Hacker News Reader

Comment by sidlls | Hacker News Reader

So many animals die at the blades of the harvester. Also, the reason the argument fares poorly is likely due to the fact that it’s devoid of reason and couched entirely in emotion. Emotion is powerful and important, as it is part of our humanity. But it’s not a good basis for argument, given its fickle and poorly understood nature.

View on HN

Less animals stand to die at the blades of the harvester when one chooses to stop eating animals altogether. You can't eliminate suffering, but you can take active measures to reduce it.

One can also choose to consume meat that is not treated with cruelty. It’s more expensive, but does exist.

The “less violence” argument doesn’t hold sway with some. That’s a purely subjective assessment that not everyone agrees with. For example, I don’t consider the slaughter of animals for food to be particularly more violent than the wholesale shredding of plant fibers at harvest.

Curiously, where would you draw the line for violence?

> I don’t consider the slaughter of animals for food to be particularly more violent than the wholesale shredding of plant fibers at harvest

You probably think of "violence" differently than most people then.

There is no such thing as slaughter without cruelty. The animals do not want to die, and they are killed. That is _always_ cruel.

There is such a thing, for example the slaughtering of an animal for food.

If you watch the footage of pigs being half-stunned, throats slit, and then drowning in a vat of hot blood, and can earnestly tell me you don't see that as cruel, I promise you I will never make that argument again.

As if that were the only way to slaughter an animal.

It’s how virtually all factory farms do it, which is the vast vast majority of meat that human beings eat. We should make sure we’re comfortable with it before saying it’s humane.

Plants don't want to die either, and they do their best to evolve specifically to avoid death.

Personally I would love to have a device that would pull carbon out of the air and produce proteins. We are not there yet, so plants are the next best thing.

You don't need a device. It already exists, and has existed for hundreds of thousands of years. It's the ruminant-grass-soil-microbe energy cycle.

Suicidal behavior in humans and other animals suggests that this is not always true.

I think we'll eventually be able to recreate "meat" that is equal to or even better than meat that came from an actual animal. We'll reach a point where "fake" meat tastes better, is healthier for you, and, most importantly of all, is more profitable.

Emotion might not be a good basis for argument, but neither is "X is also non-zero amount bad so why should I stop Y even though it is more bad"

Ex: "Donuts are bad for you because they are sugary" "Well, apples have sugar in them too! Should I stop eating them as well?!"

I was poking holes in the absolutism of the GP’s argument, not arguing as you suggest.

Veganism is never about absolutism. Veganism is about striving to do the best possible. Can every single human being go vegan? Probably not. But that vast majority can, while living full, healthy, happy lives.

Where is the absolutism?

I think that many times people have a logical argument (perhaps flawed) underlying their stated positions, but they don't clearly articulate it.

Some good-faith discussion can often surface that tacit reasoning.

Maybe you can say more about what you disagree with, then, rather than writing off the comment as a bad argument. I don't think it was that bad or emotional, personally.

What part of “ without the slaughter of living, feeling, individual being is so unbelievably important and incredible” is not emotional? The words “feeling” and “individual” are purely emotional in this context.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com