Morality

How do we justify the genocide of animals?

Other urls found in this thread:

news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/12/1209_051209_crops_map.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Animals are not sentient. Animals do not have cultures. Therefore consuming and exploiting animals domesticated for our consumption does not equate to genocide.

Because it isn't genocide. We actively breed more of them.

Ask how do you justify industrial animal farming.

Animals suffer and die constantly in the wild, so farm life is a gift to them.

>Animals are not sentient
Lol

They taste good and I'm hungry every day.

>Animals are not sentient

(citation needed)

>Animals are not sentient
Mammals certainly are very sentient, and that is why it's genocide

We don't need to, just like we don't justify plants genocide or animals genocided thanks to agriculture.

If we forced everyone to watch the slaughtering process of a pig we would have a LOT more vegetarians

>genocide
>gen·o·cide
ˈjenəˌsīd/Submit
noun
the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation.
>the deliberate killing of a large group of people
>people

Isn't it painless for the pig?

I don't care what the dictionary says, the term should apply to all sentient beings

Is this what spoiled city kids actually believe? I had no problems helping slaughter animals then eating them even as I was a kid. From pigs (later roasted like pic related) to rabbits and chickens.

We need to eat. We need to eat cheaply. We like to eat meat too.
There you go you fucking dingus.

If you have no bad feelings killing a living sentient being, you are probably a sociopath

>a few animals dying in the woods is the same thing as the industrial breeding and slaughtering of literally billions of animals living their short lives in conditions that mostly could only be described as torture

Yeah no, impossible to defend this practice without going full psychopath.

We can live as human beings without meat, meat is just an extra

Would you kill your best friend for just an extra?

Ive watched plenty of them getting killed for food and havent cared. Its mostly just retarded city folk who dont live in a farm who get a cultural shock that meat comes from living things.

>the term should apply to all sentient beings
yeah im sure the fucking jews and armenians would love their struggles being compared with an actual fucking cow.
Human meat tastes like shit, so your question is irrelevant.

If you have a problem killing sentient beings then you are probably a spoiled faggot who thinks food appears in super markets and thinks millions of animals aren't killed trough denial of land on which they live via modern agricultural methods so you can have your gay ass soy sauce.

>Human meat tastes like shit
How do you know?

Farming is the opposite of genocide if a genocide is the complete removal of a species.

I'm not defending industrial farming practices. I just don't see anything wrong with raising animals on farms to eat on principle.

That would be cannibalism which is wrong but eating is not wrong

i got really fucking drunk one night in new guinea, That's all im prepared to say.

>blacks' life expectancies grew once they were brought to the US, so slavery was a gift to them

>meat is just an extra
But that's wrong, we literally evolved with enzymes to digest meat and meat has been consumed by hominids for millions of years by now. Moreover eating meat is by far more energy efficient than having a diet of nothing but vegetables and fruits.

Biology and Nature.
Nature is fascist and doesn't care how you feel about its morality.
We eat the pigs according to the same rules by which pigs would eat us, if they can get away with it.
seriously. Pray to God that you never encounter an adult wild Boar alone in the woods, because you'll die a slow death by goring while it starts to eat you alive.
At least we don't do that.

They call human meat "long pig" for a reason. We apparently taste like pork.

We don't justify it, we just do it

>I don't care what the dictionary says

Then why the fuck are you here. This is a place for rational discussion, if you want to debate with "muh feelings" then fuck off to somewhere else.

My point was that since animal suffering is inevitable, it matters not whether they do it on a farm or in the wild. The suffering of humans caused by their freedom is not inevitable, so there would be no justification to subject them to the suffering of slavery (which IS inevitable).

>a few animals dying in the woods

kek, fucking hypocrite, agriculture is the most devastating practice that mankind has done on the planet in almost 50% of the surface.
>news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/12/1209_051209_crops_map.html
The direct and indirect result is the death of an incalculable number of animals and the extinction of species.

Unironically, yes.
The conditions of slavery in America were infinitely better than their lots in Africa.
Just because the master also gains by exploiting his slave, doesn't mean the slave can't also benefit.
If you had to choose between certain execution and slavery to an uncertain master, which would you choose? Slavery of course, because you can always choose suicide later if you find life unbearable as a slave. Therefore has not the condemned been granted a gift of life as a slave rather than death?

Sentience involves both self-awareness and cognition of others. 99% of animals are not capable of this. That guy misspoke but animals are not SAPIENT.

spbp

& Humanities so we can discuss feelings here

Back to /pol/

>Sentience involves both self-awareness and cognition of others. 99% of animals are not capable of this.

Except they are capable

>I just don't see anything wrong with raising animals on farms to eat on principle.

Because you're drawing an arbitrary line between humans and other animals.

>Just because the master also gains by exploiting his slave, doesn't mean the slave can't also benefit.
Why would you even argue this point except as an edgy defense of slavery?

It's not arbitrary at all. Life on a non-industrial farm will be much better for many animals than life in the wild. This isn't true for humans.

