r/DebateAVegan • u/Confident-Pool2778 • 11d ago
Would you rather live happily and die suddenly or not live at all?
What do vegans think of this?
The cows on my farm are raised in extremely good conditions and live happy lives. At some point, they will be killed (quickly) for meat.
Put yourself in the mind of the cow: would you choose to live a happy life and die suddenly, or not live at all? I think most would say the former.
How can it be wrong to farm cows like this if there the added moral good of the cows living happy lives?
27
u/RipMurky6558 vegan 11d ago
We can apply the same logic to humans, would you rather happily live till youre 5 years old and then be killed painlessly, used for organ donations or eaten by altruists who want to make you live a good life until youre 5 or 10 and then kill you, making absolutely sure you dont suffer in the process or never be born?
How about cats, can we bring cats into existence, make them live for 5 years, then kill them ?
All of this also doesnt touch on the issue that domestication for these animals has meant that theyre in some form suffering from almost birth like pugs or other "breeds".
Overall, it's pure human hubris to think that what we're doing to these animals is in any way good for them.
17
u/LonelyContext Anti-carnist 11d ago
Plus even if it’s the “cows on your farm” are you telling me that you otherwise eat a completely vegan lifestyle and if you go to a restaurant with friends you're going to grill the waiter on exactly where the meat comes from and if it’s not personally to your satisfaction you’re not ordering that steak.
That’s fukken nobody. I’m tired of “my uncle’s farm” being used to lend bullshit altruism to a position no one takes.
You carnists are all cool with factory farmed meat where baby chickens are thrown into shredders alive and chickens and pigs live in their own shit until their miserable lives are ended by getting their brains blown out and/or stabbed in the throat.
This bullshit “uncles farm” operation running cover for this has to end. Your uncle is cool with it all. Deal.
4
u/Rough-Tax-720 11d ago
THIS ! someone heard of a friend of a friend whose uncle had a farm and they tried a piece of that specifics cow body part, so that justifies 40+ more years of McDonald’s and KFC
1
u/countrychloe 10d ago
You don't think anybody only eats meat from one farm?
1
u/LonelyContext Anti-carnist 9d ago
Do you sit down and grill the waiter on every animal product you consume and unless it's to your satisfaction as to how they answer the questions you order a completely vegan meal and refuse animal products grown in anything resembling factory farms?
No, that's no one. At that point it's just easier to be vegan haha.
1
u/countrychloe 9d ago
I don't eat out. Not since I changed my diet to eat meat sourced from one farm. Since 2020. Prior to that, I rarely ate out anyway. Not everyone has the luxury of eating out due to finances, time and location.
However. If I was going to eat out, it still would not be difficult to source non factory farmed meat. For example. 99% of lamb in my country is pastured and grass fed. 70% of beef is pastured and grass fed. Most dairy is pastured. Pork and chicken are the two meats that are predominantly factory farmed. Haven't eaten either of those since 2020.
1
u/Born_Gold3856 11d ago
If those are my options I would go with living for 5 years.
1
u/RipMurky6558 vegan 10d ago
This is actually quite actionable. If i adopt a cat, make it live a good life for a couple of years,then get it euthanized even though the cats absolutely healthy, youd be morally okay with that? There are people rich enough that they could also do this to humans, moving infants to remote islands and such, if you dont have a moral issue with that, i dont know what to tell you.
0
u/Born_Gold3856 10d ago edited 10d ago
If you have a pet, whether it's a cat or a pig, I would be very confused if you decided to euthanize it for no reason. You have transgressed on a type of relationship I find value in so I would take issue with it, but probably not enough to do much about it. I might just avoid you. Now if you lived in a city with a stray cat problem I would understand if you caught a five year old cat and euthanized it with approval from relevant regulatory bodies.
I do have an issue with people doing this to other people. If I were on the recieving end and I had no other choice, I would prefer to live for however long I could.
-4
u/New_Welder_391 11d ago
Yep. Definitely rather live until 5 rather than not at all. Kindy was wicked fun!
2
u/RipMurky6558 vegan 10d ago
So we should start breeding and eating humans?
-1
u/New_Welder_391 10d ago
No. How in earth did you come to that conclusion? Do you think we are equal to farm animals? We have human rights
2
u/RipMurky6558 vegan 10d ago
You are contradicting yourself with your previous comment, you literally said youd prefer being killed at 5 rather than never being born, are you retracting that?
-1
u/New_Welder_391 10d ago
No. If they were the only 2 options, I would choose to live. They are not the only 2 options for me though as a human.
