Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Price We Pay for Cheap Meat

rollingstone.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 211 posts

Re: The Price We Pay for Cheap Meat

#81

Post by jmngomes »

watty wrote: post #50
contextual wrote: post #26

If the suffering of animals matters, then eating meat is morally wrong. Animals are non-human persons who are aware of their own existence and who feel a wide range of emotions, just like we do. Killing animals may still be acceptable in western society, but it's wrong. It's wrong just as slavery in the United States in the 18th and 19th century was once acceptable but wrong. Just as hanging, drawing and quartering t…

No, killing an animal for food is not as morally wrong as slavery or murdering a person. Are you joking? Animals all over the planet kill each other for food. It's part of life. Farm animals are not people and never will be. It's silly to think they deserve the rights of people or to be on the same moral high grounds as people.

"Animals all over the planet kill each other for food. It's part of life."

Agreed. But the least you can (and should) do is spare them the suffering and kill them instantly.

Animals deserve, at the very least, the right to not be put through unnecessary suffering.

They're not people, that's correct. Humans are the highly evolved species of the planet. In fact, we're so evolved that we've come to realize that taking pleasure in others' pain (animals included), just like the lack of ability to feel remorse or empathy, are potential indicators of serious mental illness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_triad).

It's precisely because we're more advanced that we should show some humanity (I think this is a common sense definition) and not harm sentient beings without a clear need to do so.

Or we can just treat anything and everything like expendable resources. Sounds a tad inhuman to me.

Re: The Price We Pay for Cheap Meat

#82

Post by ebbv »

contextual wrote: post #26

If the suffering of animals matters, then eating meat is morally wrong. Animals are non-human persons who are aware of their own existence and who feel a wide range of emotions, just like we do. Killing animals may still be acceptable in western society, but it's wrong. It's wrong just as slavery in the United States in the 18th and 19th century was once acceptable but wrong. Just as hanging, drawing and quartering t…

The only animal suffering I'm worried about right now is the horse you're on.

Re: The Price We Pay for Cheap Meat

#84

Post by vijayr »

redidas wrote: post #49
timjahn wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where does the food chain fit in? The idea of certain species and groups of animals being higher and lower on the food chain than others. Do we just ignore that? Genuinely curious.

The animal as people logic doesn't hold up. With this reasoning what do we do about animals that hunt and kill other animals for food. Are they behaving immorally because they must kill to survive?

There is a difference between animals killing animals for food, and humans killing animals for food.

Animals kill other animals, only when they are hungry. They also don't raise animals in a confined, cruel environment, pump them with drugs, don't beat them, treat them like crap etc. Humans do all of these. Animals also don't waste - every inch of meat is eaten, while we liberally waste.

Re: The Price We Pay for Cheap Meat

#85

Post by HNaTTY »

asciimo wrote: post #28
nimble wrote: post #10

I think its unfortunate that opposition to torturing animals is often lumped in with opposition to merely killing animals.

If we have the right to kill, why don't we have the right to torture?

Because there is a purpose to killing, but the only purpose for torture in this case is the maximization of profit.

Re: The Price We Pay for Cheap Meat

#86

Post by PetrolMan »

kaoD wrote: post #58
gambiting wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So is there no middle ground then? Is it a simple case of you can't have one without another? I believe that you can eat meat, provided that animals live in a decent,stress-free environment. I know it's very hard to find meat that carries any sort of a guarantee on it,but at least here in EU "free range" and "organic" mean something that is legally enforceable, so every time I buy chicken/beef/pork that is organic I…

No, there's no middle ground. Killing is killing. Would it be moral to kill you if I'd let you live in a decent, stress-free environment before your death? Would it be moral to raise human children, give them a nice childhood and then kill them before they reach adulthood because they're super tasty then? I'm not saying I agree (or don't) with GP, just noting that you missed his point.

Nothing is ever so black and white. I'd argue that there is a difference between killing an insect and killing a human. The difference, in my mind, is that we think an insect lacks the same capacity for experiencing pain.

Edit: In the US, a lot of how cruelty is valued is based on how alike the animal is to us. Mammals get more attention than birds, which get more attention than fish. There is a hierarchy and I think it's based on how closely the animal resembles us, a part of which is the capacity for pain and suffering.

