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

    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

    • KrasMazovThought [comrade/them]
      ·
      4 years ago

      We can’t humanize/personify animals

      We're not.

      and then neglect to apply that framework & expectations of moral behavior from animals themselves

      Not eating animals does not require any humanizing or personifying animals.

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

        I agree we aren't

        Not eating animals does not require more than the valid personal decision to not eat animals

        • KrasMazovThought [comrade/them]
          ·
          4 years ago

          Not eating animals does not require more than the valid personal decision to not eat animals

          Right, and also refraining from eating animals as an ethical decision does not require animals following along.

            • KrasMazovThought [comrade/them]
              ·
              4 years ago

              “you can’t humanize/personify non-human animals using this ethical framework and then neglect applying that framework to animals themselves."

              Let's break down the ideas, bit by bit.

              you can’t humanize/personify non-human animals

              1.a. We don't need to humanize or personify non-human animals.

              using this ethical framework

              1.b. The framework here is understood to mean refraining from eating other animals.

              and then neglect applying that framework to animals themselves

              2) Animals must apply the framework to themselves if we are to keep the framework (1.b) of not eating animals. You then illustrate in your next sentence, (2.a) "should we shame the cow or show them how much more ethical it would’ve been to not eat the baby chick?"

              The rhetorical answer to this question is we shouldn't shame a cow for eating a chick. The effect of this is to reinforce the clauses outlined above, which connect the act of not eating the animal (1.b ) with humanizing or personifying the animal (1.a), resulting in the scenario that animals would have to follow human morality (2) as illustrated by 2.a (shaming cows for eating chicks).

              If either of my summaries of 1.a, 1.b or 2 are incorrect readings of the points outlined, please clarify.

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

                I am saying we don't need to humanize or personify non-human animals. That's all I've said this whole time. No, the framework is not understood to mean that, it's understood to mean the personifying & humanizing & essentializing of human-human ethical considerations within animal behaviors.

                I said we shouldn't shame a cow for eating a chick, because I think it's silly to do so. And you agree that we shouldn't do that.

                You've already said that you don't personify/humanize animals, and then you said that you don't apply those ethical frameworks to animals.

                So right now, you're hand-waving & deflecting & trying to make an enormous ordeal out of agreeing with me

                • KrasMazovThought [comrade/them]
                  ·
                  4 years ago

                  When you said "you can't humanize/personify non-human animals using this ethical framework, and not apply it to animals themselves" and then provide an example of shaming a cow for eating a chick, you are in fact not saying that refraining from eating animals requires animals to be shamed for the same.

                  So your position is that it can be ethical to not eat animals and this would not require animals to have the same morality.

                  I haven't the time or inclination to track down any of the other myriad errors in labyrinthine side points, but the acknowledgement that we could hold the ethical principles not to eat animals without requiring animals to have the same principle is sufficient.

                  If the statement "you can't humanize/personify non-human animals using this ethical framework, and not apply it to animals themselves" is unrelated to not eating animals, this is a significant error in communication.

                  You can attempt to protest here that it was somehow clear, but a quick review of the number of other people who interpreted your statement that way coupled with the lack of any coherent rejoinder to this objection suggests some self-work in your communication skills would benefit you greatly. The other option is to insist everyone misinterpreting your statement has the issue, and not your communication, which would also recommend some interpersonal development.

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

                    I said you can't humanize or personify non-humans animals, and you agreed with me. Then I said we can't apply human-human ethical frameworks to animal behaviors, and you agreed with that also. I didn't provide the example. The example is literally the video in OP's link.

                    My position is that it's not unethical to not eat animals, but shaming others who do is also not constructive or consistent.

                    You seem to have a lot of time to agree with me & spin your wheels here, and yet it was only you and one other person who misinterpreted what I said. You doubled down on this misinterpretation, and then tripled down. Yet my original statement still holds, mostly because you agreed with it in different places.

                    You are making significant errors in communication by dragging this simple exchange over several days to nitpick a statement that you've agreed with in multiple previous messages. I know you're here in bad faith, but your faux-pedantic "exacting logician scold" schtick really isn't moving the meter here.

                    I haven't protested anything, you're still just making sure that the miscommunication is furthered here by wagging your finger and pretending you're offering legitimate criticism or good natured correction. You admit you didn't read what I've said correctly, and yet still try to project that onto me lol.

                    "self-work"? is that you just being silly now? If you didn't have all this time to belabor one sentence that you are purposely misreading, then I would almost think you were trolling.