Hacker News Reader

Comment by Havoc | Hacker News Reader

The whole too smart thing seems so arbitrary to me.

Like this animal can solve a puzzle thus it can't be farmed. The other animal can't. But if we scare/hurt them they both react in fear/pain.

IQs are we talking here? Suduko? Puzzle? Open a door? Use a tool? Care for its youngs? Stand under roof when it rains?

I can wrap my head around both stances (eat animals freely or full veg only)...bit this arbirary line in sand approach I struggle with. May as well go with an arbitrary "this one is cute so we won't eat it" approach

View on HN

People arguing that would be happy if no animals were farmed at all.

The opposite argument is equally dumb, you wouldn't legalize crack because beer is a drug and beer is legal

> People arguing that would be happy if no animals were farmed at all.

This. It's a propaganda angle to try to get non-activists to support their group's demands by adding a spin to their claims that makes it more engaging.

The same blend of propaganda also includes things like showing a picture of a pig showing only its eyes, devised to underline their similarities with human eyes. They then proceed to draw a parallel between slaughtering pigs and humans. Another take is portraying cattle as pets, and you wouldn't kill your own pets now would you?

In the end it's just propaganda to try to convince non-militants to unwittingly support a cause. It doesn't matter if it's arbitrary or outlandish. The goal is to sway you to do the militant's bidding.

Quite odd to label people trying to end horrific violence as "militants"...

And is it really outlandish to want to stop hurting animals that really are similar to cats, dogs and yes, us humans, at least as far as the ability to perceive pain and basic emotions. Perhaps the propaganda is actually that it is okay for non-human animals to endure horrific suffering, just so that some humans can spend a few minutes "enjoying" the taste of their flesh or breast-milk.. (the production of which also requiring huge amounts of plant-based feed, which significantly contributes to deforestation & methane emissions)

> Quite odd to label people trying to end horrific violence as "militants"...

You are literally discussing militant groups engaged in pushing their political agenda through propaganda. There are no two ways about it.

I feel like we've got the technological capability to steward wildlife populations to the point that we can all eat animals that live wild. It would be a big transition but it would be great for the environment.

> you wouldn't legalize crack because beer is a drug and beer is legal

Off-topic, but why not? I would actually legalize every substance; enforce safety measures (e.g. no driving while high) and services like NA.

Let people do what they want.

I’d be curious what legalizing weed has done to the number of people who tried it for the first time or went from non use to occasional use. I say this because the addiction/safety/outcome of many of these “harder” drugs means that a short dalliance could lead to faster addiction etc. There would be a knock on societal effect if there was an uptick in use, and NA etc are not that effective %wise for people to hop-on hop-off. By this measure, alcohol is just as bad, and while prohibition didn’t stop the flow for those seeking it and increased the safety risks from bootlegging, I wonder if a better example is to look at a country with strict historical prohibition which relaxed those rules (can’t think of an example).

I can't agree with that when we're reaching into the 70% overweight/obese in the US, I personally don't believe in the "let people do what they want" until it means "and let them bear the consequences by themselves", we're all collectively paying the price of these choices

>eat animals freely

Then why not eat humans too? There needs to be a line somewhere.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com