Then you shouldn't eat meat at all
Why? I'm just saying how I'd probably feel. I don't care if an animal that I didn't save dies and becomes my dinner.
Then you shouldn't eat meat at all
Well, the animals on farms aren't pets, they only exist for one reason.
Luckily I don't look for other peoples' approval about what is or isn't interesting to me.It's really not as interesting as you think
I believe most people have morals enough (and our societies globally to reinforce them) that the thought of consuming another human is immediately off-putting. If our societies instead treated human consumption as normal or of no consequence, I wonder if that would affect attitudes about it. It's pretty unsettling and not based upon hard science or any dogma - it's a train of thought I had after reading through posts here. Maybe it's the other way around - our morals affect society. Or both ways? But that's probably going way off topic.And I think you're really missing the mark on the whole eating people thing...
I think this thread is a pretty good example of instincts confronting morality. If we ignore the biased phrasing of the article blurb and consider the pigs were just food product awaiting harvest, then the situation is just a happy tale of do gooders being rewarded. If we instead place ourselves in the pigs' hooves, we get a hell of a piece of black humor.Huh? Generally animals don't eat their own dead, so it would be odd for people to eat dead people, even it were legal. So I doubt people in general (and Gaf) would start consuming their dead. I think it's more instinctual and less a moral issue.
It's a little less twisted since they were still saved with the intent of still being eaten. Now if they were saved from being eaten (like when the President "pardons" turkeys), that would be twisted.
I'm not even vegan but dude what the fuck
Why? I'm just saying how I'd probably feel. I don't care if an animal that I didn't save dies and becomes my dinner.
That's my point.. it's about perception. Plenty of people have pigs as pets and don't view them as only existing for slaughter. They're just not as popular as an animal like a dog. My neighbor had a pet pig.
Depending on who you ask, possibly people who have bred pitbulls (or other "fighting" dogs) for years with the only intention of fighting them, might tell you they only exist for that reason.
Either way, pigs are proven to make for great pets, so it doesn't matter what they were originally intended for. That point falls apart in the context of choice. Most people on this site probably have the liberty to choose if they want to eat meat or not. I'd be willing to bet on it
What the fuck point was there in rescuing them then?! Christ!
I'm sorry but I'm cackling right now. This is peak dark humour.
My posts do have intent, but that intent doesn't include shaming meat eaters or promoting veganism.I'm just asking questions!
Everything that lives could make a pet. The potential pet quality of something doesn't decide if we should use those animals for other things.
You're talking about apples and oranges. People often (even accidentally) use this strawman in arguments.
The way I understand veganism (I was one for a year, now am a vegetarian) is that people who CAN choose to change their diet can do so in a healthy and ethically responsible manner, that benefits animals AND humans. Some people are unlucky enough to just make due with what they have and do NOT have that choice.
I've heard it all. Somebody's Trumper dad told me (after a few drinks) YOU WOULD EAT MEAT IF STRANDED ON AN ISLAND WITH ONLY CHICKEN. Well.. of course I would, because I'd HAVE to in order to survive. But that's not what veganism/vegetarianism is about.
My posts do have intent, but that intent doesn't include shaming meat eaters or promoting veganism.
Then you are just a hypocrite.
What the fuck point was there in rescuing them then?! Christ!
Well something like a lion doesn't make a good pet. Pigs are good for eating. They make meat. They're also good pets. They make good friends.
If you can eat without consuming meat, and you're ok with that, you can decide to help humans and animals by not eating them.
It's pretty simple to me
Ethically, it makes sense. Logically, it makes sense.
There's also animal sanctuaries and it seems like people owning different animals as pets is on the rise.
Like I said, things can change, even if slowly
Because I had the thought and considered it interesting enough to post. You seem pretty defensive considering it isn't some damning judgment upon people.You are talking for like four pages how people would eat people because reasons.
You operate with the premise once we decide something has pet quality, whatever that exactly means, because people love fishes as pets as well, despite the fact they aren't doing anything, it's morally wrong to eat their meat.
Because I had the thought and considered it interesting enough to post. You seem pretty defensive considering it isn't some damning judgment upon people.
I believe it's morally wrong to eat their meat because if we have the choice NOT to, and we can be healthy and we can eat tasty food, why would we continue to perpetuate the awful cycle of raising animals only for slaughter? Seems like a straightforward premise to operate under, no? That's not gunna be everyone, and it saddens me that more people don't do it, or at least cut back on their consumption, but that's reality. Like I said, I'm not gunna snap judge you because you're eating a big mac.
A fish is hardly a pet, I think it's a useless comparison to make. They're behind glass and you don't even interact with them. A pig is much more like a dog in the sense that it's smart (even smarter than dogs I believe) and they aren't very aggressive and they're generally just as loving (make for good companions). Like, good qualities to have for being a pet.
Basically: if we don't NEED to consume them, and we are OK with not doing it, why do it? And if you can take an animal in as a pet or watch over them in a sanctuary, why should we not do it?
This is peak dark humour.
I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of GAF (and people in general) in here would consume it without moral quandaries
Though that's not even important. You are just so baseless in your claims and assumptions that your line of thinking isn't that interesting at all.
I'm still a little confused so I can eat fishes and lions of their low pet qualities?
No, I just edited my post. You don't need my permission to do anything. You can perpetuate the slaughter cycle if you enjoy eating meat, but I hope you choose not to or to reduce your consumption.
Because there's lots of great alternatives out there
But there's no need to be snide we're just having a conversation
It's always confusing for me to see the arguments for moving what shouldn't be eating.
Either you are okay with eating all animals from a moral point of view or you are not. The definition of life doesn't make a difference in that regard.
That statement wasn't made with judgment. Though it seems this topic and your posts are devolving into political territory.I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of GAF (and people in general) in here would consume it without moral quandaries
Though that's not even important. You are just so baseless in your claims and assumptions that your line of thinking isn't that interesting at all.
But the definition of life is what CHANGES those preconceptions
Out of the fire into the frying pan
A fish fulfills the same definition of life as a pig.
So either you accept that producing food is a good and acceptable reason to kill animal lives or you don't.
Doesn't bacon cause cancer? Well if it does, that would be a pretty fitting case of karma.
What the fuck point was there in rescuing them then?! Christ!
No, I just edited my post. You don't need my permission to do anything. You can perpetuate the slaughter cycle if you enjoy eating meat, but I hope you choose not to or to reduce your consumption.
Because there's lots of great alternatives out there
But there's no need to be snide we're just having a conversation
There are farm-owners out there who assist in the birthing of some of their animals, provide them food and shelter, keep those animals healthy and care for them when sick, and then kill and eat them when they have reached maturity. I don't think this is any more cruel or sadistic than that (and I don't think that is cruel or sadistic either).Not liking these comments in here. Total lack of empathy. You don't save animals just to eat them
That's inherently cruel and sadistic