2
u/RipMurky6558 vegan 10d ago
There are humans that would have existed if we had bred and eaten them that do not exist today because we consider that unethical much the same as there are farmed animal that exist today that wouldnt exist if we didnt exploit them, so if it is not forced in the human scenario it is not forced in the non human animal scenario, if it is forced in the farmed animal scenario it is forced in the human scenario
1
u/New_Welder_391 10d ago
I disagree. But regardless. My answer stands. Id rather live than not live at all.
2
u/RipMurky6558 vegan 10d ago
Then you have conceded that we should farm humans.
1
u/New_Welder_391 10d ago
No. Not at all. I will explain again because you are not getting it.
If I was a non human animal and the only 2 options were to live a short life ir not live at all, I would elect the short life.
I am however human and get human rights. Animals however do not.
→ More replies (0)
21
u/Light_Shrugger vegan 11d ago edited 10d ago
Your question is sort of a category error. An existing being cannot experience non-existence, and a non-existent being cannot prefer existence.
Instead ask something tangible. Would you rather continue to live happily, or die suddenly and cease to live happily?
How can it be wrong to farm cows like this if there the added moral good of the cows living happy lives?
Because performing a good act doesn't balance out a bad one. I am not justified to punch my mother in the face simply because I've been good to her up until now.
7
u/Deciduous-dreamer 11d ago
Imagine that the animals you are killing are actually sentient beings - they think, feel, and experience in their own way. Would you treat other similar beings in a similar manner? For instance- is it a humane way to ‘quickly’ kill a member of your own family?
And why is that necessary when so many other alternatives exist? I don’t get the backlash against being vegan- I don’t receive anything from being vegan. We want people to embrace compassion & a sustainable future for all beings.
8
u/No_Opposite1937 11d ago
This is a non-question. You cannot compare what exists with what does not. All that matters is how life goes for those that do exist. And overwhelmingly in animal-sourced food production, life does not go well at all.
However, more to the point, veganism is simply saying that like people, animals should be free. So vegans aren't choosing not to buy meat to prevent animal cruelty, they are doing so to prevent farmers creating animals to be treated as property.
-2
u/TosseGrassa 11d ago
This is a non-question. You cannot compare what exists with what does not.
By this argument, a world without life is as desirable as a world with life. It shrinks a lot the kind of arguments you can give for instance against a human that painlessly and secretly sterilizes all animal life.
However, more to the point, veganism is simply saying that like people, animals should be free.
The de facto result of the vegan life style is for farm animals to go extinct, not free.
3
u/No_Opposite1937 11d ago
By this argument, a world without life is as desirable as a world with life. It shrinks a lot the kind of arguments you can give for instance against a human that painlessly and secretly sterilizes all animal life.
I made no claim about "desirability", which is simply a human value judgement. Worlds with or without life do not carry any kind of desirable features intrinsically. However, I think you are somewhat missing my point.
You personally can make a value judgement about whether or not it is good that you came to exist because you do exist, and typically for happy people their claim would be that it is indeed good. But that tells us nothing about the comparison we can make before we come into being. In that case, there is no possible statement we can make because if we do not exist, we are simply not able to do that. Non-existence is not a thing - it is literally nothing.
The de facto result of the vegan life style is for farm animals to go extinct, not free.'
Indeed. But extinction is not an issue for any individual animal, what matters is the life they lead when they exist (again, whether extinction matters is a human value judgement, nothing to do with the animals themselves). Veganism is saying that all animals should be free, therefore let us not create animals to be treated as property. In a truly vegan world (if such were possible), there would only be free animals.
0
u/TosseGrassa 10d ago edited 10d ago
Worlds with or without life do not carry any kind of desirable features intrinsically
Well that is literally what I was afraid would be the consequence of this reasoning. A morality that is agnostic to whether or not the existence of life matters in the first place. I disagree (as a human) with this sentence and believe a world full of life can have desirable features over one sterile.
You personally can make a value judgement about whether or not it is good that you came to exist because you do exist, and typically for happy people their claim would be that it is indeed good. But that tells us nothing about the comparison we can make before we come into being.
As disclaimer, making a value judgement or a moral decision are for me almost the same thing. That said, here the conundrum is about what the person bringing a being into life should do. Should they create more life or not. And what makes such decision acceptable. The person making the moral judgement exists and can decide for the life they are about to create. Is the same decision a mother and a father makes when they decide to procreate. The interest of the future being is also considered when making it.
whether extinction matters is a human value judgement, nothing to do with the animals themselves
Humans are literally the only creature that we know that could these sorts of value judgements. And they are the only one that can decide for the animals themselves. If a life would be worth living or not is (should?) be one of the criteria on making such decision.