Re: The Price We Pay for Cheap Meat

#87

Post by logjam »

wernercd wrote: post #41
logjam wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really. It's "not an acceptable answer." Really. And you were saying something about "bias"? Kindly explain to us all how "eating meat" and the suffering that inevitably accompanies it is necessary or even desirable.

Tell us how not eating meat is necessary or desirable? I don't mind a salad, but we are omnivores and I have no issue eating meat (or byproducts like milk and cheese). I rather enjoy being at the top of the food chain. There is nothing wrong with enforcing humane treatment and handling of animals. I think THAT is a very valid cause to fight for. Animals do deserve to live comfortably without the idiocy that they are…

Oh. Argument from "enjoyment".

In other words, more complete illogical bullshit.

The question remains: if eating meat is not necessary for nutrition, and it (killing animals) causes unnecessary suffering, then tell us again what argument you have other than the utter brilliance of "it tastes good"?

Maybe you could explain to us all how taking life unnecessarily somehow does not equal suffering in your little snowflake dream world. Maybe you could explain to us all why adults (top of the food chain, eh ominivore?) shouldn't eat children if they meet your gourmet taste test, eh sport?

Explain to us all again how taking life unnecessarily is "responsible". I'm not aware of any legitimate ethical codes that would align with that particular thinking, but perhaps yours is special.

Re: The Price We Pay for Cheap Meat

#88

Post by beaker52 »

beaker52 wrote: post #55
buckbova wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's what you think "it's about". The article was not making a judgement that raising animals for slaughter is wrong.

You might want to note that I was replying to a comment, and not the website.

"Its hard for me to seriously consider changing my opinion from an article that shows its biases so clearly. ... Not eating meat or drinking milk is not going to be an acceptable answer."

Re: The Price We Pay for Cheap Meat

#89

Post by coldtea »

kaoD wrote: post #58
gambiting wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So is there no middle ground then? Is it a simple case of you can't have one without another? I believe that you can eat meat, provided that animals live in a decent,stress-free environment. I know it's very hard to find meat that carries any sort of a guarantee on it,but at least here in EU "free range" and "organic" mean something that is legally enforceable, so every time I buy chicken/beef/pork that is organic I…

No, there's no middle ground. Killing is killing. Would it be moral to kill you if I'd let you live in a decent, stress-free environment before your death? Would it be moral to raise human children, give them a nice childhood and then kill them before they reach adulthood because they're super tasty then? I'm not saying I agree (or don't) with GP, just noting that you missed his point.

>No, there's no middle ground. Killing is killing.

That's a tautology. It doesn't tell us anything.

The real question is, what makes EVERY killing wrong?

Are you wrong for taking antibiotics? If not, why not? After all "killing is killing".

Are you a murderer for killing a mosquito? Why not? Since, you know, "killing is killing".

Should a lion be punished for eating an antelope? Why not? After all, "killing is killing".

Should a man that caught 10 fish be put to prison for life, just the same as a man that killed 10 people? If not, why, since "killing is killing"?

Perhaps you were wrong, and now you see that not all killing is equal?

Re: The Price We Pay for Cheap Meat

#90

Post by Zikes »

Loughla wrote: post #65
gambiting wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So is there no middle ground then? Is it a simple case of you can't have one without another? I believe that you can eat meat, provided that animals live in a decent,stress-free environment. I know it's very hard to find meat that carries any sort of a guarantee on it,but at least here in EU "free range" and "organic" mean something that is legally enforceable, so every time I buy chicken/beef/pork that is organic I…

Not all of America falls into the category of being completely ignorant to where their food comes from, or eat food that was raised in factory farms. Many Americans (in the fly-over states) have access to local butchers that can drive you to the actual field where the animal lived. We recently bought a side of beef for the family from one of these shops. There are eight within a day's driving distance to me (midwest…

Flyover states have such a low population density that this solution works, however the demand throughout the country is so staggeringly high that it's not at all a viable solution for everyone. That's why the larger meat industries exist, they're the only ones capable of handling the volume necessary.

That means that even less of the country is ignorant about the source of their meat than you would think, but not everyone is in a position to be able to do something about it. Many of us don't have the options available to you, and if we did and we all chose the most ethically sourced options available, the prices would either be astronomically high or the previously ethical source companies would have to resort to less ethical measures to be able to keep up with demand.

Post reply on HN