Rollingstone Feature on Animal Cruelty in Meat Industry

[ambermonk]

I didn't realize everyone on here was so jaded and pessimistic.

lel. maybe they have a vitamin D deficiency.

 

As much as I condemn unnecessary cruelty and suffering towards livestock about to be slaughtered for food, I'm probably a hypocrite for doing so, given my dietary habits. At the very least I think the slaughtering of the livestock should be as quick and painless as possible, rather than subjecting them to sadistic torture.

[autopilot]

 

That's a reason to avoid soy, not to avoid vegetarianism.

 

 

You're right. The reason to avoid vegetarianism is that it's nutritionally ignorant.

[LimpyLoo]

 

 

That's a reason to avoid soy, not to avoid vegetarianism.

 

 

You're right. The reason to avoid vegetarianism is that it's nutritionally ignorant.

 

 

Yes, in the way that not stealing someone's wallet is economically ignorant.

[autopilot]

Please elaborate because that statement makes no sense to me.

[LimpyLoo]

Please elaborate because that statement makes no sense to me.

 

One gets (according to you) a nutritional benefit from eating meat.

 

One also gets a financial benefit from stealing someone's wallet.

[autopilot]

This is correct, but your statement implies that not stealing someone's money is ignorant, which is an incorrect use of the word ignorant.

 

Whereas the context in which I used the word is accurate because you do get a nutritional benefit from eating meat over not eating it, as has been proven hundreds of times over by people far smarter than I.

 

But you obviously equate eating meat to stealing money so I don't think you're looking at the bigger picture without emotional investment.

[LimpyLoo]

This is correct, but your statement implies that not stealing someone's money is ignorant, which is an incorrect use of the word ignorant.

 

Whereas the context in which I used the word is accurate because you do get a nutritional benefit from eating meat over not eating it, as has been proven hundreds of times over by people far smarter than I.

 

But you obviously equate eating meat to stealing money so I don't think you're looking at the bigger picture without emotional investment.

 

Fucking lol dude

 

The reason I don't eat meat is not because I am ignorant of the nutrional benefits.

 

In the exact way that the reason I don't steal people's wallets is not because I am ignorant of the financial benefits.

 

 

You chose to use the word "ignorant" in your original post and so I'm just showing how's that silly. Ignorance has nothing to do with it.

[autopilot]

I'm still not seeing the wallet analogy, but I appreciate that you're trying.

[LimpyLoo]

I'm still not seeing the wallet analogy, but I appreciate that you're trying.

 

Okay so we're addressing your use of the word "ignorant" and your implication that vegetarianism is "nutritionally ignorant."

 

 

I don't eat meat. Despite the fact that I know there are benefits to eating meat (e.g. iron, complex proteins), I don't eat meat.

 

I don't steal wallets. Despite the fact that I know there are benefits to stealing wallets (e.g. gaining money), I don't steal wallets.

 

 

My veganism is not the result of me lacking knowledge about nutrition. Similarly, my not-stealing-wallets is not the result of me lacking knowledge of basic economic principles (e.g. having 10 dollars is better than having zero dollars).

[autopilot]

But you're operating on the assumption that consuming various plants you have to consume to get the same protiens is somehow morally superior to eating meat, when in fact the amount of farming that has to take place to cultivate those crops is more detrimental to the environment than the raising/slaughtering of animals to get the equivalent amount of protein. You're also operating on the assumption that animal life is more important than plant life. Those assumptions are, by definition, ignorant.

 

Then, to defend vegan/vegetarianism, you're using an analogy that equates eating meat to stealing money, placing the moral qualms people have with financial theft onto the act of eating meat, which is a self-righteous strawman argument. Our bodies have physiologically evolved for hundreds of thousands of years to operate most efficiently with the consumption of meat, vegetables, fruit, and nuts. This has been proven by scientists. (as much as things can be 'proven', let's not open that philosophical debate, please)

 

But as a comedian I adore says, "there's no such thing as a vegan who doesn't let everybody know they're vegan". I know you want to evangelize your lentil diet that tastes like wet cardboard, but it's based on misinformation spread by hipsters on high horses. Now please stop calling me a thief.

[awepittance]

i hate to come off like a communist / marxist but I would argue that Chinese slave labor and these types of packed, no room to move around in mass factory farming industries are a direct result of unsustainable 'free market' capitalism. They are all related to the issue of supply and demand, and it's simply more efficient to treat animals very cruelly than humanely. It costs more money to treat animals in a way different from how they are being treated now in factory farming.

and i personally do make a distinction between killing animals in a way that mitigates their overall suffering vs not giving a shit at all. You can make the argument that humans have been treating animals poorly all through out the history of man, but I think post industrial revolution it became much more intense and commonplace, especially what we do to animals like cattle, chicken and pigs.

