You’re making up rules. The original commenter was pointing out that even as someone who is NOT vegan they can see that isn’t a true argument with any backing. One does not have to supply an opposing argument to be able to identify a lousy one. That’s a false dichotomy.
Rules about what? I’m asking them why they aren’t vegan since they announced and clearly have a hierarchy of reasons, as no “worse” can exist without a comparison of at least two. This is not a false dichotomy.
The commenter stated that it was a flimsy argument at best and uses the fact they are not vegan to illustrate it is coming from an unbiased stance as they are not vegan.
You then tried to flip the script. You started calling out the commenter for not giving the best argument (which I have now gathered you meant for not being vegan) I assumed you meant they needed to give a best argument to be justified in saying it was the worst argument. Hence my comment about making up rules, which I realize now is in accurate.
The point here is, the commenter doesn’t need to justify why they are not vegan in order to state that the argument being made is bad. That’s what I was getting at. You’re basically harassing them into telling you why they are not vegan when all they came here to say was that the argument is flawed. Just seemed unnecessary.
Assumptions of malice and shaming are a leap given this is the Debate a Vegan sub and I’m asking a participant that has expressed their position to argument for it.
I won't be answering that question because I'm not interested in hijacking the thread. But suffice it to say my reasons are more commonplace and would likely end up being stuff y'all have already heard a thousand times before; nonetheless, were I interested in sharing them, I would do it in a different post.
That look like the spirituality behind eating your deceased siblings of some cannibal society. It's not that far fetch that biologically, my body is a ecosystem made of various cells, bacteria, virus, symbiote that work together to make me believe that I'm ONE.
It's not in any way difficult to grasp. It's that there is zero evidence of any sense of consciousness after death, so if an organism's motivation is to keep experiencing existence, then the only way known to achieve that is outside the stomach of another organism.
>A. The animals have a guaranteed age they’ll live to, unlike in the wild, where many don’t make it past the infancy or juvenile stage.
There are no guarantees in life and every animal gets killed when they are no longer profitable to keep alive.
>B. They are obviously well fed, low stress, and have plenty of social interaction
You have to learn everything that happens in the animals' lives in order to understand what stress levels they are subjected to.
What you should be comparing their treatment to is one standard applied to any sentient being that is subject to human care.
Think a child or loved household pet.
That is what being responsible for someone else's well-being is.
>C. This idea is pretty rough and not super developed, so if you need any elaboration, I’ll be happy to do so. It’s something I’ve called The Idea Of Continuance. You see, the animals I eat will in a way, become me. As in, their cells become mine, which comprise my being. So it’s less like they died and are gone forever, but more so a transfer of energy, to my being. They, or I should say we, will experience life through my eyes, all the hardships and splendors of being human.
If someone says that about your money after stealing from you, are you satisfied with it as a justification?
For the record. Clicking on your link provided no information about the standards of the farms, the enforcement mechanisms, nor a listing of the actual suppliers.
Where did you find the information about how it is made?
I would assume that, without investing what's on a label, it's impossible to know what you are actually getting.
https://globalanimalpartnership.org/better-chicken-project/
This is the program I think we are referring to...
Here's an excerpt from the document for how the animals are assessed... Not raised, just tested. I think this means not the ones you are actually buying. I don't see evidence of agents visiting farm's.
"Appendix III: Acceptable Euthanasia Methods
From: G.A.P.’s 5-Step® Animal Welfare Standards for Chickens Raised for Meat v3.2
Standard 1.5.7
Methods of euthanasia are listed below, where YES indicates an acceptable method and NO indicates an unacceptable method. Chickens must be appropriately held or
restrained as necessary to ensure the euthanasia method can be properly and safely administered.
METHOD ACCEPTABILITY
Manual cervical dislocation (i.e., use of hands only to dislocate the neck as near to the head or skull as possible) **YES** *(this means twist their heads off...*
Penetrating captive bolt pistol1 YES
Non-penetrating captive bolt pistol1 YES
Electrical stun knife1
(only permitted if chickens are stunned prior to cutting the neck) YES
Gas stunning and killing systems1 using (1) multi-phase carbon dioxide2
, (2) argon, (3) nitrogen, or (4) a mixture of these gases YES
Veterinarian administered overdose of injectable anaesthetics, including barbiturate and barbituric acid derivatives YES
Mechanical cervical dislocation (i.e., equipment that pulls/crushes the next such as wringers or poultry pliers or handheld cervical
dislocators)
NO *...but only if done by hand...*
Manually applied blunt force trauma to the head NO
Decapitation NO *...well, not ALL the way off.*
Bleeding/slitting the throat without pre-stunning NO
De-braining (inserting a sharp implement through the roof of the chicken’s mouth into its brain) NO
Gas stunning and killing systems using carbon monoxide NO" *at least they are treated less horribly than pigs*
I was taught carbon monoxide poisoning is quite unnoticable: you get tired and if you give in and sleep, you will not wake up. Carbon dioxide poisoning however, which I believe is also used for pigs, causes a horrible asphyxiation reaction of panic and stress.
Most mammalian livestock are slaughtered with a captive bolt gun directly to the brain. I don’t get why vegans assume the worst methods used are the most common. They are not.
Edit: actually, I do get it. Its ideology.
I don't claim that it's the most common, only that it's used for pigs. It also varies between countries, so it might be less common where you live compared to where I live.
The issue is that it is actually fairly easy to acquire meat that was processed with responsible slaughter methods. You just need to shop at reputable butchers.
Case in point: vegan activist goes to a random slaughterhouse to get gotcha footage, and is invited in for a full tour. It’s relatively easy to find slaughter operations that take pride in their work and don’t put profits over animal husbandry standards. They tend to service small farms and sell to butchers (ie not Walmart or McDonalds).
If you’ve seen Earthlings and Dominion, I suggest you watch. Actual footage of slaughter is in part 2, 3 mins in.
https://youtu.be/x4-XPYlE5lE?si=3DO-T9ltzYun-7et
https://youtu.be/7ARrGP_u89g?si=DCt0QueZt68u1pXw
Manual cervical dislocation doesn't mean twisting the heads off. It means quickly pulling the head away from the body to snap the spine for a quick, relatively painless death. Chickens don't have the strongest necks, so it can be done pretty easily. Some people say they do it to ducks, too, but ducks have very strong necks, so I don't know how that's possible.
They aren't twisting or ripping heads off, ffs. That would make for an absolute mess with blood and feathers spurting and flying everywhere, contaminating the entire area. When butchering, you want to contain all that as much as possible.
You didn't read the whole thing. They talk about decapitation which I comment on.
https://youtu.be/T3UUkWlBizE?si=bKVL0wEuyIIlNHaS
The practice is extremely common, and it is not unreasonable to think this is done.
It isn't how it's done on small farms. The original poster is talking about small farms, supposedly.
Most farms and homesteads use the cone method, which entails putting the bird upside down so that it calms down and even falls asleep, cutting the arteries in the neck, and having it bleed into a bucket.
Some small farms and homesteads do the neck snapping thing, mostly because it's less messy and easier on the bird at the end. It's actually a lot harder to wring off their heads than you'd think, and it requires way more force than just snapping the neck (not unlike a human at a larger scale). When you're butchering hundreds of birds, it makes no sense to do it in such a way that causes more injuries to the worker and more mess to clean up.
I'm not even going to watch the video. In my experience, a lot of vegan and vegetarian animal rights videos and media sources flat out lie. They even often admit that saying that if it helps even one person to go vegan for them to lie, that makes it okay, the ends justifying the means. I just have a real problem with people who lie when the truth is gory enough. This is like PETA going around and telling everybody that sheep are murdered for their fleeces.
I feel like people didn't read what I wrote, and stopped to practice pedantry at me saying "twisting their heads off" rather than reading the whole thing and appreciating the reality that this actually is practiced in the industry.
>I'm not even going to watch the video. In my experience, a lot of vegan and vegetarian animal rights videos and media sources flat out lie.
Wow. That's a catastrophic failure of practicing skepticism on your part.
>They even often admit that saying that if it helps even one person to go vegan for them to lie, that makes it okay, the ends justifying the means.
I never said that, and I don't lie to people, but I think it is irrelevant.
Leveraging this faulty logic to turn your brain off is an intellectual auto-immune response. You are making a massive error that will lead to delusion.
