Kurt Zouma and animal abuse

[Fiona T]

So if my language makes you feel uncomfortable, I invite you to first identify if the emotive thing I said was incorrect. If you find it is perfectly correct, maybe you should examine your emotional response to the unpolished facts you have been presented with and consider what that means about the reality of what I am describing. My language when talking about animal cruelty isn't the problem, or the source of the emotion; the cruelty is.

How about torture - an expression you've used repeatedly? To me torture implies deliberate and sadistic cruelty which farming isn't. Most farm animals probably lead a less tortured existence than their wild counterparts - they're fed, watered, sheltered, get medical care and are protected from being torn apart and eaten alive (that emotive language ) by natural predators

[L'oisleatch McGraw]

I could use euphemisms like 'farmed', 'processed', 'harvested', 'reared', 'passed away', 'meat', 'beef', 'pork' in order to decrease the emotion that is naturally there by ensuring my language less accurately reflects the truth. I won't do that.

Hey! Maybe that was also what Meatloaf* wouldn't do!
Callum's arguments are starting to win me over.
More references to classic 1990s pop masterpieces, and you will be very hard to argue against.


*Animalcorpseloaf

[Callum Todd]

How about torture - an expression you've used repeatedly? To me torture implies deliberate and sadistic cruelty which farming isn't. Most farm animals probably lead a less tortured existence than their wild counterparts - they're fed, watered, sheltered, get medical care and are protected from being torn apart and eaten alive (that emotive language ) by natural predators

Fair eggnog (that's such an amazing autocorrect I'm going to leave it), "torture" is certainly the most (or maybe only) contentious language I've used. Two very important counterpoints to your claims about farm animals' lives though:

1 - "they're fed, watered, sheltered, get medical care"

They're fed in a way and to an extent that makes them maximally profitable. If a human were put in one of these farms and treated like the animals in there it wouldn't be a 24/7 buffet or room service type arrangement and although they wouldn't complain they were starving I really don't think they describe themself as being 'well fed'. I preempt a response here about grazing/grass-fed/free-range farming here: certainly that's much better, but it only makes up a tiny percentage of the animals that are 'farmed', most don't enjoy such relative luxury, and even then those systems only raise the animals that way until they're old enough to be prepared for slaughter, at which point they get fattened up in the same way as traditional farms.

They are watered, fair enough.

They're sheltered, often crammed in to tiny enclosures, or thousands of them in big enclosures, so rightly that they can't move or even turn around, and stand around in their own faeces. Factory chickens are a hotbed of disease (such as bird flu) from their overcrowded shelters, and even get ammonia burns from all the shit they're standing in. Most animals are really quite happy without shelter anyway. It's pretty undeniable that the 'shelter' we provide to/force upon farm animals is a huge net negative to their experience, not a good thing.

They get medical care for minor ailments but if there's anything seriously up with them they're just 'bad stock' and get 'destroyed'. Also most of the 'medical care' they recieve is either abusive and not for their benefit (docking pigs' tails, for example), or to treat problems that were induced by the shitty conditions they were kept in in the first place (ammonia-burnt chickens, bow-legged cows, etc.)

2 - comparisons to the suffering of wild animals

Nature is brutal and life is no picnic for most wild animals. But even if farmed animals have a better lot than wild animals, which I'm not convinced is true in a majority if cases, it's not really a relevant or fair comparison. Farm animals wouldn't have otherwise been wild. They otherwise wouldn't have existed. They are bred into their tor... seriously unpleasant existence purely because doing so makes some money for some humans.

So while my use of the word "torture" may seem emotive (and I will concede this word is more debatable that the others I have used so I'm very open to arguments that it is inappropriate and will stop using it if so), I think it holds up. As I emphasised at the beginning of this thread, what matters is the experience of the abused party. If you feel comfortable enough to do so, try imagining yourself in the position of one of those cows in a calf crate or chickens in an overcrowded shed with ammonia burns. I don't think the reason for your tormentor's subjugation of you, or the idea of what wild animals' lives might be like, wouldn't be any solace to you if you were experiencing what those farm animals were experiencing. I think you'd call it torture, and you'd want it to stop.

