Slaughtering and eating cats (NSFW?)

[Robert_S]

It really is bizarre how certain meat produce works out cheaper than plain veggie food. When you consider the amount of time and resources that go into producing a hamburger versus those that go into producing a meal-sized amount of pasta, or beans, or whatever, it is deeply counter-intuitive and a bit suspect that the latter should wind up costing more than the former.

Do you have agriculture subsidies in the UK?

[Pappa]

It's probably more to do with the cost of processing. Plants grown to feed livestock go through much less processing than those that go into human foods. Plus the animals are likely fed lower quality stuff that doesn't meet our aesthetic standards.

[lordpasternack]

It's probably more to do with the cost of processing. Plants grown to feed livestock go through much less processing than those that go into human foods. Plus the animals are likely fed lower quality stuff that doesn't meet our aesthetic standards.

When I say resources, I don't just mean physical food - I mean land, water, everything that goes into raising animals versus raising vegetation for human consumption.

[Robert_S]

It's probably more to do with the cost of processing. Plants grown to feed livestock go through much less processing than those that go into human foods. Plus the animals are likely fed lower quality stuff that doesn't meet our aesthetic standards.

When I say resources, I don't just mean physical food - I mean land, water, everything that goes into raising animals versus raising vegetation for human consumption.

That's why I asked about subsidies. Sometimes governments support one means of farming over another, leading to shelf priced that do not reflect the economic cost of the item.

Also, some hilly and/or rocky soil is not really great for raising food crops but makes decent pasture.

My answer? Oh I'm sorry, her I thought you were the one trying to make a case for stopping something we as a species have been doing for centuries, so I assumed you are the one that has to bring a valid argument to the table.

If we hadn't been eating meat for centuries (many, many centuries) and someone proposed we start, would that change the moral perspective of it?

[lordpasternack]

My answer? Oh I'm sorry, her I thought you were the one trying to make a case for stopping something we as a species have been doing for centuries, so I assumed you are the one that has to bring a valid argument to the table.

If we hadn't been eating meat for centuries (many, many centuries) and someone proposed we start, would that change the moral perspective of it?

Of course! That's why old myths are valued over new myths, and we tolerated slavery and misogyny when it was established, and why we turn a blind eye to people cutting bits off their kids' genitals, while, if some person just had the idea, they'd be sent for a term in prison and some talking with a mental health professional.

[leo-rcc]

My answer? Oh I'm sorry, her I thought you were the one trying to make a case for stopping something we as a species have been doing for centuries, so I assumed you are the one that has to bring a valid argument to the table.

If we hadn't been eating meat for centuries (many, many centuries) and someone proposed we start, would that change the moral perspective of it?

If we hadn't been eating meat for many many centuries, we wouldn't even be able to have a moral perspective. Our brain developed the way it did because we do eat meat.

[lordpasternack]

If we hadn't been eating meat for many many centuries, we wouldn't even be able to have a moral perspective. Our brain developed the way it did because we do eat meat.

[citation needed]

Also - what is the point of that statement?

[leo-rcc]

Hi Rob,

Leo, I can't say I get your point. You question why we should value the manner in which we eat as ethical?

I have no point to make. I am not the one making an argument on why people should eat meat, I asked a question what sentience such a big deal, to which all I got in return is rethoric and dodging and returning the question and villification. Hell, you provided a better answer that she did.

It's quite easy to understand, just like it's easy to know why people boycott certain products that are produced through the misfortune and suffering of others. I think you are fully capable of understanding each proposition.

But that is not an argument against eating meat, just the methodology to which this meat is obtained is it not?

[leo-rcc]

Hi Rob,

Leo, I can't say I get your point. You question why we should value the manner in which we eat as ethical?

I have no point to make. I am not the one making an argument on why people should eat meat, I asked a question what sentience such a big deal, to which all I got in return is rethoric and dodging and returning the question and villification. Hell, you provided a better answer that she did.

It's quite easy to understand, just like it's easy to know why people boycott certain products that are produced through the misfortune and suffering of others. I think you are fully capable of understanding each proposition.

But that is not an argument against eating meat, just the methodology to which this meat is obtained is it not?

[leo-rcc]

If we hadn't been eating meat for many many centuries, we wouldn't even be able to have a moral perspective. Our brain developed the way it did because we do eat meat.

[citation needed]

Also - what is the point of that statement?

http://jn.nutrition.org/content/133/11/3886S.short

And answering a question when posed to me, try it some time.

[lordpasternack]

I did answer you, Leo. I told you why sentience matters - and no, you still haven't answered other questions I asked you.

[lordpasternack]

If we hadn't been eating meat for many many centuries, we wouldn't even be able to have a moral perspective. Our brain developed the way it did because we do eat meat.

[citation needed]

Also - what is the point of that statement?

http://jn.nutrition.org/content/133/11/3886S.short

And answering a question when posed to me, try it some time.

Well it's an interesting hypothesis.

And what is your broader point, if there is any?

[leo-rcc]

If we hadn't been eating meat for many many centuries, we wouldn't even be able to have a moral perspective. Our brain developed the way it did because we do eat meat.

[citation needed]

Also - what is the point of that statement?

http://jn.nutrition.org/content/133/11/3886S.short

And answering a question when posed to me, try it some time.

Well it's an interesting hypothesis.

And what is your broader point, if there is any?

There is none. As I stated earlier.

[lordpasternack]

There is none. As I stated earlier.

Good-o.

[Robert_S]

Here's a new angle:

Suppose we find an ecologically friendly way to raise and slaughter a food animal where there is no suffering, but as near as we can tell a pretty joyful life until one day, completely unexpectedly and not long before the animal's inherent maximum life span, it is peacefully and painlessly killed and turned into delicious meat.

Also, due to the economics of the situation, these animals would never come into existence were it not for the meat that they turn into.

What are the ethics of that situation? We bring an animal into existence and support it until say... the last 5-10% of it's natural life at which point it merely stops experiencing things.

I can't think of much to criticize in that, but something still bothers me just a little. Maybe it is because it still involves taking life which may be a bad habit for us to maintain.