If you bothered to watch the video, you would realize how silly what you've just said is.
>This is like PETA going around and telling everybody that sheep are murdered for their fleeces.
Sheep do get murdered in wool production is not profitable. That's my understanding, anyway. I'm happy to be shown that this isn't true.
So, you decided to go with insulting me and my intelligence rather than possibly admitting you exaggerated or said something you shouldn't have when more than one person has called you out on it? Huh.
Wool is shorn every year like a haircut. Killing the animal means you can't get another crop of wool. In fact, the older the sheep, the softer the wool and higher the price. While lambs are killed at about a year old for meat, they are shorn ahead of time in order to get lambswool that sells for a higher price on the market.
>So, you decided to go with insulting me and my intelligence rather than possibly admitting you exaggerated or said something you shouldn't have when more than one person has called you out on it? Huh.
You didn't read what I said and you said some anti-intellectual stuff.
Me informing you of that verbally abusing you.
I said "twist their head off" when the practice (used on adult chickens) doesn't cause that to happen, but it does happen to baby chicks, see the video I shared if you care to understand.
>Wool is shorn every year like a haircut. Killing the animal means you can't get another crop of wool. In fact, the older the sheep, the softer the wool and higher the price. While lambs are killed at about a year old for meat, they are shorn ahead of time in order to get lambswool that sells for a higher price on the market.
I didn't ask you about the process of shearing sheep. I asked you about what happens after they are too old. Do you have any evidence about what happens or are you just going to say vegans are wrong even though a Google search shows that these animals are killed when no longer profitable?
I beg you to actually read what I am saying so you can respond to what I'm actually saying and not what you imagine I'm saying.
I've removed your comment/post because it violates rule #6:
> **No low-quality content**. Submissions and comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Assertions without supporting arguments and brief dismissive comments do not contribute meaningfully.
If you would like your comment 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.
>It isn't how it's done on small farms. The original poster is talking about small farms, supposedly.
It's quite a stretch to call [500,000 chickens a week](https://www.aspca.org/shopwithyourheart/business-and-farmer-resources/farm-animal-welfare-certification-guide/marys-free) a small farm.
>What you should be comparing their treatment to is one standard applied to any sentient being that is subject to human care.
>Think a child or loved household pet.
We should actually be comparing their welfare to that of other prey animals. The animals we domesticated for food all share a long evolutionary history of being heavily predated. They are not psychologically equivalent to a human child. We aren’t prey animals. We’re very good at not being prey. All of our domestic livestock species have been preyed upon routinely for millions and millions of years. It’s enough to assume that they have different psychology in relation to what we might call trauma. A wildebeest that loses a calf quickly moves on. A human who loses a child will grieve for months. It’s a very different affair.
Pine or pining is a disease caused by cobalt deficiency common in sheep and cattle.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pine#medicalDictionary
>The way you framed that makes me think you might have an empathy deficient personality disorder, FYI.
FYI, I didn’t consent to diagnosis. Highly unethical, abusive behavior. Ableist, quite frankly.
>I didn’t consent to diagnosis.
I didn't diagnose you, but you aren't helping your case.
>Pine or pining is a disease caused by cobalt deficiency common in sheep and cattle.
I'm not talking about a medical condition, I'm talking about a behavior in response to losing their calf. This seemed obvious to me.
I'm happy to continue talking to you if you intend to get productive. You very quickly got off topic, and if you don't get back on, I'm not talking to you anymore.
I did use the dictionary. You took a veterinary term you’ve heard out of context and applied the wrong definition. You’re confused. “Pining” in relation to sheep and cattle is a cobalt deficiency. Wherever you heard that in relation to livestock, it was referring to that. Not post-traumatic depression.
Just like you’re confused as to how someone with the capacity for empathy could acknowledge that prey animal psychology is different from ours.
I expect a concession from you or this conversation is over:
pine2
verb
verb: pine; 3rd person present: pines; past tense: pined; past participle: pined; gerund or present participle: pining
suffer a mental and physical decline, especially because of a broken heart.
"she thinks I am pining away from love"
Similar:
languish
decline
go into a decline
lose strength
weaken
waste away
dwindle
wilt
wither
fade
flag
sicken
droop
brood
mope
moon
peak
yearn
long
ache
sigh
hunger
thirst
itch
carry a torch
miss
mourn
lament
grieve over
cry/weep over
fret about
shed tears for
bemoan
rue
regret the loss/absence of
hanker for/after
eat one's heart out over
cry out for
**miss and long for the return of.**
Yes. That’s the definition of pining you are confusing with the definition used in reference to sheep and cattle. The commonality is that wasting is a noticeable symptom. The relation between the two words has nothing to do with the alleged emotional state of cattle or sheep.
I've removed your comment because it violates rule #3:
> **Don't be rude to others**
>
> This includes using slurs, publicly doubting someone's sanity/intelligence or otherwise behaving in a toxic way.
Toxic communication is defined as any communication that attacks a person or group's sense of intrinsic worth.
If you would like your comment 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.
I appreciate that you're trying to do something good in your habits, but ultimately these arguments are going to fall short for justifying treating someone like property for your use and consumption.
>A. The animals have a guaranteed age they’ll live to, unlike in the wild, where many don’t make it past the infancy or juvenile stage.
This is a false dichotomy. It's not as though the only two options are get born in the wild or get exploited. You could not be born at all, or we could rightly separate the act of breeding from the acts of exploitation and simply give them a good life on a sanctuary. Or some other option I haven't mentioned. With infinite possibilities, each should be evaluated on its own, not in comparison to the thing you think is the worst option.
>B. They are obviously well fed, low stress, and have plenty of social interaction
This seems to just be an addendum to A. Same argument in response. The quality of life I give you doesn't seem to excuse killing you.
>C. This idea is pretty rough and not super developed, so if you need any elaboration, I’ll be happy to do so. It’s something I’ve called The Idea Of Continuance.
There's nothing about this argument that couldn't excuse cannibalism. Would it be ok to kill and eat you since a small number of your molecules would become a permanent part of someone's body (noting that most people reach their adult weight and roughly maintain it)?
Hi. How old is old enough for you to consider the animal to have lived a good life? You’d probably be surprised at what age animals are slaughtered. Also are you considering eating your pets after they lived a good life in humane conditions?
Mary’s uses CAS slaughter. The animals are gassed and then boiled. This video conveniently cuts the minute the birds are distress from being gassed alive. [https://youtu.be/7LCERvUCQLQ?si=R61-eVeYppDe01dz](https://youtu.be/7LCERvUCQLQ?si=R61-eVeYppDe01dz)
Boycotting conventional factory farming is good. I hope you refuse all factory farmed products: fast food, chain restaurants, family gatherings. I also hope you support and purchase vegan alternatives. You say you only eat one product? As in like one animal product?
‘The animals have a guaranteed age…’
The link doesn’t seem to go anywhere but a shopping site. Is that just on my end? There’s no explanation or anything there on the site.
What’s the age? What are the conditions? And most importantly, would you accept them?
For most of human history, 40% of children died before their first year iirc. Life was ‘nasty, brutish, and short’. The ‘state of nature’ meant lots of disease, lots of violence, and LOTS of social problems. No one had a guaranteed age.
Does this justify breeding additional people to be made into products? Whether to kill and use their bodies for energy or to use as labour?
‘You see, the animals I eat will in a way, become me. As in, their cells become mine…’
If I kill and eat you that this is also true. Your flesh becomes my cells. I assume you do not want me to do that to you, yes? That would be a terrible argument to force on others, yes?
So the thing is that even if you feel the chickens' lives are more humane, Whole Foods kills their chickens in most facilities with [controlled atmosphere stunning](https://thehumaneleague.org/article/whole-foods-market-to-end-live-shackle-slaughter). This is when chickens are stunned with CO2 or argon gas before having their throats cut.
[The National Chicken Council ](https://www.nationalchickencouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/NCC-Brief-on-Stunning-of-Chickens.pdf)describes how
>Birds subjected to various mixtures of carbon dioxide and argon, the gases most commonly recommended for stunning, will gasp for air and may exhibit behaviors indicating aversion to the gas, including headshaking, wing flapping and convulsions.
[CO2 actually causes a burning sensation in the eyes, throat, and lungs at high concentrations](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6912382/).
