Hacker News Reader

Comment by randyrand | Hacker News Reader

Its hard for me to seriously consider changing my opinion from an article that shows its biases so clearly. You show me the worst case scenario, but what is the average case? Also, what are the alternatives to these techniques? If you don't like cattle prodding, what do you suggest instead? Not eating meat or drinking milk is not going to be an acceptable answer.

Edit: Not going to be acceptable as an alternative to animal cruelty to the American public. I think that is pretty objective in terms of what is actually feasible through legislation/cultural change.

View on HN

The article was about large-scale production of animals by multi-billion dollar conglomerates, not about veganism or vegetarianism (though there is of course a connection). Thus, it owes readers no alternative lifestyle choices.

If you are disgusted by the reality presented in the article, then its incumbent upon you to find an alternative you find more humane.

Cruelty to animals/non-vegetarianism/humane treatment of animals etc. are all highly subjective and personal choices. You won't find all the easy answers in one article.

In many industries there are always extremes. Consider all those series about restaurants and the famous chef trying to right them. Really, how are some of those places in business? How are inspectors not fired? After all its clearly convincing that some of them are a threat to both customer and employee.

So it goes with farming. However having grown up around this industry I do know that farmers themselves do not tolerate suffering of animals in their care, and regardless if they are dairy or meat, they are in your care. You are also on the lookout for conditions that will get you fined or shutdown.

So my bias when it comes to this article is this, if the evidence is so convincing then where are the inspectors? Where is the government? Surely something so exaggerated must deserve immediate attention!

Sadly, considering the names of some of involved organizations I dismiss their stories immediately. Especially anyone dealing with PETA and similar. Groups whose only interest is headlines and are more than willing to ignore abuses to animals in government run shelters, if not their own run facilities.

Pay more for your meat. Eat less meat to pay for it if you must. Research the premium brands available in your supermarket - the words "free range" or "organic" on their own are pretty meaningless. Find out what delivery services are available in your area, research them. Buy from a provider you trust.

This is a useless advice as there is no accountability/testing for these claims.... you cannot even be sure what kind of fish that you are buying nowadays (organic is even harder to prove). DNA testing would solve that, but the FDA apparently don't have the budget. For example: https://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/one-third-fish... .

That's where the "research" bit comes in. Take that report to your fish-monger[1] and ask him about it. If he has a strong opinion about it he's probably a keeper. If not, ditch him and get your fish from somewhere else. Again, check online vendors.

1: Here's a direct link to the actual report so you don't come off as someone who gets his information from tabloid newspapers: http://oceana.org/sites/default/files/Fishy_Business_updated...

This is reasonable advice, and something we follow in our household that eats meat a couple times/week. Only the good stuff, but not too much of it.

It's not about worst case, best case or average case.

The fact that in all cases, animals are born (without choice) into captivity, for the purpose of having their life exploited or ended, is one of the most compelling reasons you should consider your consumption of meat and whether it's really worth it.

That's what you think "it's about". The article was not making a judgement that raising animals for slaughter is wrong.

You might want to note that I was replying to a comment, and not the website.

And the comment on the article by randyrand is "You show me the worst case scenario, but what is the average case?" which has nothing to do with the morality of raising animals for slaughter nor does the article.

"Its hard for me to seriously consider changing my opinion from an article that shows its biases so clearly. ... Not eating meat or drinking milk is not going to be an acceptable answer."

One of the biggest issues with mass-produced meat in this country is the total lack of transparency between the average case and worst case scenario. If all you take away from this is starting to believe in and supporting better food labeling practices, and perhaps actually having a conversation about your meat's provenance with your butcher, I'd consider that to be progress.

Two questions:

1. What makes you think this is the worst case? (That is, not comparable to the average case.)

2. Why is it unacceptable to stop eating meat or drinking milk?

Love this comment. The biased pointing fingers at the biased.

I believe cultured beef is the answer.

Really. It's "not an acceptable answer." Really. And you were saying something about "bias"?

Kindly explain to us all how "eating meat" and the suffering that inevitably accompanies it is necessary or even desirable.

Tell us how not eating meat is necessary or desirable?

I don't mind a salad, but we are omnivores and I have no issue eating meat (or byproducts like milk and cheese). I rather enjoy being at the top of the food chain.

There is nothing wrong with enforcing humane treatment and handling of animals. I think THAT is a very valid cause to fight for. Animals do deserve to live comfortably without the idiocy that they are somehow people too.

Eating meat = Suffering is every bit as stupid as Guns = Violence. It's all about doing stuff responsibly.

Oh. Argument from "enjoyment".

In other words, more complete illogical bullshit.

The question remains: if eating meat is not necessary for nutrition, and it (killing animals) causes unnecessary suffering, then tell us again what argument you have other than the utter brilliance of "it tastes good"?

Maybe you could explain to us all how taking life unnecessarily somehow does not equal suffering in your little snowflake dream world. Maybe you could explain to us all why adults (top of the food chain, eh ominivore?) shouldn't eat children if they meet your gourmet taste test, eh sport?

Explain to us all again how taking life unnecessarily is "responsible". I'm not aware of any legitimate ethical codes that would align with that particular thinking, but perhaps yours is special.

By that I mean I don't think the United Sates public would (in the foreseeable future) accept that as an alternative to animal cruelty and less about my own opinion.

Oh. Argumentum ad populum.

In other words, bullshit. Are you really trying to convince us that because some large number of people want to mindlessly eat meat, nothing can be done?

>>Argumentum ad...

I've been reading your posts and I can't help but notice that you sound like someone who just started taking 'Philosophy 101: Introduction to Logic' in college.

Ad hominem. :)

Ad rock

On the contrary I was suggesting we should take baby steps.

Oh. Argumentum ad baby steps.

;)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com