So you are arguing that because a ruthless and uncaring system is responsible for creating massive suffering, it doesn’t matter? It’s awfully convenient that we don’t have to care about cruelty when it’s inherent in the system. People created these systems. We have the capacity to reduce the suffering. Why wouldn’t you want that?
If dogs were raised in these conditions, people would be outraged (see korea, china, puppy mills, etc.) It’s a bit hypocritical, don’t you think?
The systems by which we produce meat are intentional. Just because the people who set them up and benefit from them don’t care doesn’t mean these farms can exist outside morality.
Inflicting pain on an animal to save its life is directly related to your point. Raising animals in objectively painful and squalid conditions so they can be slaughtered is not at all the same.
You are equating saving the life of a human to the torture and slaughtering of an animals. They are not analogous
Do you buy blood diamonds? Do you buy grass fed beef? Free range eggs? Do you buy fast fashion? You have agency over your choices. Just because you don’t slaughter the animals with your own hands doesn’t mean they are free from blood.
I am pointing out a dichotomy. I am appealing to your sense of logic. Why do you feel emotionally attached to dogs? Are they smarter than cows? Do they feel more or less? Is being cruel to a dog worse than being cruel to another animal?
By your logic, dog meat farms are fine – amoral. The cruelty does not matter because it’s inherent.
You are literally arguing the definition of the word “cruelty” rather than dealing with the substance. I appreciate the engagement, but this is where I’ll stop. I hope you consider the conflicts in your worldview and work toward improving the world for yourself and the beings that inhabit it.
So you are arguing that because a ruthless and uncaring system is responsible for creating massive suffering, it doesn’t matter? It’s awfully convenient that we don’t have to care about cruelty when it’s inherent in the system. People created these systems. We have the capacity to reduce the suffering. Why wouldn’t you want that?
If dogs were raised in these conditions, people would be outraged (see korea, china, puppy mills, etc.) It’s a bit hypocritical, don’t you think?
cruelty is intentional. think of battlefield amputation: it hurts, but the pain isn’t the point. the pain is only incidental.
The systems by which we produce meat are intentional. Just because the people who set them up and benefit from them don’t care doesn’t mean these farms can exist outside morality.
Inflicting pain on an animal to save its life is directly related to your point. Raising animals in objectively painful and squalid conditions so they can be slaughtered is not at all the same.
You are equating saving the life of a human to the torture and slaughtering of an animals. They are not analogous
I’m comparing incidental pain to incidental pain. it’s an apt analogy.
how?
Farm less meat. Farm meat in a way that minimizes suffering.
I don’t farm any meat. if you do, I suppose that’s something that you can change
Do you buy blood diamonds? Do you buy grass fed beef? Free range eggs? Do you buy fast fashion? You have agency over your choices. Just because you don’t slaughter the animals with your own hands doesn’t mean they are free from blood.
sure, but my choices don’t determine industry practices
you can see this is just an appeal to emotion, right?
I am pointing out a dichotomy. I am appealing to your sense of logic. Why do you feel emotionally attached to dogs? Are they smarter than cows? Do they feel more or less? Is being cruel to a dog worse than being cruel to another animal?
By your logic, dog meat farms are fine – amoral. The cruelty does not matter because it’s inherent.
not quite but very close. the suffering is not cruelty because it is inherent, and suffering alone does not change the morality.
To willingly inflict unnecessary suffering on sentient beings is cruelty. This is a semantic argument that ignores reality
what is the bar for necessity? you are introducing an ambiguity here.
You do not need meat to survive
you don’t know what I need
why should survival be the bar?
no, it’s not. but this is a thought terminating cliche
You are literally arguing the definition of the word “cruelty” rather than dealing with the substance. I appreciate the engagement, but this is where I’ll stop. I hope you consider the conflicts in your worldview and work toward improving the world for yourself and the beings that inhabit it.
YOU, TOO
if cruelty is what is wrong, we must agree on a definition.