Hacker News Reader

Comment by damnfine | Hacker News Reader

And the Vegan shows up! I kid, but the stereotype really holds true all too often.

The unsaid assumption in your comment, that I disagree with, is that harvesting animals causes anymore suffering than caring for and harvesting plants (in a humane manner, which admittedly, many facotry farms fail at on either side.)

View on HN

How does harvesting animals cause less suffering, in the real world we live in? The usual answer is "well IF you are friends with your cow/chicken and give it lots of pasture and then you squeeze it for milk occasionally and one day quickly and painlessly end its life, then its humane" but then motte-and-bailey--style that gets used to excuse a diet full of factory-farmed meat and chicken trucks and forcibly-impregnating cows and then seizing and killing their newborns[1], which is the vast vast majority of meat consumption.

[1] https://www.google.com/search?q=chicken+trucks&source=lnms&t...

[2] https://www.ciwf.com/farm-animals/cows/dairy-cows/

All my meat is raised on open pasture locally, fed only on wild grasses. I specifically said factory farms are a clear problem. Thanks for talking past me and ignoring my point. This is what makes conversing wih you people get on my nerves. Show some intellectual respect and get some in retuen.

I agree with you on all your points. However, you last two sentences are not necessary. To be honest, the first time i read your comment i though the same thing. Only on a re-read did i see your last little bit of the message addresses that argument.

Also Capitalism exacerbates this

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Dairy_Checkoff

Harvesting animals also requires harvesting plants, for animal feed. It takes a lot more plant matter to create 1000 Calories worth of beef than of any plant-based food, probably around ten times more based on the amount of food energy required / food energy provided of meat.

> And the Vegan shows up! I kid, but the stereotype really holds true all too often

And the meat-man with a vengeance shows up. I kid you not, this stereotype holds true all too often. And, may I add, puzzles me absolutely no end. What is it about some people's restrictive dietary choices that regularly sets off these spasms of all too vocal disapproval in the minds of certain people?

I do not, as a general rule, eat meat. The predictable uninvited spluttering opinions on that quite unremarkable situation are beginning to get really old. Please!

And the meat-man with a vengeance shows up.

Yeah but he only showed up because the vegan made the discussion about veganism. People who eat meat aren't going around making every discussion about eating meat, they just appear when vegans do that.

She just stepped in early. I've had so many of these articles thrown in my face without me making the topic about veganism. There is a an active defensiveness spewing out of some carnivores when vegs are around.

To the extent someone's choices don't affect me, I'm also unaware of them. Your business is your business, yada yada. But if I know you're a vegan, it's because at some point you made it my business, so I think I'm justified in commenting on it.

For the most part I agree with you. There's a lot of sneering at vegans, and most vegans are harmless and anonymous. As with everything, it's the preachy ones who spoil everything.

Actually, neither the grandparent or I (of the snarky subreply) made any explicit declaration of veganism. I most emphatically am not a vegan. I just pragmatically don't eat meat. I keep my opinions of meat-eating largely to myself, and should prefer to receive a roughly equivalent treatment.

> The unsaid assumption in your comment, that I disagree with, is that harvesting animals causes anymore suffering than caring for and harvesting plants (in a humane manner, which admittedly, many facotry farms fail at on either side.)

Couldn't you argue that since in order to harvest animals you must harvest plants for the animals to eat. So definitely more suffering is produced by harvesting animals. This is amplified even more so when you consider that you have to harvest more plants for producing meat than you would if you just ate the plants.

There are other factors too including carcinogens in meat

http://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/past-debates/it...

It's incredibly difficult to measure what does and does not cause cancer. In reality it's an aggregate of your genetics and how you lived your life, plus a big helping of luck.

As with all "cancer-causing" substances it's worth being more clear. Firstly, the official advice is that processed meats (that involve curing, smoking, etc) and red meats (beef, lamb, goat and pork) increase your risk of cancer. It's not a blanket "meat contains carcinogens" as far as I can tell (chicken seems to be fine - no doubt the Daily Mail would say otherwise).

The actual risk in the study is a +18% chance of colon cancer, but the average risk is only 5%. If you ate 4 slices of bacon a day, your risk goes up to 6%. That may well be a statistically significant number, but as an individual +1% is well in the noise where other factors could dominate. There is an increased risk for other cancers, but I don't have the numbers and I guess they were lower.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com