[Callum Todd]

*Animalcorpseloaf

[Fiona T]

I think my point got missed - it's not necessarily about the accuracy of your language, it's about whether it serves your purpose. If you want to persuade a corpse-eater round to your way of thinking, if you make your points in a slightly understated way you're more likely to have a receptive audience who see you as a reasonable, level-headed person worth listening to, rather than dismissing you as a loony lentil-muncher.

[Callum Todd]

I think my point got missed - it's not necessarily about the accuracy of your language, it's about whether it serves your purpose. If you want to persuade a corpse-eater round to your way of thinking, if you make your points in a slightly understated way you're more likely to have a receptive audience who see you as a reasonable, level-headed person worth listening to, rather than dismissing you as a loony lentil-muncher.

ah yes, sorry, I had meant to address that point and forgot.

It's a very good point and it's something I needed to consider. What I forgot to say above is that all that justification I offered for the language I use was to explain why I use that language despite how off-putting it might sound to someone who isn't already on board with my line of thinking, or aware of how bad animal agriculture is.

It's probably about time I admitted to myself that I probably do want to persuade people, and that probably is my purpose in these threads. I started this one initially just to test the waters and open up a discussion as I'd never done that before (having spent two years being scared of the 'preachy vegan' trope, and before that having felt the need to adjust my own behaviour before preaching to others). But I was very surprised by how receptive several people were to my ideas early on in this thread, and blown away by the fact that a few people who I had no idea even read this forum approached me at Co:London to talk about veganism, so the thought that by sharing my ideas here might induce others to think about these issues and maybe even reduce their consumption of animal products has definitely been a huge motivator for me. After all, if my goal is to reduce suffering then persuading others to stop purchasing and consuming animal products would be very conducive to that goal.

So I need to work out for myself what the right balance is for my language. I've had a personal ethical policy for many years now of radical honesty, and I can't help but think that using euphemisms like 'meat' in the context of a discussion about animal cruelty would be dishonest of me, given what I believe about what that word really means and how misleading it is. So I need to get the balance right to make sure I'm getting my ideas across and not alienating people, without compromising on my honesty or integrity. Maybe I need a marketing stategy

Thanks for pointing this out; it's valued feedback and I'll think on it. I think this is a good opportunity to restate what I haven't said for a while in this thread: I really, really appreciate people taking the time and effort to think about these ideas. I can be very verbose and these are topics that really challenge deeply held assumptions so it's great that so many of you are willing to hear me out and think about the topic of suffering and cruelty. Really glad and grateful that we "corpse-eater"s and "lentil-muncher"s can get along and have this conversation

[Mark James]

Stick with it Callum. This idea that there's a right way to convince people is nonsense. Your way will work on some and not on others. And some people will never be convinced. Fiona falls into this trap on other topics. Civility politics is all well and good and no doubt her heart is in the right place but nothing good we have in this world came without a fight. If people were really persuaded by argument alone the world would be a perfect place. Unfortunately some people are never persuaded. What you need is a dedicated minority to organise and use multiple tactics to gain political power to pass legislation that people will go along with. Think of something like the smoking ban. Even if the majority are for it you would think the free market would have sorted it out. Let the pubs decide themselves without legislation and surely the non smoking pubs will out compete the smoking pubs? No. What was the line from Men in Black? A person is smart but people are stupid. A person can choose to be vegan but people won't chose. A vegan world can only come about through legislation. It's politicians you need to convince and then you can convince people to vote for those politicians. Not necessarily on the one issue. The capitalist master class don't really care about abortion for example. They just know it's a vote winner for a large enough minority of the population to win votes. The vegan minority isn't large enough yet to be attractive enough to be bothered to appeal to. (Veganism would also not suit the capitalist agenda)

[Fiona T]

Sure, if your audience isn't receptive or willing to listen, then extreme tactics might force them to have to pay attention (and will certainly be a vote winner with those who already share your viewpoint), but in this case it seems Callum has got an audience who are prepared to listen and consider his arguments - it's a fine line between persuasion and alienation.