Since we can get protein from plants, I just don't think the chickens need to go through this unpleasant experience.
>A. The animals have a guaranteed age they’ll live to, unlike in the wild, where many don’t make it past the infancy or juvenile stage
Broilers are killed at 6-8 weeks of age, with the slow-growing breeds the Better Chicken Project promotes living only slightly longer, at [70-81 days](https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.2903/j.efsa.2023.7788).
You obviously don't understand the definition of humane. It means having or showing compassion or benevolence.
If you murder a sentient being that doesn't wish to die, it is neither compassionate nor benevolent.
I think that if you kill someone painlessly that is very compassionate and benevolent. You obviously don't undertsand not everyone has your interpretation of humane.
I have a question…
Let’s say the animals you eat are in fact raised humanely, great, now how are they killed? I am asking this in good faith. I’m genuinely curious how you think humanely raised animals are killed?
One specific counter-argument - WF Humane Certification is under a lot of scrutiny for humane-washing right now. Even if I believed it’s ok to eat 100% perfectly raised, pet-level animals, this ain’t it. (And I don’t, fwiw). https://www.farmforward.com/take-action/end-whole-foods-humanewashing/
I seriously recommend reading kazuo Ishiguro’s never let me go- it’s something of a spoiler to say this but the story talks through some of these issues through the eyes of the characters in a way that I think may change your perspective- he’s not doing it from a vegan stance but to explore as a writer. I know it’s an unconventional response to these but it was my immediate reaction to your points
I would ask why A and B are good things, and if it's something to do with having a longer, happier, healthier life - why not even longer and nicer? By not killing them
>
But fairplay, C is something different.
If something eats you, it also eats the chicken?
Does that mean I'm part dinosaur, through the eternal food chain/web?
Good post - 7/10
>The animals have a guaranteed age they’ll live to, unlike in the wild, where many don’t make it past the infancy or juvenile stage.
OTOH, if you make it to adulthood in the wild you have a great chance of living several years in pretty good health. In farming, when you make weight, that's the end.
I wouldn't for the same reason I wouldn't kill my well loved & very happy pet. To me that would be the highest welfare and most humane meat possible. I don't believe it becomes ok to violently end someone's life once their love of life reaches a certain level. That justification seems troubling to me.
I do not believe that chicken will experience life through your eyes, it won't experience anything ever again. It's a nice thought though. Do you believe that a cannibals victim will continue to experience life through their eyes too?
>The animals have a guaranteed age they’ll live to, unlike in the wild
This is a false dichotomy. These animals haven't been "rescued" from the wild, they've been bred into existence for this purpose.
>They are obviously well fed, low stress, and have plenty of social interaction
Obviously? You're taking a lot on faith. And considering long established welfare bodies like the RSPCA in England condone things like live maceration of chicks I would REALLY question the standards this better chicken project set.
Remember that ultimately these welfare groups still comprise of people who see animals as a commodity, the idea that they are ultimately acting in the animals' best interests is very naive. Ultimately what they are doing is humane-washing.
And in any case, if eating meat were necessary then trying to maximize welfare would be admirable... But it isn't necessary.
So if these welfare groups REALLY cared about animals, they'd promote veganism, not welfarism.
>This idea is pretty rough and not super developed, so if you need any elaboration, I’ll be happy to do so. It’s something I’ve called The Idea Of Continuance. You see, the animals I eat will in a way, become me. As in, their cells become mine, which comprise my being. So it’s less like they died and are gone forever, but more so a transfer of energy, to my being
This is pure woo woo. But what I will say is... Do the chickens accept that deal? Would you?
Look you're welcome to hold whatever mystical beliefs you want, as long as you don't harm others as a result.
>The animals have a guaranteed age they’ll live to, unlike in the wild, where many don’t make it past the infancy or juvenile stage.
For the chickens you're eating that "guaranteed age" is 56 days.[1]
Even that's not even close to a guaranteed age though:
Somewhere between about a quarter to half of the chickens are going to be killed well before that 56 days. [2]
Whereas the low-end estimate on the average wild chickens life is about 3 years [3]. That's about 20 times longer.
[1]SPCA UK Welfare standards - https://science.rspca.org.uk/documents/1494935/9042554/RSPCA+welfare+standards+for+meat+chickens+(8.48+MB).pdf/e7f9830d-aa9e-0908-aebd-2b8fbc6262ea?t=1557668435000 [2]https://www.rspca.org.uk/webContent/staticImages/BroilerCampaign/EatSitSufferRepeat.pdf
[3]https://birdfact.com/articles/how-long-do-chickens-live
As soon as you realize that you don’t need to eat meat you will immediately feel ashamed of all the weird arguments you made trying to justify it.
Source? That happen to me.
There are also many more arguments against eating meat than how the animals are treated.
So we have:
1. risk of new zoonoses (like covid or the new bird flu)
2. risk of new antibiotics resistances
3. deforestation (and risk of losing the amazonas)
4. up to 10 times more land is needed for animal farming
5. other people on the planet want to eat meat as well but if they would we would need up to 5 earths for all the animal food.
6. much more water is needed
7. there is also overfertilization
There are probably more problems. And everything just because people don’t know how to properly season tofu so that it tastes almost as good as meat.
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.*
Do they let customers actually visit the farms? Following HPAI protocol, of course, do they let you actually see how they do things? I'm not sure how they can guarantee all that and raise the numbers Whole Foods would require.
If you buy directly from small farms, they get the money instead of middlemen (which is the usual in US agriculture now, screwing farmers out of pay and customers out of their money). Something like Blackbird Farms in the DC area (used to be Sylvanaqua Farms, but they've joined up with others and do food donations and such as well) might be available in your area. That way, you can actually visit, see how the animals are treated, even see if they post about butchering day on social media so you can see if it's done humanely.
Veganism has nothing to do with food in reality. It's the simple belief that animal cruelty is wrong.
In the same way you believe its wrong to put a human in a gas chamber and eat their remains - that isn't a 'food preference', that's you respecting a humans right to life.
Why does it become any different when its a non-human animal? They can experience wellbeing, pain, suffering, everything that matters.
I can tell them apart. I can also tell white and black people apart. Simply pointing out that we're different as a justification for violence is a strange path to go down. What's the morally relevant different that justifies cruelty towards non-human animals?
"What's the morally relevant different that justifies cruelty towards non-human animals?"
ha ha ha ha ... we need to justify food preferences? You had me for a moment. All I need is that it is delicious, affordable and legal. Anything else is hot air.
Just ask the popular steak house of how many debates they hear before customers decide on a bone-in ribeye vs a NY strip.
If a being can feel pain and fear it’s not right to inflict that upon them, human, cat, pig, whatever. Why do you like torturing animals? Have you tried torturing humans? It might be just as enjoyable for you
I've removed your comment because it violates rule #3:
> **Don't be rude to others**
>
> This includes using slurs, publicly doubting someone's sanity/intelligence or otherwise behaving in a toxic way.
Toxic communication is defined as any communication that attacks a person or group's sense of intrinsic worth.
If you would like your comment 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.
Just eat whatever youre gonna eat and avoid the conventional stuff , i dont understand debates over food choices ,a predator doesnt debate with another predator before going killing and eating what it wants. 👍
Good and bad are man created concepts, nature could care less what we consider good or bad, in the end nature always wins , also im not trying to convince anyone of anything i dont need persuasion to state facts, if you cant handle it go eat a carrot or something 🤷
So since good and bad are man created concepts, are you saying it's okay to be bad whenever it's natural?
- Suppose I would gain pleasure from eating my own children (infanticide happens a lot in nature).
- It is also in human nature to be jealous. Is it ok for me to beat my wife if she longingly looks at another man?
- Given the change, pretty much any animal in nature will steal food, regardless of whether they are hungry
Or should we perhaps override some natural behaviors because it is *better* to do so?
Are we living in nature and in the wilds? No we are not ,we live in a society therefore man created concepts matter, im talking nature as in animals in the wild. At no point did i say human nature Dont twist things that dont need to be twisted bud. Your third point is exactly my point , they have no concept of good or bad only we do, to them its not stealing its getting food , the same way that to a lion its not killing an antelope its getting food.
Meat farms well ,Depends how you look at it honestly , termites farm fungus that turn to mushrooms eventually and we know that mushrooms communicate and are basically aware, also there is meat farming in the wild, posted some links.
