Cow eating chicken
youtu.be

The video is to prove a point really fast, but, cows actually do only eat proteins. They have three stomachs that they use to feed grass to bacterial colonies, which they then pull into their fourth stomach to eat, with any of the grass that's left un-eaten by the bacteria being shit straight out without being processed any further. They don't eat the grass, the grass is there to feed what they do eat, which is supplemented by eating any large animal small enough to fit in their mouth. I read a study once that almost all cows when dissected had at least 1 animal in their digestive system at a time.

The notion that cows are good peaceful harmless herbivores who eat nothing but grass is nonsense. Here's a video of a cow eating the corpse of a donkey. Of note: there's grass right next to the body. And it isn't just a result of cows being fucked up by human domestication, wild deer (who you cannot blame on humans malnourishing it or contaminating its feed or whatever) do it too.

constructing an elaborate worldview out of a kindergarten level understanding of biology and then getting extremely smug about it annoys me relentlessly. Cows would eat you if they had the chance

  • volkvulture [none/use name]
    ·
    4 years ago

    I'm not arguing about the morality of eating animals either, I am simply responding to your misinterpretations of what I've said.

    I also never said anything about animals needing to do or become something in order to have moral considerations from humans. I said the opposite, and you still seem to be stuck on your misinterpretation of what I said. I said that animals deserve to have moral considerations & deserve to not be abused or subjected to excessive mistreatment from humans. But requiring humans to not eat the animals they typically hunt or raise for meat is not a moral consideration that is universal or scalable to all of humankind.

    Never questioned or downplayed the individual's validity in choosing to not eat meat. Nor do I think meat-eaters should shame vegans.

    I agree that it doesn't follow that animals require human-equivalent morality. Also that interpersonal stigma and trying to shame others into never eating animals is not an effective or coherent approach

    • KrasMazovThought [comrade/them]
      ·
      4 years ago

      I agree that it doesn’t follow that animals require human-equivalent morality.

      If that's in agreement, then we can see that the assertion “you can’t humanize/personify non-human animals using this ethical framework and then neglect applying that framework to animals themselves," is incorrect because "it doesn't follow that animals require human-equivalent morality." It is in fact possible to treat animals in an ethical framework without having to apply that human framework between animals. You even provide an example of an ethical framework you expect of humans towards animals ("not to be abused or subjected to excessive mistreatment") which does not then require "applying that framework to animals themselves."

      • volkvulture [none/use name]
        ·
        4 years ago

        You again are misinterpreting what I've said here. We can't humanize non-human animals, nor apply human-human morality to animal ethical concerns, and this is largely but not totally due to the fact that animals aren't subject to human interpersonal/cultural, jurisprudential, or legal ethics.

        I agree it's possible to treat animals ethically with regard to human-animal morality, and it remains true that applying a "human framework" isn't relevant in this instance.

        Yes, I do expect animals to not attack or be violent toward humans (while realizing these animals do not operate or make decisions on the same ethical/rational level as humans). I also said that animals that do attack humans are usually & justifiably removed or forcibly prevented from repeating such attacks. They also aren't subject to criminal prosecution or human morality in these instances.

        So I am still not sure what you're contending with exactly, outside of your mischaracterizations of what I've said

        • KrasMazovThought [comrade/them]
          ·
          4 years ago

          We can’t humanize non-human animals, nor apply human-human morality to animal ethical concerns, and this is largely but not totally due to the fact that animals aren’t subject to human cultural, jurisprudential, or legal ethics.

          Okay, but as we know, not eating an animal is *not * the same as humanizing them or applying human-human morality.

          I agree it’s possible to treat animals ethically with regard to human-animal morality, and it remains true that applying a “human framework” isn’t relevant in this instance.

          So if (just as a possibility) it was ethical to refrain from eating animals, this would not require animals themselves to refrain from eating animals. This is in opposition to the assertion “you can’t humanize/personify non-human animals using this ethical framework and then neglect applying that framework to animals themselves."

          • volkvulture [none/use name]
            ·
            4 years ago

            Consciously choosing to not eat animals isn't the same as humanizing them, I agree. I also think it's a perfectly valid personal decision based on personal calculations

            Your hypothetical seems strangely generous to your own position. Can we also imagine (just as a possibility) that it is amoral or not always unethical for humans to eat animals?

            Either hypothetical is not in opposition to my assertion.

            • KrasMazovThought [comrade/them]
              ·
              4 years ago

              Your hypothetical seems strangely generous to your own position. Can we also imagine (just as a possibility) that it is amoral or not always unethical for humans to eat animals?

              We could absolutely assume as a hypothetical the position it's in fact a moral good to eat animals.

              Okay, now we've considered it.

              Back to the question of whether it's true that “you can’t humanize/personify non-human animals using this ethical framework and then neglect applying that framework to animals themselves." It is not. If we take the hypothetical position for argument's sake that eating animals *was * ethically bad, it does not follow that we would then have to apply the framework eating animals is bad to animals themselves.

              • volkvulture [none/use name]
                ·
                4 years ago

                We are not taking your hypothetical position for argument's sake though, that's why we're discussing this

                • KrasMazovThought [comrade/them]
                  ·
                  4 years ago

                  We are not taking your hypothetical position for argument’s sake though, that’s why we’re discussing this

                  No, as I've said repeatedly I am not actually debating whether eating animal meat is good or not. I'm arguing that it does not follow that for animals to be an object of human ethical consideration animals themselves must follow this morality, in contradistinction to your statement “you can’t humanize/personify non-human animals using this ethical framework and then neglect applying that framework to animals themselves." The hypothetical only illustrates by substitution that the logical form remains valid and the assertion that the same framework must apply to animals is false.

                  • volkvulture [none/use name]
                    ·
                    4 years ago

                    We can't humanize/personify animals and then neglect to apply that framework & expectations of moral behavior from animals themselves. You've already said that you don't personify animals, and then you also said that you don't expect animals to behave under human moral limitations. So you've agreed with the statement in your responses

                    Therefore, the statement still stands