I suspect abolishing capitalism belongs in the "Things we will never see in our lifetimes" thread

[Dan Byrom]

I haven't read much of this thread in detail, but I respect your opinions and your careful reasonings a lot Callum, so keep it up. I still remember a comment you made in the religion thread about religion being evolutionarily beneficial and this is something that at the time I had never considered. It helped me distinguish the difference between my religion providing me with 'happiness' and with claiming complete 'truth'. (I haven't called myself a Christian for over a year now.)

I think that when it comes to veganism and animal cruelty, to be honest this is a topic where I have maintained a selfish wilful ignorance, because I am happy with my lifestyle and am worried that confronting my thoughts will end in disappointment. But it is something I must do at some point. And perhaps properly reading through this thread is a good place to start.

The following might seem an outrageous or ridiculous statement and I want to be very careful to make clear that I'm not equating these things themselves, but simply attitudes towards them and how they have changed over time... Also this is something that just crossed my mind and isn't something I've pondered deeply....

But perhaps our current treatment of animals might in the future appear in a similar fashion to our current opinions looking back at e.g. slavery ('of course black people are inferior. Why would you not use them to farm your land when they are good at it? They have shelter and food - we're treating them just fine') or ownership of women as the property of men. These things, in their time, were considered completely normal - so normal that to suggest otherwise was shouted down.

Of course, these are both human examples, and animals are very much not humans, so it doesn't translate perfectly, but wouldn't be surprised if future humans look back on us distastefully for our treatment of animals

[Mark James]

Sure, abolishing capitalism is probably a pipe dream. We're never going to get to a communist utopia but the steps on the way to achieving it are better than the steps on the way to achieving some sort of libertarian free market utopia.

[Callum Todd]

I haven't read much of this thread in detail, but I respect your opinions and your careful reasonings a lot Callum, so keep it up. I still remember a comment you made in the religion thread about religion being evolutionarily beneficial and this is something that at the time I had never considered. It helped me distinguish the difference between my religion providing me with 'happiness' and with claiming complete 'truth'. (I haven't called myself a Christian for over a year now.)

Thanks Dan. Sounds like you've been on a bit of a journey with your faith; I hope that hasn't been too stressful for you.

The following might seem an outrageous or ridiculous statement and I want to be very careful to make clear that I'm not equating these things themselves, but simply attitudes towards them and how they have changed over time... Also this is something that just crossed my mind and isn't something I've pondered deeply....

But perhaps our current treatment of animals might in the future appear in a similar fashion to our current opinions looking back at e.g. slavery ('of course black people are inferior. Why would you not use them to farm your land when they are good at it? They have shelter and food - we're treating them just fine') or ownership of women as the property of men. These things, in their time, were considered completely normal - so normal that to suggest otherwise was shouted down.

Of course, these are both human examples, and animals are very much not humans, so it doesn't translate perfectly, but wouldn't be surprised if future humans look back on us distastefully for our treatment of animals

I have remarked earlier in this thread that I think our treatment of animals today will be one of the things that future generations look back on in horror and shame that we practised such barbaric cruelty relatively recently in their history, much as we look back on some of the horrors of past generations and wonder how on earth these practices were commonplace for so long before being abolished. The Simon Amstell mockumentary 'Carnage' is a funny show to watch (albeit with undertones of sombreness) on this idea. I think it's still available on iPlayer.

I did also learn in this thread, however, to be very careful when invoking slavery in proximity to this topic as some people may draw a very unpleasant connection that I hadn't made. Thankfully you were more careful than me with a clear disclaimer but I'll certainly think twice before using words like 'enslave' again in this debate.

I think that when it comes to veganism and animal cruelty, to be honest this is a topic where I have maintained a selfish wilful ignorance, because I am happy with my lifestyle and am worried that confronting my thoughts will end in disappointment. But it is something I must do at some point. And perhaps properly reading through this thread is a good place to start.

