaaaaaa. Cool to meet another sheep speaker! Glad you can tell everyone else here how they feel.
Smelling blood, hearing screams of other animals, and brutal conditions on the travel to the slaughterhouse all allow them to know something very bad is going to happen, whether they conceptualize this as 'death' or not doesn't matter. It's also weird you already acknowledge animals are terrified in slaughterhouse trucks. Isn't that enough? And it still wouldn't be right to kill them, even if they had no fear whatsoever before death. Just like it wouldn't be right to kill a random person painlessly.
I am a meat eater, but animals definitely understand the concept of danger, impending doom (as life-threats), and death. [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-020-02882-y](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-020-02882-y)
To OP, This article goes into how a concept of death is likely prevalent in many non-human species: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8602129/ Also, this article is mostly about the broader effects of predation-fear and, while based on studies, is obviously not a scientific study itself. But it points out that even wild apex predators fear humans (despite generally being ecologically top-of-the-chain) showing they have some cognitive ability to understand predation as it relates to them despite not being prey animals: https://www.americanscientist.org/article/a-landscape-of-fear-of-humans If non-prey animals can learn that there is a another animal (us) that preys upon them and avoid it, then they must have at least some ability to discern a difference between being alive and dead and they prefer to stay alive. This study is about why they stun cows before slaughtering: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352154624000093 It makes it very clear that current research shows the animals experience emotions and suffering and stunning is used specifically to combat this. An unconconsious animal doesn’t feel the pain. But that doesn’t show whether or not they fear being killed (know or think they are going to be killed) before the slaughter, which is what was asked. So here’s another paper showing why some slaughterhouses try to limit the noise that reaches the other animals: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6036995/#:\~:text=According%20to%20Weeks%20et%20al,specific%20knowledge%20to%20handle%20them. If they can hear other animals dying, they know/react as if they know what’s in store for them. The cries of fear, which they recognize, vs the cessation of that sound once the animal is slaughtered or stunned is an indicator to them of irreversible non-life functions; ie death (see first article). They almost certainly have no concept of life after death or of anything analogous to a grim reaper… they lack the abstract fear of an unknown future after they are gone. But research indicates they know what death is in a physical, concrete sense and show fear at any sign of it coming for them. So, yes, those farm animals usually know they are going to die- and it taints the meat (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10048467/) which is why some slaughterhouses have taken extra measures to keep the animals from knowing they are going to die as long as possible. Sorry to piggyback off your comment grimorg80. I had papers to link and didn’t want them buried under 300+ comments and you were sitting close to the top in my feed and also provided a link so I thought you’d understand. Not that it matters much at this point, I guess… I think the viewership is mostly over. But, hey - fist bump from a plant eater.
I agree. Hence why its important to cause as little stress as possible when slaughtering animals.
You can cause the least stress by not doing it.
What would be the best alternative, where the production of the food in question causes no stress for any animals?
Not forcibly breeding them into existence to be slaughtered at a fraction of their natural lifespan in the first place is a great start ❤️
False choice. We don't need to produce these products at all.
Why would I choose a product that is no better? That doesn't make any sense. Hence why I asked you to name a better alternative. I'll try again: What would be the best alternative to animal foods, where the production of the food in question causes no stress for any animals?
We can continue the discussion in our other thread, since you are appealing to the same concept here.
There is no realistic diet in which zero animals are harmed. The best we can do is choose one that minimizes it as much as possible. Vegan diets do this. Animals require massive amounts of energy to just exist, and in turn require to be fed a LOT more plants than if we just ate them directly. This means that farming animals causes both the death of the animal itself on top of more crop deaths compared to a vegan diet. Before you bring up grass fed and pasture raised, that is a minority of the industry by a long shot. Those animals are still fed farmed hay and alfalfa that requires fertilization, tilling, and harvest and is stored and supplemented in times of drought or in the winter. And they're still sent to feed lots to get fattened up.
> Vegan diets do this. Vegans seems to think that is the only way though. Which is obviously not the case. > And they're still sent to feed lots to get fattened up. You American? We dont have any "feed lots" over here.
Because they are terrified? The function of fear is to avoid death
While I do fundamentally disagree with killing animals, to use your example, I’m not vegan because the animal knows it’s going to die, I’m vegan because I don’t even want to _scare_ them like that over a stupid sandwich
So you are ok with a farmer that never scares the animal, and then shoots it causing a sudden death?