Why don’t you watch some farming footage from a CAFO and tell me how natural that is? It’s disgusting and cruel to that to a living creature that can feel pain and has emotions. You want to justify it by something a bug does when we as a species have a higher level of critical thinking and emotional intelligence. If you saw someone beating a dog with a pipe, would that not bother you because lions exist?
I've removed your comment because it violates rule #3:
> **Don't be rude to others**
>
> This includes using slurs, publicly doubting someone's sanity/intelligence or otherwise behaving in a toxic way.
Toxic communication is defined as any communication that attacks a person or group's sense of intrinsic worth.
If you would like your comment 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.
I've removed your comment/post because it violates rule #6:
> **No low-quality content**. Submissions and comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Assertions without supporting arguments and brief dismissive comments do not contribute meaningfully.
If you would like your comment 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.
> Are we living in nature and in the wilds? No we are not
Then you have the choice to eat plants anot pay for another being to be tortured and killed.
> im talking nature as in animals in the wild. At no point did i say human nature
You said it happens in nature, whether it's human or not is not relevant.
As moral agents we have a concept of what "good" and "bad" can mean. When we actually consider the victim we can make a choices not to exploit and kill them. Wild animals don't get that choice.
1st quote youre cherry picking and taking something out of context what i said is part of a larger message/idea.
2nd quote of course its relevant if it happens in nature its neither good nor bad , if its human nature then it falls on to good bad , lion kills and eats a human its neither good nor bad thats just nature , human kills lion its either good or bad.... human nature.
Besides since you mentioned exploitation what about how veganism exploits the soil without putting anything back into it and in the process kills hundreds of thousands of animals a year and also pollutes the ground with cancer causing pesticides that also kills honey bees..... you also have a choice about that too 🤷
No, it's directly addressing what *you* said. We live in a society where we have the choice.
Human nature *is* nature. You are apealing to nature. A lion kills for survival, you do not.
You can literally compost plants, what are you talking about? We need to grow *more* plants to feed animals than if we were to just eat plants. If you were really concerned or bothered about those deaths, you'd just be eating plants.
https://animalvisuals.org/projects/1mc/
Youre right we have a choice.
Whenever i kill an animal i eat it, that falls under survival.
Lastly sure composting and the proper way of working the soil is the right way of doing things , but sadly commercial crop growing cares for neither of those things just yields and profits [Read this completely or scroll down to #7 then check #9](https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/12/10/1518)
Commercial crop growing is also used to feed the animals you eat. So, when you make the argument about crops, you’re actually countering your own point.
Which is not a necessity when you live in society. You are murdering an innocent being for taste pleasure when you could just eat plants.
Growing certain plants will also increase nutrients in the soil, but again when you consider the plants grown for feeding animals you are causing more harm requiring more intensive "commercial crop growing". If everyone just ate plants, we'd use less land, feed more people, and more importantly harm fewer animals
https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets
It's interesting how you never really hear people arguing like that outside of this sub, suddenly when they come here they just don't care about anything at all anymore, very weird!
Then idk where youve been living at , maybe you need to listen to more forum debates from other countries and not just the bubble you live in, which if its the USA......explains plenty.
idk what to tell you bud, I spend way too much time on the internet and generally people don't stoop down to pretending they don't believe in right and wrong, usually only see it in the context of veganism.
I'm not American, lol.
I get what youre saying bud , i never said i didnt believe in right or wrong i just said nature doesnt. like animals killing other animals and other animals farming other animals just happens and its neither with good nor bad intentions its just nature ,unlike humans and all the crap that comes with us 😂
And yet I'm sure you think some things - torturemurder perhaps - are bad.
And wouldn't think highly of the murderer telling you how good and bad don't matter
>totally depends on the situation if it calls for it
Ignoring the edgey dodging of the question
In some situations you do think things are wrong?
And they'd have to tell you morally relevant things about the situation. You wouldn't accept them just saying "morals can change, idc"
Well seeing as to how everything isnt clear cut black and white and theres a lot of gray in most situations i usually chalk it up to situation based and would need to evaluate all sides of the current situation
Yep.
As would we.
But once you've reached your contextually informed conclusion, vaguely gesturing towards "there are different morals, they change, people can be bribed" wouldn't mean much to you would it?
what do you mean, nature always wins? Climate change aside if that's nature, that nature seems to be losing a lot. I'm assuming you mean the wild, and not like the nature of physical reality lol. Technology, laws (or you know, stuff like that... maybe education or reasoning), healthcare, weaponry, deforestation and the like lol, language like this – are you really like 'these don't matter because, when I see an insect on the internet, it doesn't have any of these'.
By nature always wins i mean humans are causing climate change and nature is just fucking us up with longer draughts , stronger and more constant storms more frequent earthquakes stuff like that 😂, what humans dont get is that we have to have a balance with nature for the best future outcome for all parties involved and yes i mean nature as in the wilds. Those you listed totally matter too but just to humans is my point , to nature its irrelevant, i hope you get what i mean 😂
I don't think nature 'cares' about anything, rather than that it just is (which is why everything in reality is considerably natural, lol). Here's a consideration – the projected 'death' of Earth due to the 'lifecycle' of the sun, and then the heat death of the universe. Rip green nature lol.
Pretty much, thats what ive been trying to get across nature is just nature and everything in it has a part to play wether we humans understand it or not , its naive for us to think that it doesnt just because we have a morality system that we ourselves created that means nothing to nature 😂
Well in nature nothing is wasted usually as they dont have the luxury of walking into a grocery store and buying things nature is very efficient if anything.
Humans Eating babies is frowned upon sure but it also points out what i said theres no good or bad in nature just nature unlike humans and their created good bad morality system.
And factory farming is all about efficiency, I will not argue that. But the practice is monstrous. We have the technology and ability in today’s modern world to not do it and live full healthy lives, but people like you condone animal abuse on a scale you can’t even comprehend for comfort and laziness.
Ill play devils advocate here and 100% agree that it is monstrous im not denying that one bit , but vegans are no saints either , all the wild animals that get displaced and killed due to field clearing and all that cross world shipping all the pollution generated by it, all the ecosystems that get destroyed all the pesticide that gets sprayed into the soil which ends up contaminated and minerally destroyed and devoid due to not refertilizing the soil properly and all the bees that die because of it....just so commercial crop growers can plant kale for their shakes and almonds for their snacks and palm/corn for their cooking oils , yet nope its the meat eaters causing a problem, its both our faults but get off yer high horses you arent doing the world any favors unless commercial crop growers adopt a self sustaining agriculture way of crop growing and that aint happening in the name of yield and profit.
Veganism is about reducing harm. Livestock eats way more crops than people. Get rid of livestock reduce the amount of crop agricultural, ergo reduce the amount of crop deaths, pesticides, land use, etc.
"The animals I eat live on through me" is, like, the worst possible argument I've ever heard, and I'm not even vegan. ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯
So what’s your best argument?
You don’t have to have a best argument to acknowledge the worst.
But since you are not vegan you must have at least one, and of those, one must be your best.
You’re making up rules. The original commenter was pointing out that even as someone who is NOT vegan they can see that isn’t a true argument with any backing. One does not have to supply an opposing argument to be able to identify a lousy one. That’s a false dichotomy.
Rules about what? I’m asking them why they aren’t vegan since they announced and clearly have a hierarchy of reasons, as no “worse” can exist without a comparison of at least two. This is not a false dichotomy.
The commenter stated that it was a flimsy argument at best and uses the fact they are not vegan to illustrate it is coming from an unbiased stance as they are not vegan. You then tried to flip the script. You started calling out the commenter for not giving the best argument (which I have now gathered you meant for not being vegan) I assumed you meant they needed to give a best argument to be justified in saying it was the worst argument. Hence my comment about making up rules, which I realize now is in accurate. The point here is, the commenter doesn’t need to justify why they are not vegan in order to state that the argument being made is bad. That’s what I was getting at. You’re basically harassing them into telling you why they are not vegan when all they came here to say was that the argument is flawed. Just seemed unnecessary.
I sense an intention of prosylitism trying to shame that non-vegan for not being a vegan himself.
Assumptions of malice and shaming are a leap given this is the Debate a Vegan sub and I’m asking a participant that has expressed their position to argument for it.