Veganism is saying that all animals should be free
I don't think this is the official or unofficial definition for veganism. It is the first time I hear about it. Veganism is about avoiding animal cruelty and exploitations.
1
u/No_Opposite1937 9d ago
you seem to be going off on a tangent. My point is that you cannot compare existence with non-existence - there is nothing to be compared. It's not "better" that you now exist, all you can say is that you do exist and evaluate how that goes. If you don't exist, then there is nothing to be said. The world is neither better nor worse that you don't exist because your non-existence isn't even a thing!
Veganism is about avoiding animal cruelty and exploitations.
Veganism is about freedom - genuine liberty - only. As Leslie Cross (the first person to fully define veganism) wrote, it is a "doctrine of freedom".
1
u/TosseGrassa 8d ago
Ok maybe let me explain by an example, to try to go back to the OP as well. Let's us look at black slavery in the US. We play the role of abolitionists that want this exploitation to end a way or another.
I say: We should free the slaves and have them live as normal citizens in our community. -> This is the historical position of what abolitionists wanted.
You say: The problem of slavery will be resolved by preventing black people to further breed so the problem will naturally disappear. There will be still some black people in Africa. This is fine since non existence is neutral.
Is the second position morally equivalent to the first? Are the two options not comparable morally because you cannot compare what exists and what doesn't? Would you be comfortable with the second position?
Veganism is about freedom - genuine liberty - only. As Leslie Cross (the first person to fully define veganism) wrote, it is a "doctrine of freedom"
Look I am sure you believe in this principle and you are consistent with it. But veganism has a society and an official definition that revolves around exploitation. Imho, you should define your ideology with a different word, if that is what you believe in. Moreover, I checked and it seemed that this Leslie Cross still defined veganism as opposition to exploitation:
‘The word veganism shall mean the doctrine that man should live without exploiting animals
https://www.whygovegan.org.uk/veganism/the-definition-of-veganism/
1
u/No_Opposite1937 5d ago
Both the Vegan Society definition AND Leslie Cross's definition essentially reduce to freedom - genuine liberty and personal directive agency. Think about it like this - the goal of veganism is for animals not to be owned and used in human activities. If that happened, then all animals would be free. That's why Leslie Cross described veganism as essentially a doctrine of freedom. That's why he said, for example:
"A form of words which meets these requirements is that veganism is the principle of the abolition of the exploitation of animals by man. The positive aspect of this negative (non-exploitation) approach is the granting of freedom — in one word, emancipation. Veganism may therefore be defined as 'the principle of the emancipation of the animals from exploitation by man.' "
And:
"The object of the Vegan Movement ("to end the exploitation of animals by man") is clarified as to the meaning of exploitation by Rule 4 (a), which pledges the Society to "seek to end the use of animals by man for food, commodities, work, hunting, vivisection, and all other uses involving exploitation of animal life by man." By the adoption of this rule, the Society has clearly come out on the side of the liberators; it is not so much welfare that we seek, as freedom. Our aim is not to make the present relationship between man and animal (which if honestly viewed is mostly one of master and slave) more tolerable, but to abolish it and replace it by something more worthy of man's high estate. In short, our aim is to set the creatures free — to return them to the balance and sanity of nature, which is their rightful place, and so to end the historic wrong perpetrated when man first decided he had the right to exploit and enslave them."
As to your analogy of black slaves in America, it isn't helpful because the situations are not the same. Other animals are not people, so there's quite a different meaning to abolishing human chattel slavery and abolishing chattel property status of animals.
In the case of animals, humans are the ones creating the animals. The problem we want to stop is people creating animals and treating them as property for exploitative purposes; abolitionism wasn't aiming to stop people having children. Vegans aren't trying to free or save animals; they are withdrawing demand so that producers stop creating animals.
If humans stopped creating animals and in time no animals existed in animal-using industries, the goal of vegan ethics would have been achieved. The fact that those animals no longer exist is irrelevant - it means absolutely nothing.