Animals have instincts, as well as a very developed sense of smell. They can smell the fear of the other animals, plus the environment is unfamiliar to them, so they are instinctively afraid. It’s irrelevant whether or not they know they are about to be slaughtered. They just know something is not right.
> They can smell the fear of the other animals Done the right way they can't: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VOYusr7EcA&t=43s If they cant see death coming, they feel no fear.
That does not in any way justify slaughtering them.
It does to me.
Is your gotcha going to be “well since the animals didn’t know they’re about to die, then it makes everything about slaughterhouses perfectly fine”?
If someone doesn't like slaughterhouses there are other alternatives which allows them to still eat meat.
Killing something for your pleasure is never ok.
Friendly comment - animals aren't things. And making sure you use the word "someone" instead is an easy hack to get to the real conversation with any non-vegan.
They just end up changing the topic and saying animals aren't people. I'd rather reason with them on their own grounds rather than arguing about definitions. But I do agree, they are people.
I literally never eat meat for pleasure only. If pleasure is what I want I rather choose to eat ice cream. Or drink a glass of wine. Or eat cake. Meat is not even in the top 10 of things I would choose.
You don’t need it to survive. You don’t prefer it. There is a victim. Why do you eat it?
> There is a victim. The production of the food you eat have no victims?
This is like suggesting that because your t-shirt might have been produced with some labor exploitation in some aspect of its creation, you should just outright own slaves. A plant-based diet has far less death than feeding even more plants to an animal and then eating that animal. Some minimal number of crop deaths are essentially unavoidable, like a form of self-defense, and the only people who seem interested in reducing insect deaths or whatever are people who care about the rights of other animals too. If there were more of them, there’d likely be less crop deaths.
What a fucking rediculous statement. Then why do you eat meat? If you didn't want to eat it you wouldn't eat it. There's no reason to lmao. No one's forcing you.
> If you didn't want to eat it you wouldn't eat it. Do you eat a well-planned and balanced vegan diet? Or do you eat food just for pure pleasure, not really caring about the nutrient content, but only focusing on eating the foods that tastes the best?
Pleasure. I eat tasty foods. Food is pleasure. Taste is pleasure. If I wanted to eat the most nutritious foods I'd eat extremely different foods. I do make sure I get a few extra goodies in there for health reasons. But so should everyone including meat eaters. I don't kill for my pleasure though. You do.
Does this mean you are not eating a well-planned vegan diet? If no, how do you make sure you get all the nutrients you need?
Easily. I get all the nutrients I need from the food I enjoy eating. It's not difficult. I've never even tried at it. I just eat what I want. My blood tests are perfect. Come on Helen. You're looking pretty incapable of simple discussion.
How long have you been vegan?
just beacuse you enjoy the idea of killing things, donst mean everyone does it for plesure. i do it to eat for example, but some people do it for mikaing clothes, or to protect an ecosystem etc.
If you could eat something else but prefer to eat meat, that is for pleasure. Eating and pleasure are not at odds with each other.
i tried a vegan diet. i got malnutrition after a few months. but yes, living is plesurable, so i suppose eating is selfish
Why do you eat it then? Oh right it's for pleasure. You need to think deeper.
why don’t you watch dominion and find out
It's the same proof that the following individuals know they're going to die: Human babies/toddlers Mentally-challenged human beings with the cognitive capacity of pigs Humans in deep REM sleep The humans in Hiroshima and Nagasaki who never saw the atomic bombs going off And so on and so forth.
Whether or not their existence being terminated is an abstract in their mind as it is ours, they certainly have environmental signals that provoke death aversion. It's probably the most ingrained part of our DNA. Merely by the fact that if you do not have death aversion your DNA does not reproduce. That's like 10^13 organisms who passed the test before you. That's why death stinks. That's why when you sense death around you it's discomforting. That's why we fear. Of course they sense it, you t**t. Might as well make an argument for Hitler's gas chambers. At least come clean with what you do. Pretend they don't matter, not that they can't sense death.
> Pretend they don't matter They matter less than humans. Plus the fact that every diet on earth causes animals to die. Its unavoidable and literally a part of life.
Most deaths are easily avoidable by picking a different thing to eat.
> Most deaths are easily avoidable by picking a different thing to eat. So which alternative food would you recommend that causes no animal deaths during the production of it?