Nice one! There was a warning at the start of this thread that looking deeply into some of these issues can get really uncomfortable so pace yourself, but it's great that you're interested in confronting the more unpleasant realities of the systems that are running in our world. If you really want to learn more about animal cruelty in agriculture then probably still the go-to book is Peter Singer's Animal Liberation. That was written in I think 1975 though so a more up-to-date version (not that most of the facts described in Animal Liberation have changed, if anything they've just grown in scale since then) would be the very recent This Is Vegan Propaganda, and Other Lies The Meat Industry Tells You by Ed Winters. Or if you don't fancy reading a full book and want more bitesized information, then Ed has a YouTube channel by the name of Earthling Ed with lots of short-form videos very clearly presenting relevant information on specific topics related to animal cruelty. Personally I sometimes have a few little qualms with his style but on the whole he's articulate and informed and his videos are immaculately presented.

Or, yeah, you could read this thread. But if I'm not convincing enough for you that's probably a fault with me, not with the argument I'm trying to make!

[Marc Meakin]

Legislation does work also taxing can work.
What would be interesting is if a plant based choice of food was significantly cheaper than a meat alternative.
Maybe when (if) this happens then we might see a slow change

[Callum Todd]

What would be interesting is if a plant based choice of food was significantly cheaper than a meat alternative.
Maybe when (if) this happens then we might see a slow change

Generally speaking, plant foods are actually cheaper than animal-based foods. All food really is just finding a way to turn sunlight into something we can digest because for some reason we haven't worked out how to photosynthesize yet. Eating plants is a much more efficient way to do this than eating animals that eat plants.

I really don't know very much about economics so please correct me if I'm wrong but so far as I understand there are two primary reasons that like-for-like 'meat substitute' items such as plant-based soy/pea protein 'burgers' can often be more expensive than similar products made out of 'beef' (see the recent discussion on the Veganism thread about the price of the McPlant vs McDonalds beef burger):

1) Animal agriculture receives significant financial subsidies, allowing them to compete financially with products that are produced more efficiently
2) Some 'vegan food' products are marked up in price, particularly those by big brands merely offering a plant-based alternative, because they see it as a luxury trendy option.

So as long as we can get a level playing field for plant protein vs. the well-established corporate might of animal protein, it really shouldn't be too difficult at all for plant foods (even the processed junk ones) to be cheaper than 'meat' alternatives. I worry it might be very difficult to overthrow that corporate might though, but maybe I'm wrong. That's probably more in Mark's wheelhouse.

[Marc Meakin]

What would be interesting is if a plant based choice of food was significantly cheaper than a meat alternative.
Maybe when (if) this happens then we might see a slow change

Generally speaking, plant foods are actually cheaper than animal-based foods. All food really is just finding a way to turn sunlight into something we can digest because for some reason we haven't worked out how to photosynthesize yet. Eating plants is a much more efficient way to do this than eating animals that eat plants.

I really don't know very much about economics so please correct me if I'm wrong but so far as I understand there are two primary reasons that like-for-like 'meat substitute' items such as plant-based soy/pea protein 'burgers' can often be more expensive than similar products made out of 'beef' (see the recent discussion on the Veganism thread about the price of the McPlant vs McDonalds beef burger):

1) Animal agriculture receives significant financial subsidies, allowing them to compete financially with products that are produced more efficiently
2) Some 'vegan food' products are marked up in price, particularly those by big brands merely offering a plant-based alternative, because they see it as a luxury trendy option.

So as long as we can get a level playing field for plant protein vs. the well-established corporate might of animal protein, it really shouldn't be too difficult at all for plant foods (even the processed junk ones) to be cheaper than 'meat' alternatives. I worry it might be very difficult to overthrow that corporate might though, but maybe I'm wrong. That's probably more in Mark's wheelhouse.

That's the crux of the problem, treating plant based food ax a luxury isn't going to change trend.
Even healthy eating generally is much higher than cheap processed crap which in this time of austerity is going to make the obesity crisis worse

[Gavin Chipper]

As well as removing any subsidies for animal agriculture, there's a couple of other things you could do without forcing full veganism on everyone by law. Quite an obvious one is to improve the legal minimum standards for how animals are kept. This would make it more expensive to farm animals and therefore drive up prices for animal products. The second one I'd do is ban the use of animal products in things that aren't primarily animal products themselves, unless it can be shown that it's a necessary ingredient. Obviously this might come across as a bit vague but you'd draw up stringent criteria and you could have an ever-shrinking window of legal use while manufacturers sort their shit out.