[LimpyLoo]

But you're operating on the assumption that consuming various plants you have to consume to get the same protiens is somehow morally superior to eating meat, when in fact the amount of farming that has to take place to cultivate those crops is more detrimental to the environment than the raising/slaughtering of animals to get the equivalent amount of protein. You're also operating on the assumption that animal life is more important than plant life. Those assumptions are, by definition, ignorant.

 

Then, to defend vegan/vegetarianism, you're using an analogy that equates eating meat to stealing money, placing the moral qualms people have with financial theft onto the act of eating meat, which is a self-righteous strawman argument. Our bodies have physiologically evolved for hundreds of thousands of years to operate most efficiently with the consumption of meat, vegetables, fruit, and nuts. This has been proven by scientists. (as much as things can be 'proven', let's not open that philosophical debate, please)

 

But as a comedian I adore says, "there's no such thing as a vegan who doesn't let everybody know they're vegan". I know you want to evangelize your lentil diet that tastes like wet cardboard, but it's based on misinformation spread by hipsters on high horses. Now please stop calling me a thief.

 

I make no moral claims. Never once have I said one thing is morally superior to another. I'm not evangelizing my lentil diet. I posted an article about animal cruelty and then you came in and said vegetarians simply don't know better.

 

The wallet analogy wasn't about morality. It could have been about not doing any number of things, like not listening to things in headphones (which I don't do anymore, but not because I'm ignorant to its benefits)

 

And wow also can you stop being an asshole,, please? Or is it like a permanent thing?

[eugene]

animals raised for meat also eat (plants), so theoretically getting the same amount of energy from plants can't be more detrimental to env. than getting it from cows and such who sort of act as a middle man and losing their energetic value in such scheme.

 

animal are creatures that can feel pain, they have some sort of consciousness and are capable of enjoying freedom, i don't think the same can be said for plants/trees. that's why killing them for food is immoral/inhuman.

[autopilot]

Your moral claims weren't direct, they were done through implication. And you chose not to use the headphone analogy because it wouldn't have had the impact of equating eating meat with stealing money. I'm not having this discussion for the sake of being an asshole, I'm doing it for the sake of education, but since the things I'm saying don't gel with your beliefs you've now resulted to ad hominem attacks. I guess it's time to bow out of this thread. Thanks for the verbal sparring!

[autopilot]

animals raised for meat also eat (plants), so theoretically getting the same amount of energy from plants can't be more detrimental to env. than getting it from cows and such who sort of act as a middle man and losing their energetic value in such scheme.

 

animal are creatures that can feel pain, they have some sort of consciousness and are capable of enjoying freedom, i don't think the same can be said for plants/trees. that's why killing them for food is immoral/inhuman.

 

'Freedom' is a human idea that you're projecting onto animals, which is based on the assumption that they can imagine anything other than the present that they are experiencing (which is a thing only humans do). Though I really appreciate that you're using phrases like 'theoretically' and 'I don't think' instead of speaking in absolutes, as well as not implying that people who eat meat are like purse thieves.

[LimpyLoo]

I'm not having this discussion for the sake of being an asshole, I'm doing it for the sake of education, but since the things I'm saying don't gel with your beliefs you've now resulted to ad hominem attacks.

 

I can--and do--disagree with people politely. But you call vegetarians ignorant, you bring my motives into question, call me self-righteous, say:

 

But as a comedian I adore says, "there's no such thing as a vegan who doesn't let everybody know they're vegan". I know you want to evangelize your lentil diet that tastes like wet cardboard, but it's based on misinformation spread by hipsters on high horses. Now please stop calling me a thief.

 

...and then you say that I'm accusing you of ad-hominems simply because I disagree with you.

 

fucking lol innit

[autopilot]

Alright Limpy, I'll concede that my comment below the belt, but at least it was witty. Calling me an asshole & a thief is just crass. I said vegetarianism is 'nutritionally ignorant', meaning people who eat vegetarian for the sake of nutrition are misinformed, and you took it personally. I'm sorry your feelings were hurt. Frankly though, I DO think vegetarians are ignorant, because they're either doing it from a moral or a nutritional standpoint, and both of them are fallacies.

 

To further the discussion with Eugene. Animals can feel pain, yes, and cruel factory farming is terrible, and anyone who has the financial means should try to eat free range/grass fed. We're just assuming that because plants don't have localized central nervous systems that they don't want to not die, which simply isn't true. You have to kill things directly or indirectly every day to stay alive, and all the vegans/vegetarians I've interacted with have believed strongly that their preferred form of life-sustaining-death is morally superior, this thread included.

