As much as I find chickens, and all avians in general, cute and I find it sickening the way they are treated… I do love eggs, they’re tasty, versatile, easy to cook, and unbelievably healthy.
I think the differential we have to identify is one thing, and that is scale.
I am not a vegan, I do not believe it is wrong to consume animals or animal-sourced products, however I do support animal welfare and believe that if we are to raise livestock for consumption they should be treated as the sentient, thinking, feeling creatures that they are and cared for accordingly.
Imagine instead of human and animal rights we just had “sentient rights”, for example.
Being able to test for sentience is a topic in and of itself, and out of scope for my argument.
I think there is no harm done in, a hypothetical world where people had the space to do such a thing, raising our own livestock, limited to individual homesteads or the immediate settlement (a local town market, for example).
The line where it becomes unethical is quite obvious really, are the animals treated as living things, or machines to simply fuel and feed to grow them for slaughter and harvest? Yes, in my example of fair treatment the goal may be to raise them for eventual slaughter, but its their lifelong treatment where this applies, not the overall objective.
The better treatment balloons costs by requiring more land and more care, which significantly inflates the cost of the final products. This could be an effective measure for reducing meat consumption by people buying less to save money, many people would be against those increases.
Its just like mass produced clothing. Since they dont see the abuse and destruction, they are satisfied with the lower prices at the store.
That surplus is factored in to the companies making money and providing consistant demand. Prices will increase if the treatment gets better because the capitalists and oligarchs will not willingly take a profits cut. The surplus waste in the current system could be utilized better, for example fast freezing and being provided to food banks or soup kitchens.
No matter how you cut it, if labor and land demand increases, the price will increase.
if we are to raise livestock for consumption they should be treated as the sentient
this is a contradiction in itself.
It is normal and healthy for people to empathize with the animals they eat, to be concerned about whether or not they are living happy lives and to hope they are slaughtered humanely. However, if it is unethical to harm these animals, then it is more unethical to kill them.
Killing animals for food is far worse than making them suffer. Of course, it is admirable that people care so deeply about these animals that they take deliberate steps to reduce their suffering (e.g. by purchasing “free-range” eggs or “suffering free” meat). However, because they choose not to acknowledge the right of those same animals to live out their natural lives, and because slaughtering them is a much greater violation than mistreatment, people who eat ‘humane’ meat are laboring under an irreconcilable contradiction.
I don’t even eat meat and I disagree completely with that lol. There is nothing wrong or unnatural about killing animals for food. There is something wrong and unnatural about abusing the lives of those animals and treating them with no respect.
I just don’t really think killing animals for food is immoral. It’s natural. Humans have an effect on the environment around them just by living our lives. Our goal should be to minimize that and live in relative harmony with the natural world rather than how we exploit the land today.
Ok but why do you think its bad to abuse these animals aside from killing them? That’s the part I’m curious about. What kind of pain would you consider immoral? Do you count emotional pain such as separating a newborn child from it’s mother for instance?
The “natural life” of all animals bred for meat ends with their slaughter, by definition. Otherwise they wouldn’t exist? Their purpose is not to die of old age, that itself would be a horribly cruel existence past the point when slaughter would normally occur.
None of these creatures exist in nature. If they’re going to exist at all, why not give the best life and fulfillment of purpose if you can?
you have an incredibly bleak outlook on the “purpose” of a life. The slave is bred for the purpose of toiling for their master their entire life, does that justify anything? Hell the only reason the worker gets a wage is so they can work for the capitalist. The only reason people get maternity leave etc. is to breed more workers, that’s your purpose in life.
Only the oppressor has a free choice in their lifes purpose. Well, somehow they always choose to oppress more so who knows. At least we have that old debate finally sorted.
Your examples are false equivalences from where I stand. Slavery, capitalism…these are human systems. Of course the people inside have their own goals and desires. Much of agriculture is wontonly bleak, but not by definition. People still exist without slavery, it is not the same for a meat chicken. They really shouldn’t exist, and ideally they wouldn’t, but they’re not going away anytime soon.
Yes, slaves are super convenient. No one ever said that slaves aren’t nice to have, dude. YOUR experience is not the fucking point.
There is no way to create a creature for the express purpose of exploitation that is okay. There is no way to create a creature with the intention of forcing it into a state of total dependence that is not actually evil.
Yes! Good on you for noticing the speciesism that racism is built on! If non-human animals have less worth than humans then liking some humans to non-human animals means they have less worth. The issue is at the very start, that
a) non-human animal and human are a meaningful distinction
b) non-humans have inherently less worth than humans
Not sure where our definitions of “healthy” foods differ, but I literally wouldn’t call eggs “healthy” whatsoever. There is no single animal product that can even be considered “nutrient dense” much less healthy. Even in world war II, the world had enough saturated fats and excessive animal products that most of the soldiers even in their thirties had already started developing intravascular plaques, and brother, we’re a hell of a long way from that these days…
Just wanted to jump in and correct you because I don’t know where this eggs are. Healthy thing came from. They are certainly not. They are like eating butter essentially with some protein on top
Well unfortunately you haven’t got what you wanted, you clearly have a very simple view on nutrition, and a concerning lack of intelligence.
