It's very easy to write ethical questions off as nonsense. That's what the right does when discussion of trans identity come up, that's what they do when discussion of black reparations come up. They're conversations that lack logic to them because they have never been made to consider them before, not in school, not by their peers.
I would challenge that the battery cages that house five chickens in a square meter for their entire lives are a bit more than loose restrictions on their freedom. I think it would be a struggle to find and manage a system that places greater restriction, since capitalism would have been incentivized to do it.
This comes back to just having the knowledge of what I'm talking about here, look at this clip of what a battery cage is: https://youtu.be/LQRAfJyEsko?t=1583
And then let me know if you consider this loose restriction on freedom. I think the cages are the main reason for their suffering here.
You need to ask yourself what thinking is behind the thought that humans have the inherent right to not be enslaved over an animal. It certainly wasn't always that way, and isn't in many places still. That's what we're talking about, so to reference it as a forgone conclusion without justifying it skips over the point of the discussion and the question.
Laws define ethics now? I'm certain that police brutality has a legal definition, but doesn't actually define it properly in our legal system, does it? Definitions are defined at some point by people, they are not immutable. The person who had to define it before you had to have reasoning, and that's the same reasoning you need to explain here to justify the definition.
Did you think I was arguing "putting the cheese in the mouth" was the ethical issue? You're right of course, at that point it's just cheese.
But purchasing those things creates the demand that someone somewhere has to put a living being through torture, a horrible life in a warehouse having child after child stripped away. And if you value the capacity for empathy of a whale, it's the same for a cow.
Other animals don't need to have the same concept of sexuality as people in order to be raped, I hope that's clear enough. We have animal cruelty laws against our pets for a reason. It may not be a sexual violation to them, but it is still physical harm. It is exploitation of another being that suffers.
If you did watch the standardized process of how we produce these things, which I've linked twice now, I think that more than sufficiently demonstrates harm. If the harm shocks you, maybe that says something about you, because there's no other way to present it. The machine lines of individual animals having their throats slit, dipped alive into boiling water, the cows struggling in the pens to avoid another bolt shot into their skulls.
And for what? A meat we can mimic with soy or pea protein? A cheese we can mimic with cashews? There's no rationalizing it.
I have a strong feeling you didn't watch it, and I can't make you, but it would give your arguments a lot stronger ground if you have the full knowledge of what you're talking about in the future.
It's very easy to write ethical questions off as nonsense. That's what the right does when discussion of trans identity come up, that's what they do when discussion of black reparations come up. They're conversations that lack logic to them because they have never been made to consider them before, not in school, not by their peers.
I would challenge that the battery cages that house five chickens in a square meter for their entire lives are a bit more than loose restrictions on their freedom. I think it would be a struggle to find and manage a system that places greater restriction, since capitalism would have been incentivized to do it.
This comes back to just having the knowledge of what I'm talking about here, look at this clip of what a battery cage is: https://youtu.be/LQRAfJyEsko?t=1583
And then let me know if you consider this loose restriction on freedom. I think the cages are the main reason for their suffering here.
You need to ask yourself what thinking is behind the thought that humans have the inherent right to not be enslaved over an animal. It certainly wasn't always that way, and isn't in many places still. That's what we're talking about, so to reference it as a forgone conclusion without justifying it skips over the point of the discussion and the question.
Laws define ethics now? I'm certain that police brutality has a legal definition, but doesn't actually define it properly in our legal system, does it? Definitions are defined at some point by people, they are not immutable. The person who had to define it before you had to have reasoning, and that's the same reasoning you need to explain here to justify the definition.
deleted by creator
If you're acknowledging that eating meat and dairy is cruelty, and wrong, then what argument is there left to have? We agree.
Everyone, including the two of us, should stop creating the demand for those products.
Removed by mod
Did you think I was arguing "putting the cheese in the mouth" was the ethical issue? You're right of course, at that point it's just cheese.
But purchasing those things creates the demand that someone somewhere has to put a living being through torture, a horrible life in a warehouse having child after child stripped away. And if you value the capacity for empathy of a whale, it's the same for a cow.
Other animals don't need to have the same concept of sexuality as people in order to be raped, I hope that's clear enough. We have animal cruelty laws against our pets for a reason. It may not be a sexual violation to them, but it is still physical harm. It is exploitation of another being that suffers.
If you did watch the standardized process of how we produce these things, which I've linked twice now, I think that more than sufficiently demonstrates harm. If the harm shocks you, maybe that says something about you, because there's no other way to present it. The machine lines of individual animals having their throats slit, dipped alive into boiling water, the cows struggling in the pens to avoid another bolt shot into their skulls.
And for what? A meat we can mimic with soy or pea protein? A cheese we can mimic with cashews? There's no rationalizing it.
I have a strong feeling you didn't watch it, and I can't make you, but it would give your arguments a lot stronger ground if you have the full knowledge of what you're talking about in the future.