| Spud McLaren
|
| 915160. Fri Jun 08, 2012 7:43 am |
 |
|
| exnihilo wrote: | | I think all the lines anyone draws are artificial and more than a little hypocritical. I eat animals, that's it. |
Of course they're artificial - there's no physical line there. And hypocritical? I think you're right; if we weren't hypocritical in some way, we'd be eating each other.
The line, however artificial, has to be drawn somewhere; and, the law permitting, each of us must individually draw the line where he or she sees fit. |
|
|
|
 |
| filofax
|
| 915162. Fri Jun 08, 2012 7:54 am |
|
|
I also agree with artificial, but not hypocritical. One definition of the term is:
'Hypocrisy is the state of pretending to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that one does not actually have. Hypocrisy involves the deception of others and is thus a kind of lie.' (OK Wikepedia definition, but pretty much seems to cover it)
Well I agree with pretty much everything Leith says (except the kiwi fruit), but these are my own personal morals which I do not seek to impose on anyone else. Nor do secretly sneak home and gorge on live octopus lightly spread with fois gras.
If you know what you believe, and you live by it, and you don't try to foist it off on others while secretly doing something else, then surely that's pretty consistent.
You can tell me that's it's arbitrary, but so what? I have to define my own morality, and decide where the lines are. |
|
|
|
|
| dr.bob
|
| 915172. Fri Jun 08, 2012 8:42 am |
|
|
| filofax wrote: | | If you know what you believe, and you live by it, and you don't try to foist it off on others while secretly doing something else, then surely that's pretty consistent. |
For me the problem comes with trying to live by what you believe.
For instance, I used to be vegetarian. I chose to be so because I objected to the mistreatment of animals.
Except I still drank milk and ate eggs, both of which involve some level of killing animals (baby cows or baby male chickens).
Some vegans object to eating honey for they feel that bees are exploited in its manufacture, yet they still (as far as I'm aware) eat fruit despite most large fruit producers driving lorry loads of bees in especially to pollinate the fruit trees/bushes/whatever.
So I think its quite common for people to have a set of beliefs which they are not 100% rigorous about putting into practise. Especially in these days where random foodstuffs turn up in the most unexpected places.
| filofax wrote: | | You can tell me that's it's arbitrary, but so what? I have to define my own morality, and decide where the lines are. |
I think anyone's dietary choices are pretty arbitrary unless they actively eat literally anything. |
|
|
|
|
| exnihilo
|
| 915174. Fri Jun 08, 2012 8:44 am |
|
|
| It's hypocritical because it's presented as caring about the animals' welfare where what it really is is salving one's own conscience. If people truly cared about the animal they would eschew meat and other animal by-products not just give it a back rub before shooting a steel bolt into its brain. |
|
|
|
|
| dr.bob
|
| 915179. Fri Jun 08, 2012 8:56 am |
|
|
| exnihilo wrote: | | If people truly cared about the animal they would eschew meat and other animal by-products |
Is that really true?
Imagine for a moment I care deeply about the welfare of cows. What's the best way to make sure they get the best kind of life?
Surely, if everyone became vegetarian and stopped eating beef, cows would no longer be farmed. If they're not farmed, for one thing there'd be a fuck of a lot less of them. I'm not sure how cows would be able to fend for themselves in the wild, but would a struggle to exist in a harsh world full of predators and lacking in food really be a nicer existence than living on a farm where someone always makes sure you've got enough to eat, builds a shed for you to shelter from the bad weather, and calls the vet if you develop an infection? |
|
|
|
|
| exnihilo
|
| 915181. Fri Jun 08, 2012 8:57 am |
|
|
| You tell me. I'll do all those things for you then one day kill and eat you. How does the wild look now? |
|
|
|
|
| filofax
|
| 915184. Fri Jun 08, 2012 8:59 am |
|
|
Yes, you have a point, but don't you think someone can quite reasonably say that they will eat meat, but that they draw the line at gratuitous cruelty?
By your definition, every single action we take would be hypocritical, from giving to charity to deciding where we buy our clothes.
