1.) That theory is hardly unequivocal or air-tight.
Sure, like most theories I would doubt that it’s uneqivocal as well. It’s just something I’ve herd. Personally, I hope it’s not true and someone can prove it because I’ve seen it as an excuse for modern-day meat eating.
2.) Even if it were true: My ancestors have done a lot of onerous shit that has in some way led to me being who I am and enjoying what privileges I enjoy. That doesn’t mean that I feel I have carte blanche to commit that same onerous shit.
I agree. I hope we start to use these brains we’re endowed with and evolve past our bad habits that aren’t sustainable and/or cruel.
I also agree with you that rape is bad as well whether that be of other humans or barnyard animals.
Speaking of theories, I wonder if the human race would have evolved differently without meat eating? Perhaps our brains would have evolved slower, but at a better pace to foster more intelligent behavior in the long run?
Maybe other civilizations in other worlds are far more advanced and peaceful than us simply because they never ate the flesh of other sentient beings?
Maybe the true forbidden fruit was the flesh of animals and we’d be less warlike and self-destructive today if we’d never gone that route?
Maybe I’m pondering all this because I ate that chicken earlier along with a sugar chaser consisting of coffee froyo?
I mentioned to a friend back east that the local coyotes frequently snacked on domestic cats.
She wanted to know if I could send her a breeding pair, to introduce in a bird sanctuary she volunteered for. The feral cats were taking a toll, and she figured they needed a natural enemy more reliable than cars.
The cartoon is based on a false dilemma - it’s perfectly consistent to value animal welfare and eat meat, as long as it’s humanely sourced. The problem with many vegetarian or vegan screeds is that they confuse zeal with morality and choose ad hominems over a more nuanced argument.
I’ve always argued that abattoirs should be open to the public, because - like courts and legislatures - they are both a significant part of our lives and need to held accountable. Granted, watching animals get slaughtered might make some people run away screaming from meat, but these are the same people who would otherwise nosh through tons of it with nary a thought as to where it comes from. The flipside would be a far more informed debate on both sides and more humane practices being imposed on the meat industry - we would be watching, you see.
Not me - I eat animals for sustenance, and I cry every time I do so, my tears naturally seasoning it.
Seriously though, cows and chickens only exist in their present form because we bred them for one purpose. I don’t think you can even find wild cows anymore, and if you did they still wouldn’t be like their original non-domesticated selves.
In other words, we put those animals on the planet for a purpose. Let them live out to fulfill their purpose.
The difference between causing a death indirectly and directly causing it is what philosophers call the Trolley Problem. Basically, the argument is if an out-of-control trolley had to run over 5 people or 1 person depending on what track it went down, most people think it would be okay to switch to the 1-person track. But if it were a case of pushing one person in front of the trolley to save the 5 people by killing him, most people would say that was wrong, even though it is another case of sacrificing one person to save 5.
Anyway, I didn’t see the strip as an argument for veganism or vegetarianism. I saw it as focused solidly on the “No animals were harmed in the making of this motion picture” statement. Whether you think it’s OK to eat meat or not, that statement is a big, fat lie, and one that has bothered me before.
In a way the people who say factory farming is OK are more logically and ethically consistent; they say that animals are ours to do with as we please, so it’s OK to eat them and OK to treat them poorly. It may be a shitty position, but it’s consistent.
Your position seems to be that we must give animals enough moral consideration to treat them well, but give them so little moral consideration that we can kill them unnecessarily. If you think you have a solid argument for that position, would you mind presenting it?
Well, it’s consistent, and I also advocate better standards.
Your position seems to be that we must give animals enough moral consideration to treat them well, but give them so little moral consideration that we can kill them unnecessarily.
What’s unnecessary about eating meat?
If you think you have a solid argument for that position, would you mind presenting it?
Yes, I can live with eating humanely sourced meat. I don’t eat all animals, and I reserve the right to make value judgements accordingly.
After repeating “Bacon is a vegetable” enough times, my wife has finally accepted it as true…
I used to be completely veggie (with the bacon exception). We are now lacto-ovo-pesca-(baco)-vegetarians… 90+%veggie