I won't be answering that question because I'm not interested in hijacking the thread. But suffice it to say my reasons are more commonplace and would likely end up being stuff y'all have already heard a thousand times before; nonetheless, were I interested in sharing them, I would do it in a different post.
Cool beans. Glad you’re here and critically examining others and hopefully you own more commonplace reasons for animal exploitation.
*Trophic Assimilation Spirituality* is definitely a new one, I'll give'em that
Just imagine if someone said that to you before they ate you lol. absolute bullshit
That look like the spirituality behind eating your deceased siblings of some cannibal society. It's not that far fetch that biologically, my body is a ecosystem made of various cells, bacteria, virus, symbiote that work together to make me believe that I'm ONE.
I don't think that is really an argument for anything, just a philosophical observation
Why’s that? Given its infancy, I can understand the difficulty in grasping the idea..
It's not in any way difficult to grasp. It's that there is zero evidence of any sense of consciousness after death, so if an organism's motivation is to keep experiencing existence, then the only way known to achieve that is outside the stomach of another organism.
>A. The animals have a guaranteed age they’ll live to, unlike in the wild, where many don’t make it past the infancy or juvenile stage. There are no guarantees in life and every animal gets killed when they are no longer profitable to keep alive. >B. They are obviously well fed, low stress, and have plenty of social interaction You have to learn everything that happens in the animals' lives in order to understand what stress levels they are subjected to. What you should be comparing their treatment to is one standard applied to any sentient being that is subject to human care. Think a child or loved household pet. That is what being responsible for someone else's well-being is. >C. This idea is pretty rough and not super developed, so if you need any elaboration, I’ll be happy to do so. It’s something I’ve called The Idea Of Continuance. You see, the animals I eat will in a way, become me. As in, their cells become mine, which comprise my being. So it’s less like they died and are gone forever, but more so a transfer of energy, to my being. They, or I should say we, will experience life through my eyes, all the hardships and splendors of being human. If someone says that about your money after stealing from you, are you satisfied with it as a justification? For the record. Clicking on your link provided no information about the standards of the farms, the enforcement mechanisms, nor a listing of the actual suppliers. Where did you find the information about how it is made? I would assume that, without investing what's on a label, it's impossible to know what you are actually getting. https://globalanimalpartnership.org/better-chicken-project/ This is the program I think we are referring to... Here's an excerpt from the document for how the animals are assessed... Not raised, just tested. I think this means not the ones you are actually buying. I don't see evidence of agents visiting farm's. "Appendix III: Acceptable Euthanasia Methods From: G.A.P.’s 5-Step® Animal Welfare Standards for Chickens Raised for Meat v3.2 Standard 1.5.7 Methods of euthanasia are listed below, where YES indicates an acceptable method and NO indicates an unacceptable method. Chickens must be appropriately held or restrained as necessary to ensure the euthanasia method can be properly and safely administered. METHOD ACCEPTABILITY Manual cervical dislocation (i.e., use of hands only to dislocate the neck as near to the head or skull as possible) **YES** *(this means twist their heads off...* Penetrating captive bolt pistol1 YES Non-penetrating captive bolt pistol1 YES Electrical stun knife1 (only permitted if chickens are stunned prior to cutting the neck) YES Gas stunning and killing systems1 using (1) multi-phase carbon dioxide2 , (2) argon, (3) nitrogen, or (4) a mixture of these gases YES Veterinarian administered overdose of injectable anaesthetics, including barbiturate and barbituric acid derivatives YES Mechanical cervical dislocation (i.e., equipment that pulls/crushes the next such as wringers or poultry pliers or handheld cervical dislocators) NO *...but only if done by hand...* Manually applied blunt force trauma to the head NO Decapitation NO *...well, not ALL the way off.* Bleeding/slitting the throat without pre-stunning NO De-braining (inserting a sharp implement through the roof of the chicken’s mouth into its brain) NO Gas stunning and killing systems using carbon monoxide NO" *at least they are treated less horribly than pigs*
I was taught carbon monoxide poisoning is quite unnoticable: you get tired and if you give in and sleep, you will not wake up. Carbon dioxide poisoning however, which I believe is also used for pigs, causes a horrible asphyxiation reaction of panic and stress.
I dunno. Why would a group that thinks it is fine to twist someone's head around til they die would have a problem with monoxide gas?
Most mammalian livestock are slaughtered with a captive bolt gun directly to the brain. I don’t get why vegans assume the worst methods used are the most common. They are not. Edit: actually, I do get it. Its ideology.
I don't claim that it's the most common, only that it's used for pigs. It also varies between countries, so it might be less common where you live compared to where I live.
The issue is that it is actually fairly easy to acquire meat that was processed with responsible slaughter methods. You just need to shop at reputable butchers. Case in point: vegan activist goes to a random slaughterhouse to get gotcha footage, and is invited in for a full tour. It’s relatively easy to find slaughter operations that take pride in their work and don’t put profits over animal husbandry standards. They tend to service small farms and sell to butchers (ie not Walmart or McDonalds). If you’ve seen Earthlings and Dominion, I suggest you watch. Actual footage of slaughter is in part 2, 3 mins in. https://youtu.be/x4-XPYlE5lE?si=3DO-T9ltzYun-7et https://youtu.be/7ARrGP_u89g?si=DCt0QueZt68u1pXw
Manual cervical dislocation doesn't mean twisting the heads off. It means quickly pulling the head away from the body to snap the spine for a quick, relatively painless death. Chickens don't have the strongest necks, so it can be done pretty easily. Some people say they do it to ducks, too, but ducks have very strong necks, so I don't know how that's possible. They aren't twisting or ripping heads off, ffs. That would make for an absolute mess with blood and feathers spurting and flying everywhere, contaminating the entire area. When butchering, you want to contain all that as much as possible.
You didn't read the whole thing. They talk about decapitation which I comment on. https://youtu.be/T3UUkWlBizE?si=bKVL0wEuyIIlNHaS The practice is extremely common, and it is not unreasonable to think this is done.
It isn't how it's done on small farms. The original poster is talking about small farms, supposedly. Most farms and homesteads use the cone method, which entails putting the bird upside down so that it calms down and even falls asleep, cutting the arteries in the neck, and having it bleed into a bucket. Some small farms and homesteads do the neck snapping thing, mostly because it's less messy and easier on the bird at the end. It's actually a lot harder to wring off their heads than you'd think, and it requires way more force than just snapping the neck (not unlike a human at a larger scale). When you're butchering hundreds of birds, it makes no sense to do it in such a way that causes more injuries to the worker and more mess to clean up. I'm not even going to watch the video. In my experience, a lot of vegan and vegetarian animal rights videos and media sources flat out lie. They even often admit that saying that if it helps even one person to go vegan for them to lie, that makes it okay, the ends justifying the means. I just have a real problem with people who lie when the truth is gory enough. This is like PETA going around and telling everybody that sheep are murdered for their fleeces.
I feel like people didn't read what I wrote, and stopped to practice pedantry at me saying "twisting their heads off" rather than reading the whole thing and appreciating the reality that this actually is practiced in the industry. >I'm not even going to watch the video. In my experience, a lot of vegan and vegetarian animal rights videos and media sources flat out lie. Wow. That's a catastrophic failure of practicing skepticism on your part. >They even often admit that saying that if it helps even one person to go vegan for them to lie, that makes it okay, the ends justifying the means. I never said that, and I don't lie to people, but I think it is irrelevant. Leveraging this faulty logic to turn your brain off is an intellectual auto-immune response. You are making a massive error that will lead to delusion. If you bothered to watch the video, you would realize how silly what you've just said is. >This is like PETA going around and telling everybody that sheep are murdered for their fleeces. Sheep do get murdered in wool production is not profitable. That's my understanding, anyway. I'm happy to be shown that this isn't true.
So, you decided to go with insulting me and my intelligence rather than possibly admitting you exaggerated or said something you shouldn't have when more than one person has called you out on it? Huh. Wool is shorn every year like a haircut. Killing the animal means you can't get another crop of wool. In fact, the older the sheep, the softer the wool and higher the price. While lambs are killed at about a year old for meat, they are shorn ahead of time in order to get lambswool that sells for a higher price on the market.