So basically you'd ban gelatine in sweets. Completely not necessary. Also milk in chocolate. This might be one of the things that gets allowed for a little bit longer to allow manufacturers to sort out their quality control, but it's not necessary to have milk. Milk chocolate is a thing because dark chocolate can be a bit bitter and full-on and you need something to take the edge off. But that thing doesn't need to be milk. There are decent vegan "milk" chocolates available now, and there's no reason this can't be rolled out completely. And there's no way the big chocolate manufacturers wouldn't solve this problem very quickly if they needed to. And also annoying random ingredients like milk powder that are quite low down on the list of ingredients. Easily replaced. Another thing is that while cheese may be obviously not vegan, you could at least ban the use of animal rennet, making it vegetarian by default.

[L'oisleatch McGraw]

for some reason we haven't worked out how to photosynthesize yet. Eating plants is a much more efficient way to do this than eating animals that eat plants.

Fuck photosynthesis.
That shit is in the ha'penny place. All it's gonna get you is some cheap-as-chips carbohydrates.
Hardly worth an evolutionary leap.

Are you aware that over 75% of the atmosphere is made up of NITROGEN?
Actual bloody nitrogen, aka the lynch-pin of protein... sure the whole reason we consume protein at all is for that volatile yet bountiful NH2 group.

What is insane is that our lame-ass lungs are unable to process that nitrogen so we can use it for growth and repair. They simply breathe it all in, then wastefully breathe it all back out again.
If that little glitch in our design were remedied, we would not need to consume any protein foods. Not meat, and not any of the foul soy-based shite that vegans pretend to enjoy.

If you really wanna make a difference, Callum, (and this is the most useful advice you are going to get on this issue, so listen up) you need to deprive yourself of ALL and ANY protein, then regularly hold your breath for long periods, as long as you can bear without passing out, while all the time tensing the muscles in your head and neck, tensing them so furiously that your head turns purple from the effort.

Undoubtedly if this is done regularly enough, you will evolve some gills on either side of your neck, that are capable of synthesising nitrogen into nitrates, and subsequently peptide chains. You will then need to have LOTS of children (preferably with lots of different women) who will carry that mutation. Thenceforth you will become a God in vegan circles and, of course, an emancipator of animals and a saviour of the human race.

All thanks to this thread on C4C.

[Callum Todd]

Furthering this points, what do you think of all the other things that are artificially placed in the environments of creatures - cars are responsible for a lot of animal deaths and most definitely aren't natural.

Hey Ell,

I've spent a chunk of my spare time over the past few days attempting to formulate my response to this question as promised, but I'm now giving up. I've chucked 3000 words into a draft but it's just a mess. As I said it's a brilliant question and I think the answer delves really deep into some heavy philosophy, and unfortunately I have come to concede that I lack the articulacy to formulate the repsonse in a comprehensible form. I tried! But my draft was beginning to be something like I would imagine a philosophy thesis would look like if I were to write one, and wasn't doing a very effective job of answering your question. So I give up, although maybe one day I'll find the inspiration to come back and finish the draft for you.

Until then, your question reminded me of a YouTube guy's video that received some blowback in the vegan community recently so if you're interested enough in this topic to spend some time on it here's that video. Basically the problem is how we define 'necessity'. See any of the vegan responses to this dude for some of the counterpoints that I'm apparently incapable of articulating. Sorry to fail to answer your question properly myself, but that's your fault for asking such a bloody good question!

[Gavin Chipper]

Don't worry - I think my answer covered it. Ultimately it's about grey goo.

[Gavin Chipper]

Would you rather stay as a "natural" human or become more advanced? And then people will start asking what it really means to be "you". How much change can you go through and still be the same person?

You should write a book on this stuff (and consciousness).

I might think about doing that...

[Marc Meakin]

Would you rather stay as a "natural" human or become more advanced? And then people will start asking what it really means to be "you". How much change can you go through and still be the same person?

You should write a book on this stuff (and consciousness).

I might think about doing that...

If you had a head transplant.(not legally in our lifetime)
Is it the head or the body that is 'you'

[Josh Hurst]

I do disagree strongly on this - I think we should be doing everything we can to save endangered species. I'd far rather one white rhino was saved than 1,000,000 rabbits.

