• naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    1 year ago

    … people are vegan precisely because they don’t think we should derive our notions of morality from random observations of charismatic megafauna.

    what on earth gave you the other idea? it’s always carnists that are like “see you have stubby little canines, eat meat” or “see lions eat the children of a pride when they take over so we should… wait fuck I mean lions eat gazelles alive sometimes so, wait sorry I’ll get it. Lions eat meat and are good role models as previously established so you should too”

        • I’m capable of holding 2 conflicting ideas in my head at the same time without a complete mental breakdown.

          1. Animals don’t deserve to suffer.
          2. I like the taste of chicken and bacon.
            • Wilzax@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              Hens I raise in my backyard coop and slaughter humanely when they stop laying? You’re telling me they suffer?

              • naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                7
                ·
                1 year ago

                Yep. To be clear I don’t think you’re a bad person deliberately abusing them but it’s likely that several things are true:

                • they’re a breed that emphasises egg laying at the expense of their health and wellbeing. Jungle fowls, the birds chickens are bred from, lay around 12-20 eggs a year. Most chicken breeds lay about 10x that. This is hard on their body and shortens their lifespan. It is cruel to breed them in the same way it is cruel to breed pugs.

                • As the demand for hens is much higher than roosters it is highly likely many of their brothers were killed, often moments after being born in a hatchery by a putting them on a conveyor belt that feeds them, conscious, into a blender. I wish I was making that up. Or they were stuffed into trays and suffocated in co2, not a pleasant experience either way. The blender might even be less cruel there.

                • Because you view them as a means to an end it is unlikely you avail them to medical care of a quality you would give a child or a pet. Also it is likely they could enjoy more life when they stop laying but you do not view them as whole beings deserving of dignity and respect, so you kill them when they are no longer productive.

                • It is unlikely they are killed humanely, a humane killing is one we would be happy to use on another human as a way to die with dignity. Maybe I’m wrong but I doubt you do anything so peaceful, consentual, and gentle.

                • Wilzax@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  1 year ago
                  1. This argument could be made to promote eugenics in humans, so I’m dismissing it outright.

                  2. The chicks were purchased before they were sexed, the roosters were slaughtered for meat much younger than the hens but not in a factory.

                  3. Of course I don’t give them medical aid like I would with a human child. They are put out of their suffering when their usefulness ends, just as we do with all other animals. It just so happens that animals we keep as pets are useful for emotional reasons, which continues even in sickness.

                  4. I would happily die by beheading as a form of euthanasia, as the blood loss causes near instant shock and rapid loss of consciousness. If my brain could be destroyed in the process, I would prefer that even more. Both are preferable to slowly succumbing to a painful illness, as long as I have my affairs in order. Chickens don’t have affairs to worry about.The only reason we don’t do that with assisted suicides in humans is because of the mess it makes.

                  • naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    you would be gripped by a giant with no explanation at a time not chosen by you, held down, and decapitated? I umm don’t think so.

                    Of course you can present the most sanitised and consentual version but that is not how you treat these animals. You admit that they aren’t real living beings with internal worlds like yours to you. They are things you own, machines to use up and break down.

                    They suffer, you might call it acceptable or natural or even noble but they suffer.

              • Bob@feddit.nl
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                I think it’s uncontroversial to say having your life taken away constitutes suffering, unless you’re undergoing some extreme torture by staying alive, and causing suffering like that is inhumane. Just saying that you do it humanely doesn’t really change anything tangibly.

                • Wilzax@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  It doesn’t cause suffering to end a life unless that life is aware of its fate and becomes stressed out, or if that death leaves behind loved ones to grieve. Chickens don’t grieve.

        • Shiggles@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          As a general rule as soon as you start making up words like “carnists” and trying to insert them in regular conversation, you’re probably very deep down a rabbit hole and need to strongly consider the life choices that got you there.