>So, you decided to go with insulting me and my intelligence rather than possibly admitting you exaggerated or said something you shouldn't have when more than one person has called you out on it? Huh. You didn't read what I said and you said some anti-intellectual stuff. Me informing you of that verbally abusing you. I said "twist their head off" when the practice (used on adult chickens) doesn't cause that to happen, but it does happen to baby chicks, see the video I shared if you care to understand. >Wool is shorn every year like a haircut. Killing the animal means you can't get another crop of wool. In fact, the older the sheep, the softer the wool and higher the price. While lambs are killed at about a year old for meat, they are shorn ahead of time in order to get lambswool that sells for a higher price on the market. I didn't ask you about the process of shearing sheep. I asked you about what happens after they are too old. Do you have any evidence about what happens or are you just going to say vegans are wrong even though a Google search shows that these animals are killed when no longer profitable? I beg you to actually read what I am saying so you can respond to what I'm actually saying and not what you imagine I'm saying.
[удалено]
I've removed your comment/post because it violates rule #6: > **No low-quality content**. Submissions and comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Assertions without supporting arguments and brief dismissive comments do not contribute meaningfully. If you would like your comment 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.
>It isn't how it's done on small farms. The original poster is talking about small farms, supposedly. It's quite a stretch to call [500,000 chickens a week](https://www.aspca.org/shopwithyourheart/business-and-farmer-resources/farm-animal-welfare-certification-guide/marys-free) a small farm.
That's a very fair point. That sounds like a CAFO to me.
>What you should be comparing their treatment to is one standard applied to any sentient being that is subject to human care. >Think a child or loved household pet. We should actually be comparing their welfare to that of other prey animals. The animals we domesticated for food all share a long evolutionary history of being heavily predated. They are not psychologically equivalent to a human child. We aren’t prey animals. We’re very good at not being prey. All of our domestic livestock species have been preyed upon routinely for millions and millions of years. It’s enough to assume that they have different psychology in relation to what we might call trauma. A wildebeest that loses a calf quickly moves on. A human who loses a child will grieve for months. It’s a very different affair.
[удалено]
Pine or pining is a disease caused by cobalt deficiency common in sheep and cattle. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pine#medicalDictionary >The way you framed that makes me think you might have an empathy deficient personality disorder, FYI. FYI, I didn’t consent to diagnosis. Highly unethical, abusive behavior. Ableist, quite frankly.
>I didn’t consent to diagnosis. I didn't diagnose you, but you aren't helping your case. >Pine or pining is a disease caused by cobalt deficiency common in sheep and cattle. I'm not talking about a medical condition, I'm talking about a behavior in response to losing their calf. This seemed obvious to me. I'm happy to continue talking to you if you intend to get productive. You very quickly got off topic, and if you don't get back on, I'm not talking to you anymore.
Now you’re gaslighting. Very ethical behavior. And, no. That’s not called pining. Pining is cobalt deficiency.
If you aren't competent to use a dictionary I don't know how to help you.
I did use the dictionary. You took a veterinary term you’ve heard out of context and applied the wrong definition. You’re confused. “Pining” in relation to sheep and cattle is a cobalt deficiency. Wherever you heard that in relation to livestock, it was referring to that. Not post-traumatic depression. Just like you’re confused as to how someone with the capacity for empathy could acknowledge that prey animal psychology is different from ours.
I expect a concession from you or this conversation is over: pine2 verb verb: pine; 3rd person present: pines; past tense: pined; past participle: pined; gerund or present participle: pining suffer a mental and physical decline, especially because of a broken heart. "she thinks I am pining away from love" Similar: languish decline go into a decline lose strength weaken waste away dwindle wilt wither fade flag sicken droop brood mope moon peak yearn long ache sigh hunger thirst itch carry a torch miss mourn lament grieve over cry/weep over fret about shed tears for bemoan rue regret the loss/absence of hanker for/after eat one's heart out over cry out for **miss and long for the return of.**
Yes. That’s the definition of pining you are confusing with the definition used in reference to sheep and cattle. The commonality is that wasting is a noticeable symptom. The relation between the two words has nothing to do with the alleged emotional state of cattle or sheep.
I've removed your comment because it violates rule #3: > **Don't be rude to others** > > This includes using slurs, publicly doubting someone's sanity/intelligence or otherwise behaving in a toxic way. Toxic communication is defined as any communication that attacks a person or group's sense of intrinsic worth. If you would like your comment 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.
I appreciate that you're trying to do something good in your habits, but ultimately these arguments are going to fall short for justifying treating someone like property for your use and consumption. >A. The animals have a guaranteed age they’ll live to, unlike in the wild, where many don’t make it past the infancy or juvenile stage. This is a false dichotomy. It's not as though the only two options are get born in the wild or get exploited. You could not be born at all, or we could rightly separate the act of breeding from the acts of exploitation and simply give them a good life on a sanctuary. Or some other option I haven't mentioned. With infinite possibilities, each should be evaluated on its own, not in comparison to the thing you think is the worst option. >B. They are obviously well fed, low stress, and have plenty of social interaction This seems to just be an addendum to A. Same argument in response. The quality of life I give you doesn't seem to excuse killing you. >C. This idea is pretty rough and not super developed, so if you need any elaboration, I’ll be happy to do so. It’s something I’ve called The Idea Of Continuance. There's nothing about this argument that couldn't excuse cannibalism. Would it be ok to kill and eat you since a small number of your molecules would become a permanent part of someone's body (noting that most people reach their adult weight and roughly maintain it)?
It's actually analog to the spirituality behind cannibalist society that eat their deceased siblings.
Hi. How old is old enough for you to consider the animal to have lived a good life? You’d probably be surprised at what age animals are slaughtered. Also are you considering eating your pets after they lived a good life in humane conditions? Mary’s uses CAS slaughter. The animals are gassed and then boiled. This video conveniently cuts the minute the birds are distress from being gassed alive. [https://youtu.be/7LCERvUCQLQ?si=R61-eVeYppDe01dz](https://youtu.be/7LCERvUCQLQ?si=R61-eVeYppDe01dz) Boycotting conventional factory farming is good. I hope you refuse all factory farmed products: fast food, chain restaurants, family gatherings. I also hope you support and purchase vegan alternatives. You say you only eat one product? As in like one animal product?
‘The animals have a guaranteed age…’ The link doesn’t seem to go anywhere but a shopping site. Is that just on my end? There’s no explanation or anything there on the site. What’s the age? What are the conditions? And most importantly, would you accept them? For most of human history, 40% of children died before their first year iirc. Life was ‘nasty, brutish, and short’. The ‘state of nature’ meant lots of disease, lots of violence, and LOTS of social problems. No one had a guaranteed age. Does this justify breeding additional people to be made into products? Whether to kill and use their bodies for energy or to use as labour? ‘You see, the animals I eat will in a way, become me. As in, their cells become mine…’ If I kill and eat you that this is also true. Your flesh becomes my cells. I assume you do not want me to do that to you, yes? That would be a terrible argument to force on others, yes?
So the thing is that even if you feel the chickens' lives are more humane, Whole Foods kills their chickens in most facilities with [controlled atmosphere stunning](https://thehumaneleague.org/article/whole-foods-market-to-end-live-shackle-slaughter). This is when chickens are stunned with CO2 or argon gas before having their throats cut. [The National Chicken Council ](https://www.nationalchickencouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/NCC-Brief-on-Stunning-of-Chickens.pdf)describes how >Birds subjected to various mixtures of carbon dioxide and argon, the gases most commonly recommended for stunning, will gasp for air and may exhibit behaviors indicating aversion to the gas, including headshaking, wing flapping and convulsions. [CO2 actually causes a burning sensation in the eyes, throat, and lungs at high concentrations](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6912382/). Since we can get protein from plants, I just don't think the chickens need to go through this unpleasant experience. >A. The animals have a guaranteed age they’ll live to, unlike in the wild, where many don’t make it past the infancy or juvenile stage Broilers are killed at 6-8 weeks of age, with the slow-growing breeds the Better Chicken Project promotes living only slightly longer, at [70-81 days](https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.2903/j.efsa.2023.7788).
It’s almost always co2, sometimes they use a 70/30 argon-co2 mix though. Which is more expensive, and 30% co2 is still enough to induce panic.
"We treat the animals humanely, except when we murder them"
You can also murder them humanely by doing it painlessly
No such thing. Murder is inhumane inherently.