Haven't read the rest yet so may have been covered. If you truly stand by this, you would abstain from participating in a system which is the overwhelming cause of habitat loss thus pushing species to the brink and all the while massively compromising biodiversity.

Diets containing meat contribute to far more land clearing than plant-based diets. A few facts from that Earthling Ed video we spoke about a while ago:

Animal agriculture is the leading risk factor to 24,000 of the 28,000 species currently threatened with extinction.

75% of soybeans grown globally are fed to cattle. Only 6% are used to produce plant based products for human consumption.

One of the craziest things in that video was this one: half of all agricultural land in the US is used for beef production yet it accounts for only 3% of the calories...

When we think of The Earth as being overpopulated with humans, we are right and we are wrong. We are overpopulated with the animals that we have to feed in order to feed us. We can survive on a fraction of the land if we ate the crops directly, and this would help to save endangered species in the process.

[Josh Hurst]

Have we discussed the circle of life and animals that eat prey.
We can't stop that can we its nature
Man hunting prey should also be considered natural.
Ie fishing for food and shooting prey or trapping them.

Modern humans have the capability to choose to not act in accordance with their "nature". There are lots of horrible violent things that it is "natural" for us to do. Many people do some of these things, and we send them to prison and call them monsters. We don't accept their behaviour just because it's natural; we condemn it because it causes harm and they are capable of choosing not to do these things. Violence towards non-human animals is another of these things.

Agreed- appealing to nature as a justifier when it suits is bizarre. Lions murder other Lions is not a justification for Man killing Man. Lions licking their testicles to full view of public isn't justification for man to do the same. But Somehow a lion killing a gazelle in nature is a justification for us doing something somewhat analogous?... When will we learn we are not lions?

[Josh Hurst]

You wouldn't deny a bird of prey the right to kill a rodent or a lion to kill a zebra
Why shouldnt a man be alloeed kill a wild boar in order to feed his family?

Well, the lion can't go to Tesco but we can, perhaps?.. It's a matter of necessity here. Is it necessary for the lions' survival to kill to survive - absolutely! Is it necessary for us? In fact, the continued killing by humans to survive could be the thing that wipes us out!

[Josh Hurst]

I could use euphemisms like 'farmed', 'processed', 'harvested', 'reared', 'passed away', 'meat', 'beef', 'pork' in order to decrease the emotion that is naturally there by ensuring my language less accurately reflects the truth. I won't do that.

Hey! Maybe that was also what Meatloaf* wouldn't do!
Callum's arguments are starting to win me over.
More references to classic 1990s pop masterpieces, and you will be very hard to argue against.


*Animalcorpseloaf

Ironically, Meatloaf was vegetarian for 11 years...

[Josh Hurst]

I think my point got missed - it's not necessarily about the accuracy of your language, it's about whether it serves your purpose. If you want to persuade a corpse-eater round to your way of thinking, if you make your points in a slightly understated way you're more likely to have a receptive audience who see you as a reasonable, level-headed person worth listening to, rather than dismissing you as a loony lentil-muncher.

Although I think Callum has done a bloody fantastic job on this thread and has the patience of a saint, I do tend to agree with this.

As a person who has frequently been in Callum's position when speaking with others on this subject, I can say that I fall foul of the same error all the time. Communicating effectively on such an emotive topic is very difficult. There are only a handful of vegan communicators/activists who I think strike the right balance and do not make me cringe. E.g. although I probably agree with most things that Joey Carbstrong says in most of his videos, I don't think saying it in that way serves the prupose. However, "Earthling" Ed Winters is an absolutely brilliant communicator. If everyone here read chapter 3 of his book "This is Vegan Propaganda (and other lies the meat industry tells you)" then I doubt we'd even be having the discussion...

[Marc Meakin]

I read a book nearly 40 years ago called Why You Don't Need Meat.
It was compelling enough to turn me vegetarian but I realised at the time I don't like most cooked vegetables and eating Jacket potato and Beans 5 nights a week didn't last plus I wasn't taking any vitamins and got physically and then mentally ill.
So when I went back to meat I was relieved.
I did spend most of lockdown as a veggie and had much more choices with plant based foods but I capitulated and had a Maccy D breakfast and am now back on the meat, which is cheaper.
I may try again when I retire (6 years and counting)

[Gavin Chipper]

You should write a book on this stuff (and consciousness).