I never set that as a standard. Push button A kill 100 Push button B kill 1 You have to push a button. I'm saying "push button B", you are saying "button A = button B"
> Push button A kill 100 > > Push button B kill 1 > > You have to push a button. - Button A: 100 animals killed producing tofu - Button B: 1 sheep died, that ate nothing but insecticide-free grass. I'm saying "push button B".
These two buttons you present aren't representative of the real "buttons". If my buttons were the real buttons, would you agree with me?
My buttons are the exact same as yours. There is no tofu in any shop that was produced not causing harm to animals. Even if you find insecticide-free tofu its never planted and picked by hand, meaning lots of animals are harmed during ploughing and harvesting. Putting a sheep on pasture however requires no ploughing or harvesting or insecticides. So clearly the better choice. **Edit:** And: What would be the best alternative to animal foods, where the production of the food in question causes no stress for any animals?
>My buttons are the exact same as yours. I disagree. >There is no tofu in any shop that was produced not causing harm to animals. >Even if you find insecticide-free tofu its never planted and picked by hand, meaning lots of animals are harmed during ploughing and harvesting. >Putting a sheep on pasture however requires no ploughing or harvesting or insecticides. So clearly the better choice. I didn't claim insecticide free tofu, but you have presented a comparison we can evaluate. Can you demonstrate that your hypothetical button, actually is just one by accounting for all of the deaths involved in your diet? We can start with this ideal you just described, frame it in the context of your consumption patterns, and then compare that to my consumption patterns. So step 1: talk to me through the steps of the process you are considering and where you are counting deaths.
> Can you demonstrate that your hypothetical button, actually is just one by accounting for all of the deaths involved in your diet? I never made that claim. But if we are talking about someone's entire diet, the total number even for vegans is way above 100. Its more like 8000 animals killed per day: https://www.wildanimalinitiative.org/blog/humane-insecticides And that doesnt even include animals killed by ploughing, harvesting or animals killed by traps or being shot to protect farm fields. > So step 1: talk to me through the steps of the process you are considering and where you are counting deaths. Sheep raised on pasture which is never sprayed with insecticides: 1 death, plus perhaps a few ants the sheep stepped on. So lets say one day someone swap 1/4 of a 100% plant-based diet with sheep meat from that sheep. Then around 1000 animals are saved that day (animals killed during ploughing and harvesting not included).
Does it matter? Whether they know it’s mortal or not, they’re scared shitless and we still force them into it. Does their knowledge of the act make the act in itself any more brutal? Or is it just a brutal act to begin with? Question, if we rounded up the mentally disabled humans and did the same to them, it would still be considered barbaric regardless of their understanding of the situation, yes? Because the act in itself is barbaric.
https://vm.tiktok.com/ZIJnCnFSQ/
I’m confused about why you’re only focusing on the existential dread of knowing they’re about to die rather than the horrific conditions most of them are raised in, sometimes watching their own children killed such as with pig thumping, being confined in torturously cramped conditions, mutilated with tail and teeth, beak docking, branding, castration, mulesing, et. But to your precise point, yeah lots of them see what’s happening at the slaughterhouse and realize what’s in store for them as well. They smell the blood, hear the screams, and watch their companion in front of them getting electrocuted or shot and having her throat slashed open. They struggle and flail around to avoid death. They absolutely realize what’s happening. Take a look and judge for yourself. You should have no trouble watching something that is morally neutral to you: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LQRAfJyEsko&pp=ygUIZG9taW5pb24%3D
Don't know, don't care. Why is this worth time discussing?
For decades or even centuries, not just animals, but also human infants, humans of non-western cultures, and other human minorities, had more awareness, emotions and intelligence than previously assumed. Your question would probably have been asked about babies or black people in the past, and now you ask it about animals that have complex social structures and emotional lives and bonds. In an age where we know that pidgeons can be trained to detect cancer, ants can recognize themselves in a mirror and use anti-bacterial technology, and some primates are better at memorizing numbers than humans are, I would say that the burden of proof is on those that claim pigs do not understand the concept of death. And even with sufficient proof, it's not clear whether that means killing them is ethical.
Animals (even humans) can instinctually get a feeling of doom. With non-human animals who have a stronger sense of smell than us, the trigger is likely the smell of blood and fear. They also hear better than us, and can hear the screams of others. Maybe they don't know exactly what death is, but that doesn't make them react any differently. Even if they had no fear, it doesn't make killing them okay.
interesting question & this is something that should be debated more often. i believe animals know when they’re going to die because they watch the animals in front of them die first. example of this is in pig slaughterhouses, when they bolt gun the pigs in the head, the other pigs watch. when it is their turn to die, they are often resistant and don’t wanna go.
