Meat-Eating vs. Bestiality

[Brickjectivity]

I think I count 4 categories of arguments about vegetarianism:

Some of the arguments against meat eating presume animals are equal to us. For example arguing that a cow's life of 20 years is being cut short seems like an equality based argument. It argues that a cow's life matters, not merely the quality of it.

Some arguments against meat eating presume we should be kind to animals. So these are like arguments about the inhumane nature of the beef and chicken industries. These don't presume that the lives of animals matter but that their suffering matters.

Some arguments against meat eating focus on problems with the food chain, such as diseases, human digestion,, food supply problems and environmental challenges.

Some arguments against meat eating are emotionally based. All cows are like puppies and kitty cats. Chickens are like Woodstock.

 

[Aquitaine]

What about the ethical reasons for being against meat consumption such as all the food it wastes?

That's a valid point. But then again, doesn't lettuce require a massive amount of water to produce, could that not be seen as a waste?

To me, humanely slaughtered is an oxymoron, and humanely treating and raising animals on a large scale is way to impractical or inefficient for any mass production to occur.

We'd have to subsidize vegetarian food production if we were to make a nationwide transition. As for raising animals humanely not being economically viable, I'm only viewing it from an ethical perspective.

So, you acknowledge that bestiality is immoral because it is done without need, but meat consumption gets a free pass because of tradition?
How about dying? That seems pretty inhumane to me. Would be ridiculous if the same was said about humans.

What I mean by that is that meat eating probably still exists today because it used to be a necessity, and has essentially become traditional.
As for death, in Oregon USA, Switzerland and Belgium they offer euthanasia services to humans.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

The "need" to eat meat isn't vital for the vast majority of humanity.

I didn't say it was. I was comparing meat-eating to bestiality; not meat-eating to vegetarianism/veganism.

1) Many diseases have been transmitted in the past through meat consumption

How many that can be passed to the general population without @Rival puking down somebody's throat?

2) So is meat, we don't need to eat meat for pleasure, it is more than possible to not do so.

I never said we ate meat for pleasure. Meat gives us vitamins & minerals. Sex does not. And I'm not saying vegetarian/vegan diets don't give us these things either.

3)Why does that make it wrong from a moral standpoint though? Does that make it immoral to have intercourse for any purpose other than creating babies?

I didn't confine the argument to 'sex must only be for pro-creation'. You changed the direction of my second point completely so now only the third point was about sex. You're batting down a strawman of your own making.

4) Why draw the line at bestiality though? Shouldn't recreational sex also be deemed lack of control for a similar reason?

Because animals cannot consent to sex. People can and sex is only socially acceptable between consenting adults.

 

[Nietzsche]

But does that mean you should contribute to killing? Or do you just not feel it matters?

I don't feel it matters.

 

[BSM1]

We gain tangible benefits from eating meat that we do not gain from bestiality: nutrition, vitamins & minerals.

Sex with animals is immoral because:

1. It's a good way to pick up diseases or infections
2. It's unnecessary from a pleasure point of view. We don't need to have sex with animals for pleasure.
3. It's unnecessary from a genetic point of view. Most children off human-animal matings would not be viable.
4. It's seen as a sign of sexual degeneracy, lack of self-control etc.

Plus we don't have to run around to the front of a T-Bone steak to give it a kiss.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I think it's because we don't want to admit that animals and humans are alike. If we start admitting that many animals have sex for pleasure, and realize that animals like dogs are not so concerned about the issue of verbal consent (they do hump just about anything, afterall), we'll have to accept that we aren't so special.

So, hypothetically if a Cow happens to stray from a "high welfare" farm and get viciously eaten alive by a predator,that would be a more ideal scenario than having it humanely slaughtered and eaten later?
Either way, the Cow is gonna get eaten, may aswell give it a decent quality of life, and a decent death.

The thing is, any more livestock animals are horribly abused. They are pumped full of antibiotics and growth hormones that make them very ill, they are made to get so big their bones cannot support them, they are violently abused regularly, many chickens never see the light of day, and the slaughter can be brutal and vicious (we even have the concept of a Judas Cow/Goat as the icing of the cruelty). They don't get anything decent of a quality of life, they are put through misery, and their only hope is that they actually do get a quick and painless death.