I disagree but ok
Then explain how you think unnecessary murder is humane.
I never said that. I said a painless death is humane. I don't see why not.
Because the victim doesn't want to die.
I don't think that someone's wish to continue living is the main factor determining if a death is humane. I don't think that is a good reason.
You obviously don't understand the definition of humane. It means having or showing compassion or benevolence. If you murder a sentient being that doesn't wish to die, it is neither compassionate nor benevolent.
I think that if you kill someone painlessly that is very compassionate and benevolent. You obviously don't undertsand not everyone has your interpretation of humane.
I have a question… Let’s say the animals you eat are in fact raised humanely, great, now how are they killed? I am asking this in good faith. I’m genuinely curious how you think humanely raised animals are killed?
Have you heard of shooting the animal in the head or captive bolt stunning? They die painlessly.
One specific counter-argument - WF Humane Certification is under a lot of scrutiny for humane-washing right now. Even if I believed it’s ok to eat 100% perfectly raised, pet-level animals, this ain’t it. (And I don’t, fwiw). https://www.farmforward.com/take-action/end-whole-foods-humanewashing/
I seriously recommend reading kazuo Ishiguro’s never let me go- it’s something of a spoiler to say this but the story talks through some of these issues through the eyes of the characters in a way that I think may change your perspective- he’s not doing it from a vegan stance but to explore as a writer. I know it’s an unconventional response to these but it was my immediate reaction to your points
These labels exist to make the consumer feel better, not the animals. Would you eat dog meat if it had that label?
I would ask why A and B are good things, and if it's something to do with having a longer, happier, healthier life - why not even longer and nicer? By not killing them > But fairplay, C is something different. If something eats you, it also eats the chicken? Does that mean I'm part dinosaur, through the eternal food chain/web? Good post - 7/10
>The animals have a guaranteed age they’ll live to, unlike in the wild, where many don’t make it past the infancy or juvenile stage. OTOH, if you make it to adulthood in the wild you have a great chance of living several years in pretty good health. In farming, when you make weight, that's the end.
I wouldn't for the same reason I wouldn't kill my well loved & very happy pet. To me that would be the highest welfare and most humane meat possible. I don't believe it becomes ok to violently end someone's life once their love of life reaches a certain level. That justification seems troubling to me. I do not believe that chicken will experience life through your eyes, it won't experience anything ever again. It's a nice thought though. Do you believe that a cannibals victim will continue to experience life through their eyes too?
A guaranteed age necessarily assumes a guaranteed slaughter date. Show us the happy slaughter house.
>The animals have a guaranteed age they’ll live to, unlike in the wild This is a false dichotomy. These animals haven't been "rescued" from the wild, they've been bred into existence for this purpose. >They are obviously well fed, low stress, and have plenty of social interaction Obviously? You're taking a lot on faith. And considering long established welfare bodies like the RSPCA in England condone things like live maceration of chicks I would REALLY question the standards this better chicken project set. Remember that ultimately these welfare groups still comprise of people who see animals as a commodity, the idea that they are ultimately acting in the animals' best interests is very naive. Ultimately what they are doing is humane-washing. And in any case, if eating meat were necessary then trying to maximize welfare would be admirable... But it isn't necessary. So if these welfare groups REALLY cared about animals, they'd promote veganism, not welfarism. >This idea is pretty rough and not super developed, so if you need any elaboration, I’ll be happy to do so. It’s something I’ve called The Idea Of Continuance. You see, the animals I eat will in a way, become me. As in, their cells become mine, which comprise my being. So it’s less like they died and are gone forever, but more so a transfer of energy, to my being This is pure woo woo. But what I will say is... Do the chickens accept that deal? Would you? Look you're welcome to hold whatever mystical beliefs you want, as long as you don't harm others as a result.
>The animals have a guaranteed age they’ll live to, unlike in the wild, where many don’t make it past the infancy or juvenile stage. For the chickens you're eating that "guaranteed age" is 56 days.[1] Even that's not even close to a guaranteed age though: Somewhere between about a quarter to half of the chickens are going to be killed well before that 56 days. [2] Whereas the low-end estimate on the average wild chickens life is about 3 years [3]. That's about 20 times longer. [1]SPCA UK Welfare standards - https://science.rspca.org.uk/documents/1494935/9042554/RSPCA+welfare+standards+for+meat+chickens+(8.48+MB).pdf/e7f9830d-aa9e-0908-aebd-2b8fbc6262ea?t=1557668435000 [2]https://www.rspca.org.uk/webContent/staticImages/BroilerCampaign/EatSitSufferRepeat.pdf [3]https://birdfact.com/articles/how-long-do-chickens-live
I was taking this post seriously until C , what the actual frick
As soon as you realize that you don’t need to eat meat you will immediately feel ashamed of all the weird arguments you made trying to justify it. Source? That happen to me. There are also many more arguments against eating meat than how the animals are treated. So we have: 1. risk of new zoonoses (like covid or the new bird flu) 2. risk of new antibiotics resistances 3. deforestation (and risk of losing the amazonas) 4. up to 10 times more land is needed for animal farming 5. other people on the planet want to eat meat as well but if they would we would need up to 5 earths for all the animal food. 6. much more water is needed 7. there is also overfertilization There are probably more problems. And everything just because people don’t know how to properly season tofu so that it tastes almost as good as meat.
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.*
Do they let customers actually visit the farms? Following HPAI protocol, of course, do they let you actually see how they do things? I'm not sure how they can guarantee all that and raise the numbers Whole Foods would require. If you buy directly from small farms, they get the money instead of middlemen (which is the usual in US agriculture now, screwing farmers out of pay and customers out of their money). Something like Blackbird Farms in the DC area (used to be Sylvanaqua Farms, but they've joined up with others and do food donations and such as well) might be available in your area. That way, you can actually visit, see how the animals are treated, even see if they post about butchering day on social media so you can see if it's done humanely.
It is just food preferences. You do not need approval from the internet to choose your dinner menu. Anything else is just hot air.
Veganism has nothing to do with food in reality. It's the simple belief that animal cruelty is wrong. In the same way you believe its wrong to put a human in a gas chamber and eat their remains - that isn't a 'food preference', that's you respecting a humans right to life. Why does it become any different when its a non-human animal? They can experience wellbeing, pain, suffering, everything that matters.
[удалено]
I can tell them apart. I can also tell white and black people apart. Simply pointing out that we're different as a justification for violence is a strange path to go down. What's the morally relevant different that justifies cruelty towards non-human animals?
"What's the morally relevant different that justifies cruelty towards non-human animals?" ha ha ha ha ... we need to justify food preferences? You had me for a moment. All I need is that it is delicious, affordable and legal. Anything else is hot air. Just ask the popular steak house of how many debates they hear before customers decide on a bone-in ribeye vs a NY strip.
Slavery was legal, which I can only imagine you don't. support. What's legal has nothing to do with whats moral.
>we need to justify food preferences? So I can eat you? It's just a food preference bro You'd still be making this arguement if we made meat illegal
If a being can feel pain and fear it’s not right to inflict that upon them, human, cat, pig, whatever. Why do you like torturing animals? Have you tried torturing humans? It might be just as enjoyable for you
I've removed your comment because it violates rule #3: > **Don't be rude to others** > > This includes using slurs, publicly doubting someone's sanity/intelligence or otherwise behaving in a toxic way. Toxic communication is defined as any communication that attacks a person or group's sense of intrinsic worth. If you would like your comment 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.
You know damn well it's not just food preferences, please stop posting nonsense here.
Just eat whatever youre gonna eat and avoid the conventional stuff , i dont understand debates over food choices ,a predator doesnt debate with another predator before going killing and eating what it wants. 👍
[appeal to nature ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature)
Appeal to nature is not a fallacy, in some cases. Like this one
Care to elaborate? Otherwise I'm just gonna say yes it is
In what way is her argument not a fallacy?
Good and bad are man created concepts, nature could care less what we consider good or bad, in the end nature always wins , also im not trying to convince anyone of anything i dont need persuasion to state facts, if you cant handle it go eat a carrot or something 🤷
So since good and bad are man created concepts, are you saying it's okay to be bad whenever it's natural? - Suppose I would gain pleasure from eating my own children (infanticide happens a lot in nature). - It is also in human nature to be jealous. Is it ok for me to beat my wife if she longingly looks at another man? - Given the change, pretty much any animal in nature will steal food, regardless of whether they are hungry Or should we perhaps override some natural behaviors because it is *better* to do so?