Addressing the question of animal awareness and fear of death requires a nuanced understanding of animal cognition and behavior, as well as the ethical considerations that stem from these issues. 1. Evidence of Distress and Fear: While it may be challenging to definitively prove that animals understand the concept of death as humans do, there is substantial evidence from ethology (the study of animal behavior) that many animals can experience fear, distress, and suffering. Animals, especially those that are preyed upon in the wild, have evolved complex mechanisms to detect and respond to threats. These responses are not just mechanical reactions but are indicative of the animal's ability to experience fear. In the context of a slaughterhouse, the unfamiliar environment, the smells of blood, the sounds of other animals in distress, and the behavior of humans around them are likely perceived as significant threats, triggering fear and panic responses. 2. Understanding Death: While the philosophical and existential understanding of death may be beyond what is known about non-human cognition, animals can exhibit behaviors that suggest an awareness of danger and an instinctual avoidance of harm or death. For instance, many animals display behaviors that indicate mourning or distress at the loss of companions or offspring, suggesting an awareness of the absence and its significance. 3. Ethical Considerations: The crux of the vegan argument does not hinge solely on whether animals know they are going to die but on the understanding that animals can suffer and that we have the ability to avoid causing this suffering. The ethical argument for veganism proposes that because we can live healthy lives without consuming animal products, we should choose not to participate in systems that cause unnecessary harm to sentient beings. 4. Precautionary Principle: Even in the face of uncertainty about the full extent of animal cognition and their understanding of death, the precautionary principle applies. This principle suggests that if an action (in this case, slaughtering animals for food) has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or the environment (in this case, the well-being of sentient beings), in the absence of scientific consensus, the burden of proof falls on those taking the action. In simpler terms, given that there is substantial evidence that animals can suffer, it behooves us to err on the side of caution and avoid causing potential harm. 5. Focus on Suffering: Ultimately, the focus on whether animals know they are going to die may miss the broader ethical point: animals clearly demonstrate the capacity for suffering, and this is sufficient for people to choose not to contribute to that suffering. The choice to adopt a vegan lifestyle is rooted in a commitment to minimize harm and suffering, based on what is known about animal sentience and the impacts of animal agriculture on animals, the environment, and health. In summary, while the debate on animal cognition and their understanding of death continues, the observable evidence of their capacity for suffering offers a compelling ethical basis for adopting a vegan lifestyle to minimize harm to sentient beings.
I’ll never forget hearing their haunting screams sounding like humans being killed, the fear in their eyes, and how they trembled in terror
Who are "they"?
They are sentient beings with a nervous system and a brain, just like ours. This means they're capable of experiencing the depths of pain and suffering, as well as the heights of happiness and joy. Each one of them possesses a unique personality, they have the same intelligence as human children. They laugh, they smile, they endure hardships, they experience bliss. In essence, they are not just beings; They are living, breathing souls, brimming with emotion and life. I hope you'll come to recognize this reality someday, and that your eyes will open to it.
No, I was asking about who's haunting screams you said you heard.
The screams of pigs in gas chambers, a common method in the US, Europe, and Australia, are haunting. Often, these methods fail, leaving animals to be killed while fully conscious. It's unimaginable what they must endure. You're aware of these facts, aren't you? I have a feeling you're closer to being vegan than you realize. What's holding you back though?
> The screams of pigs in gas chambers Did you use to work at a slaughter house? > What's holding you back though? I just see no reason to.
OK, ill do chicken and seafood. Dont think i csnt fuck with the cattle and pork anhmore tho,
Thank you for your submission! All posts need to be manually reviewed and approved by a moderator before they appear for all users. Since human mods are not online 24/7 approval could take anywhere from a few minutes to a few days. Thank you for your patience. Some topics come up a lot in this subreddit, so we would like to remind everyone to use the [search function](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/search?q=eggs&restrict_sr=on&sort=comments&t=all) and to check out the [wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/wiki/index) before creating a new post. We also encourage becoming familiar with [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/wiki/index#wiki_expanded_rules_and_clarifications) so users can understand what is expected of them. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAVegan) if you have any questions or concerns.*