They are not. A pig does not look at a man and think "That is a man." They are designed, evolved, and created in a way for purely instinctual programming and nothing else.

>They are not. A pig does not look at a man and think "That is a man."
Alright, I am not sure about pigs, but what about dogs for example?

Aren't pigs smarter than dogs?

>The conditions of slavery in America were infinitely better than their lots in Africa.
I seriously doubt that in most cases.

>why would someone speak the truth
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

I agree that it is difficult to quantify that, which is why I resorted to the analogy of "Give Me Slavery or Give Me Death!" to make the point that slavery can be a gift in some cases.

>there was a life expectancy increase (not for the millions that died on the way to the new world)
>therefore slavery was beneficial
>its the truth.

Well if they are it would make the slaughter of pigs even more cruel

Did the practice of rampant female genital mutilation occur in US slave states in the 19th century as it still does in 20th and 21st century Sub-Saharan Africa?

This film

>Holocaust
>Implying

Eating meat is only justified if said killed animal has released more dopamine in it's life that it would have otherwise done in the wild

> Life on a non-industrial farm will be much better for many animals than life in the wild.

Why even mention a few "non-industrial" ones, completely irrelevant. Not that their life is meaningful in any way there either since they are still captive and only exist to become our food. Nothing "natural" about it, this kind of "bred to die" existence on an industrial scale is straight up lovecraftian. I consume meat btw, i just don't try to defend it because it is IMPOSSIBLE without sinking to solipsism tier mental gymnastics or as i've said going full psycho.

I really like this idea.

This

I eat meat too because I recognize my effort alone won't change a thing, but I will never go through mental gymnastics proving that it's a moral thing to do

"Meaningful lives?" Why are you even talking about such concepts? I think you're endowing the animals with human qualities they don't actually have. While a human obviously cares about whether his or her life is meaningful, I don't think an animal gives a fuck how it lives its life, so long as it's surviving and not in constant agony.

Genocide is a term for humans.

For animals, its specicide. If you want to use that term, you shouldn't use the image of a pig. Pigs aren't going extinct anytime soon. Most of the animals/biological life/plants/marinelife are going to be extinct within few lifetimes. Its called the 6th great extinction event, also known as Holocene extinction. The human led extinction event is happening at a rate that's similar to the ones like the dinosaur meteor extinction level. We are accelerating the pace of natural extinction rate by nearly 10,000x. Along with global warming and urbanization of second/third world countries that's gonna come up within the next few decades, this will speed up even faster on global scale.

wew look at this faggot

>I think you're endowing the animals with human qualities they don't actually have.

They are aware enough to become "depressed" and they certainly scream and panic like humans when shit hits the fan. The practice spits on life itself, it's like a twisted version of it and evolution, where nothing matters for them and they are going nowhere. Born, fed and slaughtered - repeat. And the scale of it all is largely caused by people consuming large amounts of meat because it's tasty, not because they need it to survive, further increasing the nightmarish nature of the spectacle. Pretty much every non-hack intellectual holds the same stance regardless of ideological background, it's simply unethical.

Do you have any sources suggesting they're more likely to become depressed in farms than in the wild, or is this all conjecture?

There are farms of people eating the farmed animals.

Perhaps one of the best replies I have seen to a thread on this board in months. I too have read up on what you're talking about, it's very true.

Stop talking about the wild you dumb fuck, these animals in captivity would not exist at all without our meat industry.

Actually domesticated swine rapidly adapt to life in the wild, when they escape or are released.
That's why there are so many wild hogs that they are considered an invasive pest everywhere in the U.S., and it's is legal to shoot them year round without a license.

I am really trying to understand the point you're making user. Help me out.

You're saying that raising animals on farms, even non-industrial farms, is bad because it denies the animals meaningful lives. If animals aren't raised on farms, the alternative is for them to live in the wild. Why is a life in the wild more meaningful than life on a farm? Is it suffering and struggle that create meaning, the fact that they're constantly living in fear of being eaten alive or starving to death?

>Actually domesticated swine rapidly adapt to life in the wild, when they escape or are released.

I assume you're trolling. Equally embarassing regardless though, as you would have to be REALLY stupid to believe i was talking about "could not exist in nature" as opposed to what i OBVIOUSLY AND CLEARLY meant - That these captive animals would never exist in the first place, ANYWHERE , without humans actively breeding billions of them in industrial grade facilities.

>If animals aren't raised on farms, the alternative is for them to live in the wild

There is no "them" without humans and their industrial breeding, see

Okay I'll make this nice and easy for you.

Is an animal's life in the wild meaningful, and if so, why?

>Okay I'll make this nice and easy for you.

You are triggering nobody with your garbage tier bait.

I don't know why you're being so autistic about this, it's a simple question and not bait at all.

You said farm life is bad because animals are denied meaningful lives. Okay, let's accept that. Now we ignore all farm animals and talk about completely separate animals in the wild. Are their lives meaningful? If not, your argument against farming falls apart, because clearly animals will always live meaningless lives.

I don't think I can make it simpler than that.

>it's a simple question and not bait at all.

