Sentience means "the capacity to have feelings", and it is widely understood by the scientific community that the vast majority of the animal kingdom has sentience.
Do you believe cows can experience pain? Because we're right up close against rejecting scientific consensus just to justify immoral actions. And that typically is frowned upon historically.
Subjecting something that feels pain to experience pain for your pleasure is immoral.
Right, so the only thing stopping you from factory farming and consuming humans is risk of prion disease and taste? By which it could be understood that if those two issues were solved - no risk of disease, and the flavour enhanced, you would happily factory farm humans.
And vegans are the weird ones? Your priorities are cooked buddy.
Well, it doesn't cause prion diseases, it just spreads them. It's only transmissible by consumption of conspecifics (or often, as in mad cow disease, by eating similar species - when farmers were feeding cows dead chickens and cows).
So you're saying the only thing stopping you from eating factory farmed human meat is the risk to your own safety?
Oh we're talking about eating humans now, we're well past dogs as it seems like a fair few people here would be okay with factory farming them.
Personally, my ethics are simple and easily define - if it displays sentience, I won't eat it. It's unethical to kill and eat something that feels pain. I'm more interested in your more nebulous ethics, where some species are okay to eat, some not
It sounds like you're okay with eating dogs, which id argue is demonstrably disgusting, but in your opinion, is it okay to rear, kill and then eat humans?
Right, but what's inherently wrong with eating your own species? I mean, I know, I think any sentient life shouldn't be killed for my pleasure. But with your logic that some species are okay to kill and eat, and others aren't, I'm wanting to know why those others aren't.
Ignoring "societal norms", as they've been used to commit genocide, slavery, and all manner of atrocities - why is cannibalism logically, in your opinion, bad?
Cows are forcibly impregnated in perpetuity by humans, separated from their children and then had their milk taken so we can drink it. As soon as the cow can longer be impregnated and becomes unprofitable, it is killed for meat.
If a man sticks his fist in the vagina of a cow for fun, it is sexual animal abuse. If a man sticks his fist in the vagina of a cow, hoping to later kill and eat it's flesh, it's lunch.
I think a comparison is valid. Just because you are a willing participant and enabler in this animal sexual exploitation does not invalidate or soften the facts.
"Meat tastes good" as an argument for immoral actions is not valid logic. "Sex feels good" is not valid justification for sexual assault. "Men taste good" is not justification for Jeffrey Dahmer.
"Let's eat less meat". Again, there is no valid moral argument for "just a little bit of sexual assault". "Only a wee bit of animal abuse", "only occasional racism". A moral wrong is a moral wrong. But hey at least it isn't "I'd go vegan, but I just love cheese!". Well then go vegan but eat cheese.
As for rural NY, I'd use Happycow.net to find places. I've eaten vegan in rural Bali, rural NZ, rural Australia, rural England, and never paid more than my meat eating counterparts. But if that's still a concern, then eat vegan at home, meat when going out.
Although I'd still argue that "it's more convenient for me commit sexual assault than to hire a sex worker" isn't a valid justification.
Seriously if you get the option, read that book I recommended, even just the first chapter. I can buy you a copy of you like, DM me an email address and I'll gift a copy. If you read it, I will genuinely send you PayPal money for a vegan dinner in rural NY. I've taken everyone else who read the book out to dinner, it's only fair you get a free one!
Pushing people into corners is what good debate is about. If people find their refutations are weak enough to have them back into a corner, then they should abandon that argument.
I grew up on a farm in the south of New Zealand. My brothers were dairy farmers, my front yard was cattle, I was a staunch anti-vegan who swore he'd never eat vegetarian as long as he lived.
I will never care because meat tastes good. Except now I do.
There is no level of regulation that permits - in good moral conscience - the subjugation and slaughter of animals for our pleasure.
Meat is only easily accessible because it is heavily subsidized by the government. A vegan diet is nearly always cheaper - consider that most developing nations eat vegan/vegetarian because of this.
There's a short book I read that absolutely convinced me of veganism called "This is Vegan Propaganda and Other Lies The Meat Industry Tells You". I've had 5 people read it, and ALL FIVE have gone vegan. It's straight up insane how brutal a grip the meat industry has on people, through lobbying, ad campaigns, purposeful obfuscation of the industry. Bananas!
I'm not suggesting that animal eating leads to cannibalism, which WOULD be a slippery slope.
I'm suggesting that if meat eaters are okay with killing and eating animals, why not the human animal? I probe because the line drawn in the sand is unclear with meat eaters.
Also, humans are animals. This is primary school stuff here.
What separates eating animals from eating people for you?
No serious study suggests plants feel pain. They do not have a brain or central nervous system. At most, they respond to stimuli.
Many more plants "die" for animal feeding than with a vegan diet.
If you're worried about grass pain, you should focus more on the animals that DO have nociceptors, central nervous systems and brains, and the ability to feel fear that you subject them too, purely for taste preference.
Only if you eat the brain or spinal column, which I was careful to add. Otherwise the risks are as manageable as with cow meat, i.e., parasites and bacteria. Given that you're okay with eating cats and dogs, and now simple-minded humans, what's to stop me from killing and eating you? I mean, all anyone needs to assert is that they're mentally superior to their food, what's off the table for you?
I'm sure mass scale cannibalism might actually be as good for the environment as a plant based diet. Maybe you're on to something. We'd be so morally consistent!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. You literally can't reply, this is honestly my favourite anti-vegan argument I've ever had.
Alright alright, I'm all done. You clearly have no ability to argue, but it was a fun journey for me finding that out. With no capacity for understanding, I'll block you now to ensure I don't waste any more of our time.
Save your health, the life of animals and the life of the planet and eat plant-based.
So fish have nociceptors, and a brain that connects to them, and they avoid painful stimuli. They have analgesic response systems in their brain to dull painful stimuli. Even the most cautious interpetation of misery would include pain, so I would not kill and eat it. Fish display sentience, therefore it is immoral to kill them for pleasure.
You're right. If farm animals were sedated before being killed, it would certainly be preferable, but wouldn't make it right.
We have no right to cause pain, fear or death to sentient beings, purely for ~15 minutes or pleasure. Doing so is immoral. There is no valid argument against this. Trust me, I did NOT want to be a vegan. I argued against it for four years trying not to become one. But there was and is no argument against it. Eating meat is immoral, bad for the planet, bad for the animals, bad for modern medicine, and in a typical western diet, bad for your health.
I repeat, there is no argument against veganism, and being vegan is objectively he correct moral choice.