First off, it’s not that these animals would live otherwise. They can’t survive in the wild, the only reason they exist at all at this scale is because there is an economic incentive to keep them - namely, meat, eggs, milk etc. Would you rather have them live a short live or not even be born because their parents died in the wild?
Second, perfect is the enemy of the good. Most people won’t stop eating meat no matter what you tell them, so, regardless of your stance, a push for more ethical farming is beneficial.
Would you rather have them live a short live or not even be born because their parents died in the wild?
I think you should not be allowed to breed someone into existence when you have the date of their murder already in your calendar.
most people won’t stop eating meat
I’m talking to you, not most people.
more ethical farming is beneficial
I do not believe you can ethically kill someone that doesn’t want to die. All these promises like “humane slaughter” (which is an oxymoron) or “freerange” are only serving businesses to sell more and consumers to feel less bad about their unethical practice. They change virtually nothing for the animals that are still locked up, exploited and killed at a fraction of their lifespan.
If you believe animals deserve compassion you should not pay for them to be enslaved and killed.
I think you should not be allowed to breed someone into existence when you have the date of their murder already in your calendar.
Well, that’s how we differ. All emotionally charged language aside, I’d rather see animals see some life than no life at all.
Besides, with the way you put it, this looks less and less like a genuine wish to unpack my views and more like an attempt to debate it.
I believe that we can and should make farming practices better, making a better life for these animals. And I think that, even with the views you have, you will agree it would at least be better than what we currently see.
Sure!
First off, it’s not that these animals would live otherwise. They can’t survive in the wild, the only reason they exist at all at this scale is because there is an economic incentive to keep them - namely, meat, eggs, milk etc. Would you rather have them live a short live or not even be born because their parents died in the wild?
Second, perfect is the enemy of the good. Most people won’t stop eating meat no matter what you tell them, so, regardless of your stance, a push for more ethical farming is beneficial.
I think you should not be allowed to breed someone into existence when you have the date of their murder already in your calendar.
I’m talking to you, not most people.
I do not believe you can ethically kill someone that doesn’t want to die. All these promises like “humane slaughter” (which is an oxymoron) or “freerange” are only serving businesses to sell more and consumers to feel less bad about their unethical practice. They change virtually nothing for the animals that are still locked up, exploited and killed at a fraction of their lifespan.
If you believe animals deserve compassion you should not pay for them to be enslaved and killed.
Well, that’s how we differ. All emotionally charged language aside, I’d rather see animals see some life than no life at all.
Besides, with the way you put it, this looks less and less like a genuine wish to unpack my views and more like an attempt to debate it.
I believe that we can and should make farming practices better, making a better life for these animals. And I think that, even with the views you have, you will agree it would at least be better than what we currently see.