It is impossible to live ones life without in some way impacting on other species or indeed on other humans, we must each decide what we feel is personally acceptable. Is that necessarily 'salving our own conscience' or is it simply doing what you can realistically? |
|
|
|
|
| aTao
|
| 915188. Fri Jun 08, 2012 9:16 am |
|
|
| The cows dont give a toss about being dead, its one of the things being dead is good for. Also the commercial process of becoming dead is of no concern to the animal, so whats the problem, the cows dont care. Meantime, while they are alive they have a pretty cushy number. |
|
|
|
|
| Spud McLaren
|
| 915196. Fri Jun 08, 2012 9:44 am |
|
|
| Depends at what point you mean. I used to work for a firm of auctioneers who participated in Derby cattle market, which was right next door to the abbatoir. If the cows, sheep, or whatever were loaded into a wagon for the very short journey next door, they knew where they were, and why. They might not be up to Godel's theorem, but they're not daft. |
|
|
|
|
| dr.bob
|
| 915199. Fri Jun 08, 2012 9:54 am |
|
|
| exnihilo wrote: | | You tell me. I'll do all those things for you then one day kill and eat you. How does the wild look now? |
To be perfectly honest, still not that great.
I'll spend pretty much my whole life hungry and terrified. If I get killed by a predator I'll die a long, lingering death as they either choke the life out of me or simply eat me whilst I'm still alive. If I get some horrible infection, with no antibiotics to clear it up I'm likely to die an even longer and more lingering death.
Personally, I'm very glad I don't have to choose between those two options but, if I did, I can't honestly say which one I'd go for. |
|
|
|
|
| Spud McLaren
|
| 915202. Fri Jun 08, 2012 9:58 am |
|
|
| dr.bob wrote: | | I'm not sure how cows would be able to fend for themselves in the wild, but would a struggle to exist in a harsh world full of predators and lacking in food ... |
Purely as an aside and apropos of nothing, I'm wordering how the few cows left would fare in the wild in the UK. Which predators would be powerful enough to bother them? |
|
|
|
|
| aTao
|
| 915208. Fri Jun 08, 2012 10:12 am |
|
|
| Spud McLaren wrote: | | Depends at what point you mean. I used to work for a firm of auctioneers who participated in Derby cattle market, which was right next door to the abbatoir. If the cows, sheep, or whatever were loaded into a wagon for the very short journey next door, they knew where they were, and why. They might not be up to Godel's theorem, but they're not daft. |
I now work on a cattle farm and have taken beasts to the abattoir, I know when a beast is worried or pissed off and that they can and will jump a 7 foot gate if they feel threatened. If everyone is doing their job properly there is no hint of any anxiety. If you have seen problems, I suggest you look at the handling procedures.
While animals can "smell death" the source of the smell is an object of curiosity, not consternation. The knackers truck and the fridge lorry bringing the carcases back from the abattoir will have the cows lined up at the fence to watch, not running in panic. |
|
|
|
|
| Spud McLaren
|
| 915210. Fri Jun 08, 2012 10:18 am |
|
|
| aTao wrote: | | If you have seen problems, I suggest you look at the handling procedures. |
We're talking over 30 years ago and back then there were always problems in the handling procedures. I'm not in any position now to know whether procedures have improved or not.
| aTao wrote: | | While animals can "smell death" the source of the smell is an object of curiosity, not consternation. |
Depends on the circumstances. In the circumstances I outlined above, that certainly wasn't my experience. |
|
|
|
|
| cornixt
|
| 915226. Fri Jun 08, 2012 11:03 am |
|
|
| exnihilo wrote: | | It's hypocritical because it's presented as caring about the animals' welfare where what it really is is salving one's own conscience. If people truly cared about the animal they would eschew meat and other animal by-products not just give it a back rub before shooting a steel bolt into its brain. |
I don't think I ever said that I truly cared about an animal, just that I don't want it to unduly suffer so that I can eat it. The amount of suffering that I personally think is okay is going to be different from everyone else's, and it is pretty arbitrary, based purely on my knowledge and experiences.
Does it salve my conscience to have this arbitrary line? Yes, in the same way that it salves the conscience of many others to not think about where their food comes from. Does it make me better than them? Maybe. Does it make me as good as someone who eschews all animal products? Maybe not. But I have found a position I am comfortable with, that's all I can say. |
|
|
|
|
| exnihilo
|
| 915231. Fri Jun 08, 2012 11:16 am |
|
|
| Comfortable with saying that where your line is is where it should be for all, and that people who have no qualms about foie gras can just lump it? |
|
|
|
|