What is an egg? It is a vessel to grow a living organism in a self-contained environment, providing all the resources needed to do so.
Resources such as:
Vitamins
Amino-acids
Antioxidants
Healthy, unsaturated fats
If an egg was so bad for your health, I ask you quite simply, how the hell do they support a chick during a very intense time of rapid growth?
That’s like saying being in a womb is unhealthy for a developing foetus.
Please, next time, perhaps try updating your knowledge to something a bit more modern than WW2 before “jumping in and correcting” anyone again. With the constant stream of AI slop onto the internet, the last thing we need is human slop too.
I have a health degree, but ok mr. Expert. Have fun with ur heart disease. I’d just appreciate if you didn’t confidently lead others down ignorant health courses like “eggs are healthy” lol
If an egg was so bad for your health, I ask you quite simply, how the hell do they support a chick during a very intense time of rapid growth?
That’s like saying being in a womb is unhealthy for a developing foetus.
Is this sophistry? Do you know this is a pants-on-head ridiculous thing to say? Not sure what would be worse, frankly. I could list a thousand things that are essential to life and yet kill you if you eat it.
Eggs are well known to be harmful to human health. Here is a short fully cited essay on the subject that introduces 267 fully cited videos on the same subject. https://nutritionfacts.org/topics/eggs/
As much as I find chickens, and all avians in general, cute and I find it sickening the way they are treated… I do love eggs, they’re tasty, versatile, easy to cook, and unbelievably healthy.
I think the differential we have to identify is one thing, and that is scale.
I am not a vegan, I do not believe it is wrong to consume animals or animal-sourced products, however I do support animal welfare and believe that if we are to raise livestock for consumption they should be treated as the sentient, thinking, feeling creatures that they are and cared for accordingly.
Imagine instead of human and animal rights we just had “sentient rights”, for example.
Being able to test for sentience is a topic in and of itself, and out of scope for my argument.
I think there is no harm done in, a hypothetical world where people had the space to do such a thing, raising our own livestock, limited to individual homesteads or the immediate settlement (a local town market, for example).
The line where it becomes unethical is quite obvious really, are the animals treated as living things, or machines to simply fuel and feed to grow them for slaughter and harvest? Yes, in my example of fair treatment the goal may be to raise them for eventual slaughter, but its their lifelong treatment where this applies, not the overall objective.
The better treatment balloons costs by requiring more land and more care, which significantly inflates the cost of the final products. This could be an effective measure for reducing meat consumption by people buying less to save money, many people would be against those increases.
Its just like mass produced clothing. Since they dont see the abuse and destruction, they are satisfied with the lower prices at the store.
Again, scale.
How much of the meat produced is actually eaten? What’s the chance for each garment produced to actually be worn more than once?
The current system can downsize significantly without needing to raise prices, as we’re already in a significant surplus.
The point at which products are no longer guaranteed due to demand is when the prices have to go up.
That surplus is factored in to the companies making money and providing consistant demand. Prices will increase if the treatment gets better because the capitalists and oligarchs will not willingly take a profits cut. The surplus waste in the current system could be utilized better, for example fast freezing and being provided to food banks or soup kitchens.
No matter how you cut it, if labor and land demand increases, the price will increase.
Obviously if treatment got better, the capitalists and oligarchs would no longer be a problem.
Guillotines
this is a contradiction in itself.
from https://yourveganfallacyis.com/en/humane-meat
I don’t even eat meat and I disagree completely with that lol. There is nothing wrong or unnatural about killing animals for food. There is something wrong and unnatural about abusing the lives of those animals and treating them with no respect.
care to give a reason why? Why do you think hurting animals is bad?
I just don’t really think killing animals for food is immoral. It’s natural. Humans have an effect on the environment around them just by living our lives. Our goal should be to minimize that and live in relative harmony with the natural world rather than how we exploit the land today.
Ok but why do you think its bad to abuse these animals aside from killing them? That’s the part I’m curious about. What kind of pain would you consider immoral? Do you count emotional pain such as separating a newborn child from it’s mother for instance?
The “natural life” of all animals bred for meat ends with their slaughter, by definition. Otherwise they wouldn’t exist? Their purpose is not to die of old age, that itself would be a horribly cruel existence past the point when slaughter would normally occur.