 

[Aquitaine]

Although that point does make sense, the amount of water required by lettuce doesn't even get close to the amount of food/water you need to put into a cow in order to get food out of it. However, I am all for humanity doing whatever they can to maximize food production.

I guess, but dayum, I don't think I could give up dairy and bacon! :,(((((((

 

[Aquitaine]

I think it's because we don't want to admit that animals and humans are alike. If we start admitting that many animals have sex for pleasure, and realize that animals like dogs are not so concerned about the issue of verbal consent (they do hump just about anything, afterall), we'll have to accept that we aren't so special.

The thing is, any more livestock animals are horribly abused. They are pumped full of antibiotics and growth hormones that make them very ill, they are made to get so big their bones cannot support them, they are violently abused regularly, many chickens never see the light of day, and the slaughter can be brutal and vicious (we even have the concept of a Judas Cow/Goat as the icing of the cruelty). They don't get anything decent of a quality of life, they are put through misery, and their only hope is that they actually do get a quick and painless death.

Aye, but I'm talking about a hypothetical high welfare farm, in which I think it would be ethical to eat them if certain conditions were met.
I wish I was vegetarian, but I don't have the willpower to change right now.

 

[Chakra]

So, hypothetically if a Cow happens to stray from a "high welfare" farm and get viciously eaten alive by a predator,that would be a more ideal scenario than having it humanely slaughtered and eaten later?
Either way, the Cow is gonna get eaten, may aswell give it a decent quality of life, and a decent death.

Yes it would be, because you assume that every single cow in the wild will be eaten. I can tell that you are genuinely concerned for the cow's "humane" treatment, but let's face it, at the end of the day, you just want your beef.

There are farm sanctuaries also, which are increasing in number.

 

[Aquitaine]

Yes it would be, because you assume that every single cow in the wild will be eaten. I can tell that you are genuinely concerned for the cow's "humane" treatment, but let's face it, at the end of the day, you just want your beef.

There are farm sanctuaries also, which are increasing in number.

Actually if I had to choose, it would be the milk I want the most. But yes, there is a main "objective" for raising animals in farms.
By all means, if we could come up with artificially grown meat sold at competative prices, I'd snap that up in a heartbeat.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Aye, but I'm talking about a hypothetical high welfare farm, in which I think it would be ethical to eat them if certain conditions were met.

That would be much better. I have no problems with eating meat, as it is a very normal and routine part of life, and we are biologically equipped to eat meat. However, lot's of people over do it and it has lead to unrealistic demands that are being met by terrible and destructive means. If not for the sake of our health then for the endurance of the planet and continued existence of life we should, in all reality, probably ban fast food in order to improve our health and not drain the massive chunk of resources that comes along with it, which creates great suffering in the processes.

 

[Skwim]

I'm a meat eater myself. Just a preemptive clarification in case someone thinks about accusing me of repeating vegetarian propaganda (whatever that is).

So, I have been thinking about why I and many others who have no religion oppose bestiality, and one of the most common reasons given is that one can't have the consent of animals to acts of bestiality. However, we also don't have the consent of animals to use them for labor or in industrial farming. We don't have their consent to slaughter them either.

With the above in mind, what makes meat-eating acceptable and bestiality unacceptable?

This point about bestiality versus forcing animals into other services for man, including food, has been brought up before, and has pretty much ended up the same. Whether it's because of the Biblical injunction against bestiality or not, people seem to have a sever disconnect between the two. From the replies in these other threads it's been apparent that little if any real thought has gone into it. Making dogs pull sleds through sub-freezing cold, or forcing horses to run themselves to near exhaustion around race tracks, or raising animals for the sole purpose of killing them for food is never as bad as letting them engage in sex with humans. Also called zoophilia, bestiality is lawful in some countries including the USA: It's lawful in

Argentina
Brazil
Cambodia
Colombia
Denmark
Finland
Hungary
Japan
Mexico
Romania
Russia
Sweden
Thailand
USA (varies by state)

Sources: here and Wikipedia and Rationalwiki

Legality of Zoophilia in the United States
​

Orange red: a felony
Orange: a felony and a misdemeanor
Yellow: misdemeanor
Gray: legal or no applicable law.
Source: Wikipedia​

 

[Nietzsche]

