[mattmanser]

What I always find odd about this argument is that almost all of those animals wouldn't even have existed if we weren't going to eat them.

If you believe in sentience, and the value of it, given their low awareness, either you support never even letting them live or what?

I can understand supporting low suffering, but non-existence seems even worse somehow?

Easy to wrap yourself in weird arguments and end up in the absurd, a la Douglas Adams Restaurant at the end of the Universe.

[brigandish]

You're comparing life with non-existence. We (as a vegetarian I include myself in those making this "odd" argument) are comparing a more happy life or non-existence with being a slave, having your offspring forcibly taken from you, living only a few years in often terrible and freakishly unnatural conditions to then be slaughtered, possibly in another freakishly unnatural way, just so that someone who might not even pay any attention while they're eating your remains, can eat lazily, often in a suboptimal way for taste and nutrition.

I doubt ours is the odd position in all of this.

[mattmanser]

They have no concept of freedom, and for most animals living in the wild is a terrifying existence where they can get killed every day and struggle to find food. Putting aside battery farming, they have a life of luxury compared to their wild cousins.

It's like you believe animals are like humans, they're not, stop anthromorphising them. They're not like Mel Gibson screaming "you can take our lives".

It also makes we wonder if you've ever lived in the country and met wild animals. They are generally not a happy bunch like you see in kids cartoons.

[brigandish]

> They have no concept of freedom

Trap some and I'm pretty sure you'll find they want to escape. They certainly understand the concept of captivity.

> It's like you believe animals are like humans, they're not, stop anthromorphising them

You could instead stop with the childish mischaracterisation of my views, of which you know little. I do not believe they are humans. I do, however, know via increasing amounts of evidence that they suffer and can experience complex emotional and social lives, and that our treatment of them is largely an unnecessary cause of their suffering.

> It also makes we wonder if you've ever lived in the country and met wild animals.

I worked in a butcher shop, I've been to working farms, I've been to cattle auctions. I wonder if you've only ever got your meat vacuumed packed in plastic and tell people you "love" bacon - but I wouldn't use that as an argument because it would be irrelevant and crass, especially on a forum like this that's supposed to represent discussion based on a higher level of reasoning amongst respectful peers.

> most animals living in the wild is a terrifying existence where they can get killed every day and struggle to find food. Putting aside battery farming, they have a life of luxury compared to their wild cousins.

You're using the same arguments people used to justify keeping slaves. They weren't any good then so I'm not sure why they'd be any better now.

[pgcj_poster]

> If you believe in sentience, and the value of it, given their low awareness, either you support never even letting them live or what?

If we accept that living is always morally desirable, no matter how much suffering is involved, then it leads to absurd moral conclusions. For one, it would mean that it would be ok to have a baby, then kill it to sell its organs: after all, the baby wouldn't have existed otherwise. For another, it would mean that we should try to increase the world's population as much as possible, even far past the carrying capacity of the earth, because it's better to exist in a world of extreme poverty, starvation, and war than to not exist at all.

Animals might not be aware of things like love or beauty, but I'm pretty sure that a male chick has an unpleasant experience when it's being macerated, and I don't think the couple of days it's allowed to live make up for it.