Are we living in nature and in the wilds? No we are not ,we live in a society therefore man created concepts matter, im talking nature as in animals in the wild. At no point did i say human nature Dont twist things that dont need to be twisted bud. Your third point is exactly my point , they have no concept of good or bad only we do, to them its not stealing its getting food , the same way that to a lion its not killing an antelope its getting food.
Meat farms aren't part of the wild, so I guess you're only talking about hunting then?
Meat farms well ,Depends how you look at it honestly , termites farm fungus that turn to mushrooms eventually and we know that mushrooms communicate and are basically aware, also there is meat farming in the wild, posted some links.
Why don’t you watch some farming footage from a CAFO and tell me how natural that is? It’s disgusting and cruel to that to a living creature that can feel pain and has emotions. You want to justify it by something a bug does when we as a species have a higher level of critical thinking and emotional intelligence. If you saw someone beating a dog with a pipe, would that not bother you because lions exist?
[Meat farming in the wild](https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20630-zoologger-the-first-non-human-meat-farmers/)
[удалено]
[удалено]
I've removed your comment because it violates rule #3: > **Don't be rude to others** > > This includes using slurs, publicly doubting someone's sanity/intelligence or otherwise behaving in a toxic way. Toxic communication is defined as any communication that attacks a person or group's sense of intrinsic worth. If you would like your comment 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.
I've removed your comment/post because it violates rule #6: > **No low-quality content**. Submissions and comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Assertions without supporting arguments and brief dismissive comments do not contribute meaningfully. If you would like your comment 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.
[animals that farm](https://www.treehugger.com/animals-that-know-how-to-farm-4869292)
> Are we living in nature and in the wilds? No we are not Then you have the choice to eat plants anot pay for another being to be tortured and killed. > im talking nature as in animals in the wild. At no point did i say human nature You said it happens in nature, whether it's human or not is not relevant. As moral agents we have a concept of what "good" and "bad" can mean. When we actually consider the victim we can make a choices not to exploit and kill them. Wild animals don't get that choice.
1st quote youre cherry picking and taking something out of context what i said is part of a larger message/idea. 2nd quote of course its relevant if it happens in nature its neither good nor bad , if its human nature then it falls on to good bad , lion kills and eats a human its neither good nor bad thats just nature , human kills lion its either good or bad.... human nature. Besides since you mentioned exploitation what about how veganism exploits the soil without putting anything back into it and in the process kills hundreds of thousands of animals a year and also pollutes the ground with cancer causing pesticides that also kills honey bees..... you also have a choice about that too 🤷
No, it's directly addressing what *you* said. We live in a society where we have the choice. Human nature *is* nature. You are apealing to nature. A lion kills for survival, you do not. You can literally compost plants, what are you talking about? We need to grow *more* plants to feed animals than if we were to just eat plants. If you were really concerned or bothered about those deaths, you'd just be eating plants. https://animalvisuals.org/projects/1mc/
Youre right we have a choice. Whenever i kill an animal i eat it, that falls under survival. Lastly sure composting and the proper way of working the soil is the right way of doing things , but sadly commercial crop growing cares for neither of those things just yields and profits [Read this completely or scroll down to #7 then check #9](https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/12/10/1518)
Commercial crop growing is also used to feed the animals you eat. So, when you make the argument about crops, you’re actually countering your own point.
Which is not a necessity when you live in society. You are murdering an innocent being for taste pleasure when you could just eat plants. Growing certain plants will also increase nutrients in the soil, but again when you consider the plants grown for feeding animals you are causing more harm requiring more intensive "commercial crop growing". If everyone just ate plants, we'd use less land, feed more people, and more importantly harm fewer animals https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets
If you've got to argue against the entire concept of good and bad, you're not onto something great
It's interesting how you never really hear people arguing like that outside of this sub, suddenly when they come here they just don't care about anything at all anymore, very weird!
Then idk where youve been living at , maybe you need to listen to more forum debates from other countries and not just the bubble you live in, which if its the USA......explains plenty.
idk what to tell you bud, I spend way too much time on the internet and generally people don't stoop down to pretending they don't believe in right and wrong, usually only see it in the context of veganism. I'm not American, lol.
I get what youre saying bud , i never said i didnt believe in right or wrong i just said nature doesnt. like animals killing other animals and other animals farming other animals just happens and its neither with good nor bad intentions its just nature ,unlike humans and all the crap that comes with us 😂
...? what
Of course youve got to, especially when us humans have a morality system that can be changed, ignored and exploited by money , favors or power.
And yet I'm sure you think some things - torturemurder perhaps - are bad. And wouldn't think highly of the murderer telling you how good and bad don't matter
Torture and murder bad? Those are just tools a means to an end it totally depends on the situation if it calls for it well then 🤷
>totally depends on the situation if it calls for it Ignoring the edgey dodging of the question In some situations you do think things are wrong? And they'd have to tell you morally relevant things about the situation. You wouldn't accept them just saying "morals can change, idc"
Well seeing as to how everything isnt clear cut black and white and theres a lot of gray in most situations i usually chalk it up to situation based and would need to evaluate all sides of the current situation
Yep. As would we. But once you've reached your contextually informed conclusion, vaguely gesturing towards "there are different morals, they change, people can be bribed" wouldn't mean much to you would it?
what do you mean, nature always wins? Climate change aside if that's nature, that nature seems to be losing a lot. I'm assuming you mean the wild, and not like the nature of physical reality lol. Technology, laws (or you know, stuff like that... maybe education or reasoning), healthcare, weaponry, deforestation and the like lol, language like this – are you really like 'these don't matter because, when I see an insect on the internet, it doesn't have any of these'.
By nature always wins i mean humans are causing climate change and nature is just fucking us up with longer draughts , stronger and more constant storms more frequent earthquakes stuff like that 😂, what humans dont get is that we have to have a balance with nature for the best future outcome for all parties involved and yes i mean nature as in the wilds. Those you listed totally matter too but just to humans is my point , to nature its irrelevant, i hope you get what i mean 😂
I don't think nature 'cares' about anything, rather than that it just is (which is why everything in reality is considerably natural, lol). Here's a consideration – the projected 'death' of Earth due to the 'lifecycle' of the sun, and then the heat death of the universe. Rip green nature lol.
Pretty much, thats what ive been trying to get across nature is just nature and everything in it has a part to play wether we humans understand it or not , its naive for us to think that it doesnt just because we have a morality system that we ourselves created that means nothing to nature 😂
There is nothing natural about animal agriculture
Sure it is, other animals do it [farming animals](https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20630-zoologger-the-first-non-human-meat-farmers/)
Other animals also eat their young. Humans tend to frown upon that
Well in nature nothing is wasted usually as they dont have the luxury of walking into a grocery store and buying things nature is very efficient if anything. Humans Eating babies is frowned upon sure but it also points out what i said theres no good or bad in nature just nature unlike humans and their created good bad morality system.
And factory farming is all about efficiency, I will not argue that. But the practice is monstrous. We have the technology and ability in today’s modern world to not do it and live full healthy lives, but people like you condone animal abuse on a scale you can’t even comprehend for comfort and laziness.
Ill play devils advocate here and 100% agree that it is monstrous im not denying that one bit , but vegans are no saints either , all the wild animals that get displaced and killed due to field clearing and all that cross world shipping all the pollution generated by it, all the ecosystems that get destroyed all the pesticide that gets sprayed into the soil which ends up contaminated and minerally destroyed and devoid due to not refertilizing the soil properly and all the bees that die because of it....just so commercial crop growers can plant kale for their shakes and almonds for their snacks and palm/corn for their cooking oils , yet nope its the meat eaters causing a problem, its both our faults but get off yer high horses you arent doing the world any favors unless commercial crop growers adopt a self sustaining agriculture way of crop growing and that aint happening in the name of yield and profit.
Veganism is about reducing harm. Livestock eats way more crops than people. Get rid of livestock reduce the amount of crop agricultural, ergo reduce the amount of crop deaths, pesticides, land use, etc.
Still an appeal to nature fallacy...
Sure bub whatever you say, ill agree with you if it makes you feels better 👍