I might think about doing that...

If you had a head transplant.(not legally in our lifetime)
Is it the head or the body that is 'you'

The head has the brain so surely it would be "you". So it would be more of a body transplant than a brain transplant.

[Fiona T]

Lions licking their testicles to full view of public isn't justification for man to do the same.

Now has mental image of Josh attempting to lick his testicles in private...

[Marc Meakin]

Lions licking their testicles to full view of public isn't justification for man to do the same.

Now has mental image of Josh attempting to lick his testicles in private...

I was thinking of my favourite joke.
Dog licking his testicle.
Husband : I wish I could do that.
Wife : Give him a biscuit and he will let you

[Gavin Chipper]

We're not all equal, and humans are at the top of the emotional range, so the comparisons with human rights issues, especially slavery, make me quite uncomfortable.

Going back to this, I think I have a better answer than my previous one. To summarise what we have so far: vegans will bring up slavery to point out how in the past people got something so morally wrong without thinking much of it, in order to demonstrate that people can have such massive blindspots. They then suggest that eating meat could be such a blindspot today. But then other people complain that slavery is far worse and that the cases aren't comparable.

However, I think using such a moral abomination makes the point stronger. The point is that people can get things really wrong, so the size of their blindspot can be anything up and including slavery. So even if eating meat is much less than slavery, it's well within the blindspot region.

[Gavin Chipper]

Euphemisms like 'meat' actively remove emotion from the topic, but in doing so they obscure the truth

I'm not sure I'd really call "meat" a euphemism. It may lessen the impact of what is being talked about (compared to e.g. "animal corpse"), but it's a word that's been around forever and I'd be surprised if it was invented with that in mind. People don't use it so they don't have to talk about corpses; they use it because it's the primary word for what it is in our language. I see a euphemism as something more deliberate like "passed away" instead of "died". Not something that happens to lessen the impact as a side-effect.

[Callum Todd]

Euphemisms like 'meat' actively remove emotion from the topic, but in doing so they obscure the truth

I'm not sure I'd really call "meat" a euphemism. It may lessen the impact of what is being talked about (compared to e.g. "animal corpse"), but it's a word that's been around forever and I'd be surprised if it was invented with that in mind. People don't use it so they don't have to talk about corpses; they use it because it's the primary word for what it is in our language. I see a euphemism as something more deliberate like "passed away" instead of "died". Not something that happens to lessen the impact as a side-effect.

To clarify, I only think of it as primarily a euphemism in the context of a discussion around animal cruelty. Specifically in this discussion, to then use words like 'farming' and 'meat' when what is really meant is 'the imprisonment and harmful treatment of animals' and 'the flesh of slaughtered animals, prepared for human consumption' is euphemistic and removes the natural emotion from the topic by attempting to use familiar language to dissociate from the topic actually at hand, hence my reluctance to use them.

I wouldn't insist against using the word 'meat' in other contexts, such as for example if you were to ask me where to find something in a supermarket and I had to reply 'on the aisle next to the fresh meat'. Then again, I absolutely wouldn't insist against using a phrase like 'flesh of slaughtered animals, prepared for human consumption' in any context either, as that's what it is. The potential of the word 'meat' to be euphemistic is only harmful when discussing animal cruelty, so I'm not against euphemisms per se, only when they muddy the waters in an important discussion.

L'oisleatch gave an example of another commonly used piece of potentially euphemistic language in another thread on this forum, that lead to the discussion of language on here. Of course I don't object to that word, but if for example you were teaching girls about puberty in a sex education class then that word alone would clearly be insufficient as it hides the details of what it is meant to describe, so you'd have to tell the kids frankly what it means (maybe not using exactly the words L'oisleatch did... )

[Marc Meakin]

I think you should think about incremental steps.
If animal farming was phased out and meat eaters would have to kill an animal themselves in order to eat it, which I still think is natural as in its in our DNA to eat meat.
This will turn the average person to non meat food
Or they might just take up fishing.
I for one would probably go plant based overnight if I couldn't buy meat off the shelf

[Fiona T]

https://humanists.uk/2022/09/02/governm ... nned-meat/

Relates to a few issues on the thread.