None of these creatures exist in nature. If they’re going to exist at all, why not give the best life and fulfillment of purpose if you can?
you have an incredibly bleak outlook on the “purpose” of a life. The slave is bred for the purpose of toiling for their master their entire life, does that justify anything? Hell the only reason the worker gets a wage is so they can work for the capitalist. The only reason people get maternity leave etc. is to breed more workers, that’s your purpose in life.
Only the oppressor has a free choice in their lifes purpose. Well, somehow they always choose to oppress more so who knows. At least we have that old debate finally sorted.
Your examples are false equivalences from where I stand. Slavery, capitalism…these are human systems. Of course the people inside have their own goals and desires. Much of agriculture is wontonly bleak, but not by definition. People still exist without slavery, it is not the same for a meat chicken. They really shouldn’t exist, and ideally they wouldn’t, but they’re not going away anytime soon.
What is it that makes slavery bad?
But surely in the present state of affairs where that treatment is not the norm, veganism is the only ethical approach, no?
Yeah the exploitation and killing part
no, that’s fine, actually.
Yes, slaves are super convenient. No one ever said that slaves aren’t nice to have, dude. YOUR experience is not the fucking point.
There is no way to create a creature for the express purpose of exploitation that is okay. There is no way to create a creature with the intention of forcing it into a state of total dependence that is not actually evil.
comparing slaves to animals is what slavers do
Yes! Good on you for noticing the speciesism that racism is built on! If non-human animals have less worth than humans then liking some humans to non-human animals means they have less worth. The issue is at the very start, that
a) non-human animal and human are a meaningful distinction
b) non-humans have inherently less worth than humans
speciesism is necessary. racism is bad.
for once in your life make an argument and don’t just throw out claims.
what I said is true. nothing more need be said
So it’s fucked up to have pets because they fully depend on you? 🤔
Yeah, pet ownership is not considered vegan. On account of, you know, owning a sentient being, treating it as property.
I’ll have to inform my vegan friends that they’re fucking posers 👍
Go do that maybe they’ll teach you something about the difference between owning a pet and adopting an animal
I could guess that the 31 replies I see referenced but cannot view are from a fairly insane vegan I recently blocked for being insane and rude.
No one cares about your block list as much as you will. No need to share your mundane account activity with us.
But this response here is vital info that I need to know. I’m guessing the real issue here is “insane rude vegan” struck a nerve with you personally.
Not sure where our definitions of “healthy” foods differ, but I literally wouldn’t call eggs “healthy” whatsoever. There is no single animal product that can even be considered “nutrient dense” much less healthy. Even in world war II, the world had enough saturated fats and excessive animal products that most of the soldiers even in their thirties had already started developing intravascular plaques, and brother, we’re a hell of a long way from that these days…
Just wanted to jump in and correct you because I don’t know where this eggs are. Healthy thing came from. They are certainly not. They are like eating butter essentially with some protein on top
Well unfortunately you haven’t got what you wanted, you clearly have a very simple view on nutrition, and a concerning lack of intelligence.
What is an egg? It is a vessel to grow a living organism in a self-contained environment, providing all the resources needed to do so.
Resources such as:
If an egg was so bad for your health, I ask you quite simply, how the hell do they support a chick during a very intense time of rapid growth?
That’s like saying being in a womb is unhealthy for a developing foetus.
Please, next time, perhaps try updating your knowledge to something a bit more modern than WW2 before “jumping in and correcting” anyone again. With the constant stream of AI slop onto the internet, the last thing we need is human slop too.
This reads like you are so insecure you have to personally attack people to cope with your own emotions.
I have a health degree, but ok mr. Expert. Have fun with ur heart disease. I’d just appreciate if you didn’t confidently lead others down ignorant health courses like “eggs are healthy” lol
Clearly wasn’t a particularly good university, and anyway, this is nutrition, not health.
Proof that degrees are meaningless and idiots come in all levels of educational achievement
“I disagree with your educated assessment… Better call you names to prove I’m right…” -this guy
Is this sophistry? Do you know this is a pants-on-head ridiculous thing to say? Not sure what would be worse, frankly. I could list a thousand things that are essential to life and yet kill you if you eat it.
Eggs are well known to be harmful to human health. Here is a short fully cited essay on the subject that introduces 267 fully cited videos on the same subject. https://nutritionfacts.org/topics/eggs/
Fuck me you’re still going on about this? Man get a life with some real problems… Didn’t know people could get so pressed about fucking eggs.
Salmonella
You cook them, solved.
High choleserol
You don’t base your diet on 100% eggs, limiting your diet to any one food will be damaging regardless.
Prostate cancer
Sure, higher risk, from what baseline? Varies massively per-person, and people’s risk-tolerance is subjective… Personally I don’t really care.
Diabetes
Again, significantly higher chance, from what baseline? 0.02 is 100% higher than 0.01, misleading.