When you are talking about "meaning" of life in the context of animals that would not exist in the first place in an ethical society, you are either baiting or experiencing some serious cognitive struggles. But since you want to talk about the meaning of life instead of staying on topic - No life is particularly meaningful in any objective sense. I've clearly stated that life in the wild is better than dead end torture and slaughter in captivity though, which i'm sure is not hard to agree with. An animal in the wild would've existed regardless of us. An animal bred to die and feed us is entirely a human product hence we enter the realm of ethics to a degree that we do not when it comes to animals going extinct due to human expansion (which is unfortunate but still within the realm of natural competition). You could argue that the meat industry is just as "natural" but that just leads back to the part about psychopathy, it clearly remains unethical.

Let's assume all animal life (except humans, i assume you're against human suffering at least to some degree) is truly "meaningless" (or worthless which is what you're actually talking about), and their suffering is nothing to you. This yet again means you're drawing an arbitrary line between humans and other animals and essentially you're a selective psychopath.

>You said farm life is bad because animals are denied meaningful lives

Apart from the nightmarish amount of pointless suffering etc. Go read my posts again, preferably with your brain in the "ON" position this time.

>When you are talking about "meaning" of life in the context of animals that would not exist in the first place in an ethical society, you are either baiting or experiencing some serious cognitive struggles.
You were the one who started talking about how life for animals on farms wasn't meaningful. ( )

>I've clearly stated that life in the wild is better than dead end torture and slaughter in captivity though, which i'm sure is not hard to agree with.
This is the entire subject of our debate, yet you have not made one argument for your case. There are farms that don't literally torture the animals. Why is life in the wild better than a life on those farms?

>hence we enter the realm of ethics to a degree that we do not when it comes to animals going extinct due to human expansion (which is unfortunate but still within the realm of natural competition).
Did you accidentally a word?

>Let's assume all animal life (except humans, i assume you're against human suffering at least to some degree) is truly "meaningless" (or worthless which is what you're actually talking about), and their suffering is nothing to you.
You're using the term meaningless in a different way than it was used originally. When you originally talked about farm animals living meaningless lives ( ), you were talking about it in terms of actualization and avoiding the depression that comes from a pointless existence. I don't deny that the lives of farm animals are meaningless in this sense. But saying an animal's life is meaningless doesn't mean I don't care about its suffering. Every post I've made in this thread has been aimed at the reduction of animal suffering.

By guaranteeing that they live a comfortable life before being killed without any suffering

This, animals are dumb and stupid, humans are better than them.

Animal rights activists and vegans are beta cucks.

>genocide

If we are attempting to genocide farm animals we are doing very fucking poorly at it.

We can't. Industrial animal farming is literally worse than the holocaust or any other kind of genocide, worse than slavery, and worse than war.

>blacks' life expectancies grew once they were brought to the US, so slavery was a gift to them

I really don't see how it isn't.

>what is the moral franchise
Universal moral franchise is the worst meme of the last century

I've always used the word "sentient" to just mean "has subjective experience". Isn't that the standard meaning?

Because life is not precious.

>Genocide
>They get perpetuated.

Even my non-sentient dog wouldn't give an argument this terrible.

it was tho. Would you rather be an African American today or live in West Africa?

Because animals aren't people and are lucky we give them any sort of legal protection at all.

No, you'd have some vegetarians for a few days but then most of them stop caring because bacon is so tasty or they'd gradually learn to suppress their feelings. PETA used to do rallies and pass out photos of factory farmed chickens with their beaks cut off in dirty miserable cages at my school. People would go vegetarian for, like, a day or two, maybe two weeks at most, and then they'd slip right back into their old ways. And if you kept showing it to them, they'd become numb to it. Bacon is a disturbingly strong force, it really is.

I would rather everybody was dead.

Human morals don't attribute any intrinsic value to non-human animal life.

Not really, I grew up on a farm and slaughtered them myself. Shoot in the head, cut the jugular, then hang them so they bleed out.

Plants dont feel emotions, like chinks

Certain things I kill because they threaten my life and well-being but other than those I do my best to limit death in my life for the sole purpose of feeling at ease in limiting my impact of this Earth.

Though I'm heavily contemplating eating insects sporadically because if I'm killing mosquitoes and ants and vermin what's wrong with eating say bee larvae if they are already bred to pollinate?

>It's okay to torture,kill, and eat emotional beings who have done no wrong because I am a fat fuck with no self control

That's is literally false, there isn't one system of human morals you dumb redditor

>purely instinctional programming
This implies pigs literally learn nothing throughout their lives, which I'm pretty sure isn't true for any species of mammal

>A pig does not look at a man and think "That is a man."

How would you know, unless you were but a pig?

>designed

Nice stealth christfaggotry. Or is the gaiafag "designed by naturr" thing? Either way wrong, but still humorous.

>evolved in a way

Lol

>and created

So evolved and then created? Are you huffing something?

They're tasty.

We kill humans no problem, so why not?

Do you think piggys care if you die? They would have human farms if they had the means

So by that logic exploiting Africans is also ok?