By clearly labelling how an animal has been slaughtered – whether it has been stunned or not before being killed – consumers can exercise their freedom of choice about their food in accordance with their beliefs and preferences.

‘We believe that clear mandatory labelling will also increase people’s wider understanding of animal welfare and raise standards of care and accountability at slaughterhouses across the land.

‘This report plainly shows that people wish to know if the meat that they choose to eat has been humanely slaughtered. There is no reason for the Government not to act and draft legislation that the public so overwhelmingly supports.

I guess you've got to me as I'm questioning 'humanely slaughtered'....

[Callum Todd]

I recently read a book that covers a lot of the trickier questions that have come up in this thread, including many that were put towards me and I was unable to answer effectively, such as Elliott's excellent question.

The book is called Justice for Animals: Our Collective Responsibility and it's by a distinguished American philosopher called Martha Nussbaum.

It's more distinctly philosophical than books I've mentioned previously in this topic:

If you really want to learn more about animal cruelty in agriculture then probably still the go-to book is Peter Singer's Animal Liberation. That was written in I think 1975 though so a more up-to-date version (not that most of the facts described in Animal Liberation have changed, if anything they've just grown in scale since then) would be the very recent This Is Vegan Propaganda, and Other Lies The Meat Industry Tells You by Ed Winters.

and deals a lot with Philsophy of Law (the author's specialty) so I wouldn't necessarily recommend it if you either aren't too interested in philosophy or haven't read much about philosophy or animal ethics before. But if you're into this sort of stuff and aren't put off by the slightly academic nature of it, it's definitely worth a read as it tackles some of the harder topics like animals in captivity and law.

It centres around the author's 'Capabilities Approach' to ethics, as distinct from Utilitarianism, which underpins most of the ethics we have discussed so far but tends to fall flat when faced with some more complex questions, as evidenced by my incapability of answering Elliott's earlier question. The nuances of the Capabilities Approach help to articulate some of the feelings I had in reponse to Elliott's question but was unable to articulate at the time.

Also I know you shouldn't judge a book by its cover, but it's really pretty.

[Callum Todd]

Dog meat to be outlawed in South Korea

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-67920167

[Fiona T]

Yeah I did wonder what the difference between eating a dog and eating a cow is.

Come to think of it, I think all the animals we traditionally eat are vegetarian - we don't generally eat carnivores - wonder why that is....

[Marc Meakin]

Dog meat to be outlawed in South Korea

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-67920167

Interestingly it's not illegal to eat dogs, just make money from it

[Marc Meakin]

Yeah I did wonder what the difference between eating a dog and eating a cow is.

Come to think of it, I think all the animals we traditionally eat are vegetarian - we don't generally eat carnivores - wonder why that is....

I do like shark fin soup

[Paul Worsley]

Come to think of it, I think all the animals we traditionally eat are vegetarian - we don't generally eat carnivores - wonder why that is....

Tuna fish feed exclusively on smaller fish, squid etc

[Callum Todd]

Yeah I did wonder what the difference between eating a dog and eating a cow is.

Come to think of it, I think all the animals we traditionally eat are vegetarian - we don't generally eat carnivores - wonder why that is....

Lots of reasons, it's not just humans who play at this. Generally speaking most land-based (fish are an exception, as Paul pointed out) food chains have fee steps between herbivore (or sometimes insectivore) and apex predator.

• Eating animals is a highly inefficient way of consuming energy. An ecosystem not filled out by herbivores would be unsustainable for any large population size. Essentially the closer you get to the source, the more efficient. Longer food chains becoming diminishing returns.
  
  Carnivores are considerably more prone to parasitic infection, making their meat much less safe to eat.
  
  Herbivores tend to be bigger than carnivores so you get more meat from them per kill, on average
  
  They're much easier to domesticate and keep. Feed costs and logistics for "livestock" can be a nightmare, and those difficulties are compounded by having more "livestock" to feed the carnivores.