But they are so cute :(
That is a flawed argument for a few reasons:
No, you're correct, things die for us to live. What's questionable is how they are grown and how they die before coming onto the plate. You're avoiding the meat of the question o_o.
No, but Western culinary techniques basically consist of covering everything in sauce, so there's basically no difference between meats. But hey, if this statement generates more anger than the one of a well respected, donating member who says meat is great, suffering be damned, bring on the smites!
Agreed! Let's go get on top of that cloning research! :D
Woaah, hold up there.
Except you know, the article kind of points out that there's this little chemical the plants exude whenever damaged to try and "call" for other creatures to assist it, that certain plants react to disease and damage in a similar manner, et cetera. It's really interesting, you should try reading it.
Fruits have evolved such a mechanism to spread seeds via providing sustenance with packages grown specifically for that purpose. In essence: An apple tree makes apples because it's mutually beneficial to the recipient (who eats it) and the deliverer (the seeds which then proceed to propagate more of itself). The apple tree still protests (in its own limited fashion) being consumed itself.
Come on.
Except human beings are intelligent, sentient entities that are capable of verbally communicating their case. Also this little thing called empathy, makes us not want to eat each other, normally.
True, but I don't advocate for the suffering of animals. You'll note that I advocate for animals (especially ones we breed specifically to consume) to have at least some basic rights, so they can live with some level of comfort. Then when the killing time comes, make it quick and clean so they don't suffer before we eat them. They can feel pain, and I can understand that.
Please don't. This isn't the thread to bring that back up.
So what you're saying is...
That's not why he's respected at all.
I didn't avoid anything. I chose not to beat the dead horse that others have already commented on. I like meat. I will continue to eat it, regardless of how it arrives at my plate. Would I prefer things be done in a less cruel manner? Yes. But not to the point where I would willingly accept a substantial increase in the cost of my food. There are mitigating circumstances and choices to be made.
It's really cute how you decided to drag that up again, but the answer is none at all. That was something I decided on without the need of any philosophical crutch to lean on. In fact, if anything, it was science that pushed me to those thoughts.
Not for no reason. I have two reasons, in fact. First, I find it to be far more productive to cut to the chase and lay it all out on the table from the start rather than hedging around things and phrasing it softly. If I think something in harsh terms, screw it, I'll use the harsh terms. Second, it makes discussions far more entertaining as it tends to push others into also being blunt with their opinions in response to me. I like open and honest discussion about things a lot better than fucking around with trying to couch everything in socially acceptable terms. I could have said something along the lines of "I know they do bad things to animals bred for food, but I like meat and I don't have the money to afford organic and grass-fed meat." Would've been the same base message, but it would have been boring.
That's not the point. Where does one draw the line at what is acceptable to eat and what isn't? There is conflicting moral philosophy everywhere. I'm sure many people in this thread would not want to eat humans. It is obviously 'wrong'. Yet as you have provided evidence for, there are cultures that exist out there where things like this are OK.
Anymore than boiling it alive?
You got me! He would enjoy the delicious meat even more if suffering was shown to produce tastier meat. But he doesn't actually endorse suffering, he just wants the most delicious meat possible. Dogs are frequently beaten and tortured to make their meat taste better. If the meat tasted delicious to you, would you not care? Or is that hitting a little too close to home?
Cells do all the same things too. Do cells feel pain? This is the same leap you made from animals to plants. That plants exhibit complex biochemical responses to stimuli is not disputed, but giving those responses anthropomorphic terms like 'pain' or 'begging' is dishonest. Evolving the ability to feel pain with no way to avoid it doesn't confer much evolutionary advantage, especially if you 'think' on timescales hundreds of times longer than your predators.
You can buy nutritionally complete, vegetarian Soylent for $3 a serving. Humans have had a vegetarian culture since the ancient times. There is choice. But your value system is different - you simply enjoy the taste of meat and the economic pricing to not care if an animal suffered or not. I claim you lack empathy.
Okay, look.
Just because it isn't okay, doesn't mean we won't do it. We have stated that it is in large part due to apathy that we lack these moral qualms. As I have said, I empathize with animals up until they die. Essentially, I fall victim to the sin of sloth—it is easier not to care where the meat comes from.