This point about bestiality versus forcing animals into other services for man, including food, has been brought up before, and has pretty much ended up the same. Whether it's because of the Biblical injunction against bestiality or not, people seem to have a sever disconnect between the two. From the replies in these other threads it's been apparent that little if any real thought has gone into it. Making dogs pull sleds through sub-freezing cold, or forcing horses to run themselves to near exhaustion around race tracks, or raising them for the sole purpose of killing them for food is never as bad as letting them engage in sex with humans. Also called zoophilia, bestiality is lawful in some countries including the USA: It's lawful in

Argentina
Brazil
Cambodia
Colombia
Denmark
Finland
Hungary
Japan
Mexico
Romania
Russia
Sweden
Thailand
USA (varies by state)

Sources: here and Wikipedia and Rationalwiki

Legality of Zoophilia in the United States
​

Orange red: a felony
Orange: a felony and a misdemeanor
Yellow: misdemeanor
Gray: legal or no applicable law.
Source: Wikipedia​

Pftahahahaha. Ahahahaha. Ahahahaaha.

Of course it's legal in Alabama.

 

[Nietzsche]

Yes it would be, because you assume that every single cow in the wild will be eaten. I can tell that you are genuinely concerned for the cow's "humane" treatment, but let's face it, at the end of the day, you just want your beef.

There are farm sanctuaries also, which are increasing in number.

You're aware that the cattle we have at farms are extremely far removed from their ancestors, right? These may've started as Aurochs, but now they're completely domesticated. And they're not like pigs, which show a remarkable ability to re-adapt to the wild. These are largely docile creatures who're in many ways dependent on us protecting them. Because we bred them to be this way over thousands of years.

 

[Nietzsche]

Still doesn't refute chakra's point or support aquitaine's post

I'm just pointing out that we're no longer dealing with "Wild animals" here. They've not been wild for a long, long time.

Regardless, meat is delicious and that is reason enough for me. Life is short, after all, and you've only got the one.

 

[Nous]

. . . so long as the animals are treated, raised and slaughtered humanely . . .

Surely if other animals can be slaughtered humanely, then human animals can be slaughtered humanely (as the word "humane" indicates). Describe "humane slaughter" as it applies to human animals.

 

[Nous]

we are omnivours.

Human meat-eaters say that merely to make themselves feel better about eating other animals. Right? I've never known anyone to identify a biological adaptation that omnivorous mammals have and that humans have that distinguishes humans from other apes.

 

[Quintessence]

wants or needs?

Vital needs specifically refers to that which is required for an organism's vitality, or survival. If a heterotrophic organism does not kill other organisms to sustain itself, it dies. Pretty simple, really.

But it would seem that we don't need to eat meat going by the fact that millions of people are fully vegetarian.

I'd be careful about speaking for all of humanity there, and frankly, we could say the same thing about eating fruits and veggies or any other specific type of food. This point doesn't negate the contrast I was setting up. Fact still stands that eating is a vital need for heterotrophic organisms, and sex is not. I'm honestly befuddled that this comparison is even being made given the obvious difference there. Might as well ask about "drinking water vs. watching television" or something.

 

[Iti oj]

Vital needs specifically refers to that which is required for an organism's vitality, or survival. If a heterotrophic organism does not kill other organisms to sustain itself, it dies. Pretty simple, really.



I'd be careful about speaking for all of humanity there, and frankly, we could say the same thing about eating fruits and veggies or any other specific type of food. This point doesn't negate the contrast I was setting up. Fact still stands that eating is a vital need for heterotrophic organisms, and sex is not. I'm honestly befuddled that this comparison is even being made given the obvious difference there. Might as well ask about "drinking water vs. watching television" or something.

eating is vital eating meat is not. Sex can definitely be viewed as mandatory from a genetic point of view. (think in terms of the selfish gene)

 

[Brickjectivity]

The lion in its cage is still a lion. I don't think that its possible to elevate a human above what it is simply by changing its diet, either. All the traits remain, so I do not think it affects personal transformation or spirituality as much as people sometimes will claim and do claim.

For me vegetarianism is a futuristic idea. It requires a complete change of diet for many people, new technologies and a different palate. It is ecologically a good idea, because the meat animals eat a lot of grain and produce methane. Its medically a good idea, because humans + animals = new diseases and plagues. That is all futuristic stuff however. Getting people to stop eating meat based on that is like getting them to stop burning gasoline.