[awepittance]

is anyone else here not a vegan/vegetarian but is also horrified and disgusted by the way animals are treated in factory or mass farming?

and in response to eugene, most animals at least in the united states are fed corn stock, which yes is technically a plant but doesn't have the amount of balanced nutrition compared to naturally grazing grass eating cows or other types of grazing animals.

[eugene]

 

animals raised for meat also eat (plants), so theoretically getting the same amount of energy from plants can't be more detrimental to env. than getting it from cows and such who sort of act as a middle man and losing their energetic value in such scheme.

 

animal are creatures that can feel pain, they have some sort of consciousness and are capable of enjoying freedom, i don't think the same can be said for plants/trees. that's why killing them for food is immoral/inhuman.

'Freedom' is a human idea that you're projecting onto animals, which is based on the assumption that they can imagine anything other than the present that they are experiencing (which is a thing only humans do). Though I really appreciate that you're using phrases like 'theoretically' and 'I don't think' instead of speaking in absolutes, as well as not implying that people who eat meat are like purse thieves.

 

i think we know enough about many kinds of animals to say that freedom is better than unfreedom for them (unless they are endangered by our environments and such), they do have a purpose of sorts, they're capable of playing and enjoying themselves and they're capable of suffering as i said. to me it's enough to see veganism as morally superior.

[autopilot]

I've never personally seen cattle or poultry play, but I'll take your word for it.

[LimpyLoo]

Alright Limpy, I'll concede that my comment below the belt, but at least it was witty. Calling me an asshole & a thief is just crass. I said vegetarianism is 'nutritionally ignorant', meaning people who eat vegetarian for the sake of nutrition are misinformed, and you took it personally. I'm sorry your feelings were hurt. Frankly though, I DO think vegetarians are ignorant, because they're either doing it from a moral or a nutritional standpoint, and both of them are fallacies.

 

To further the discussion with Eugene. Animals can feel pain, yes, and cruel factory farming is terrible, and anyone who has the financial means should try to eat free range/grass fed. We're just assuming that because plants don't have localized central nervous systems that they don't want to not die, which simply isn't true. You have to kill things directly or indirectly every day to stay alive, and all the vegans/vegetarians I've interacted with have believed strongly that their preferred form of life-sustaining-death is morally superior, this thread included.

 

 

The implication that vegetarians are less informed then the general public is just completely insane.

 

It is nonsensical to call a value a 'fallacy.' If I want animals to have rights, you might disagree with me but it's a value not a factual assertion you can't disprove it.

 

Also, your attitude about knowing more than us dumb vegetarians is painfully ironic.

[autopilot]

I wouldn't try to disprove that you want animals to have rights because it's obviously true.

[LimpyLoo]

I wouldn't try to disprove that you want animals to have rights because it's obviously true.

 

And I would say there are nutritional benefits to avoiding animal products.

 

 

And I would also say that morality is based on valuation (e.g. killing humans is wrong because we value human life) and that your dismissal of animal rights even possibly being a moral concern is silly.

[sheatheman]

As a vegetarian, I am healthier/stronger than most meat eaters I know, though that may come from natural strength.

 

And Ha Ha! at the notion that soy farming is more detrimental than the cattle industry. Talk about ignorance. The VAST majority of soy output goes to feed cattle and other livestock to fatten them up for quick slaughter. A small portion ends up in tofurky and morningstar. And having to work harder in a plant based diet for protein is far better than eating quadruple the fat on the average meat diet. Most of my meals have zero fat. That fat I do get is from dairy, eggs, (which I pay as much as I can afford for), and avocado, plus small amounts of oil some meals.

 

The global corporations of today have worked hard over the past fifty years to convince hundreds of millions of people that they need to eat beef and chicken every single day. You see, it isn't for the nutritional benefits -- you can live off of 60g of protein a day easily, all of which can easily be gotten by mixed grains and fruits and greens -- it's about selling psychological wellness to the masses. You think you need meat because that's just what they want. Cute of you.

 

I have no problem with animal husbandry, as this was intended, but the issue is that everything is a commodity, and life should not be treated like stock. It's deeper than a moral issue, it's a spiritual one.

 

I don't have a problem with eating meat either, but we need something of the Old World model, where mostly it is each person that is responsible for her/his own animals. Less specialization will be required in the coming decades, and more self reliance.

[doublename]

I stopped eating meat so I wouldn't have to click links like the you've posted. I'm sure it's all very upsetting.