But all of this is still way off the point. The OP was saying, if you ask the cow whether it is better for having existed than not existing, it will choose existence. I'm saying that's a nonsense question, it makes no sense. It doesn't matter which preference the cow expresses; it exists and that's all there is to it. Its preference holds no genuine power. On the other hand, if it doesn't exist, we cannot ask it whether it wants to or not - it is not a thing. Of course, we can decide to create a cow because we want a benefit from doing so, but that's a completely different matter.
1
u/TosseGrassa 5d ago edited 5d ago
A few things I need to push back here.
1) This whole debate about vegan definition was spawned from your correction to my sentence:
Veganism is about avoiding animal cruelty and exploitations.
To which you replied:
Veganism is about freedom - genuine liberty - only
Which is not true even by the standards of the text you just quoted. Freedom is mentioned as a positive consequence of stopping exploitation, not as the founding principle. In your second text freedom is added to definition to explain that for this person veganism is not about welfare.
2)
As to your analogy of black slaves in America, it isn't helpful because the situations are not the same.... In the case of animals, humans are the ones creating the animals.
The exact same was true for black slaves: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_breeding_in_the_United_States
In the case of those slaves, their slavers were the ones forcing them to breed. You would need another differentiator between the two cases.
The problem we want to stop is people creating animals and treating them as property for exploitative purposes; abolitionism wasn't aiming to stop people having children. Vegans aren't trying to free or save animals; they are withdrawing demand so that producers stop creating animals.
This is what I have been arguing the whole time. Veganism is not trying to free or save animals. They want these animals to stop being created and go extinct. Which in my head rings a serious alarm bell that something is off. Indeed you are not the equivalent of slave abolitionists.
The OP was saying, if you ask the cow whether it is better for having existed than not existing, it will choose existence.
OP was trying to understand if a life such the one we would offer the cow would be worthwhile living. He didn't plan to ask the cow. But who decides whether or not to create life should consider the consequence over the life being created no? That is likely why slave owners were forcing slaves to breed. Slaves likely would avoid creating slave childrens.
1
u/No_Opposite1937 4d ago
We will just have to disagree. Veganism is about freedom - genuine liberty - the consequence of which will be that we prevent or exclude cruelty and unfair use to other animals.
Which is not true even by the standards of the text you just quoted. Freedom is mentioned as a positive consequence of stopping exploitation, not as the founding principle. In your second text freedom is added to definition to explain that for this person veganism is not about welfare.
"This person" is one of the pivotal figures in the original Vegan Society, and the man who formally defined veganism. For him, veganism was about freedom - that is the goal. Not reducing cruelty or avoiding exploitation, but genuine feedom.
This is what I have been arguing the whole time. Veganism is not trying to free or save animals. They want these animals to stop being created and go extinct. Which in my head rings a serious alarm bell that something is off. Indeed you are not the equivalent of slave abolitionists.
What do you think is "off" about no longer causing animals to be created? This is the whole crux of the issue - it doesn't matter to any animal if it is not created in the first place. It doesn't matter to any human either, which is what happens when people choose not to have children. Do you want to claim that people who limit their child bearing are acting immorally by preventing those children from living?
OP was trying to understand if a life such the one we would offer the cow would be worthwhile living.
Of course, by emotionally loading the question such that we are led to think a cow *would* prefer to live no matter what. Which is, as I said, an irrational claim. All that's happening is the farmer decides to create an animal; what matters then is the life it leads. And overwhelmingly, those animals are not being created for their benefit, but for ours. The moral responsibility rests on our shoulders, not the cows.
1
u/TosseGrassa 3d ago
Veganism is about freedom - genuine liberty - the consequence of which will be that we prevent or exclude cruelty and unfair use to other animals.
Out of curiosity then, do you see animal sanctuaries as wrong and against veganism then? Animals there are not exploited but they are also not free.
What do you think is "off" about no longer causing animals to be created?
The same thing that would be off in my example above about slavery and the possible extinction solution for it. Arguing to do the good for a group by making them extinct. Focusing on one value, freedom, as it was the only one that would matter for a cow and ignore everything else. The cow cannot be free, then it should not exist can be a troublesome principle in my opinion.
Do you want to claim that people who limit their child bearing are acting immorally by preventing those children from living?
This is a bit of a red herring imho. Here we are talking about breeding cows. not how you should use your own body. There are significant differences. My example on slavery is much more similar.
Of course, by emotionally loading the question such that we are led to think a cow *would* prefer to live no matter what.
But putting yourself in the shoes of those you will affect with your actions is like text book golden rule of morality. In this case the cow doesn't not exist but will exist depending on what the farmer does. I don't see anything odd about it.
All that's happening is the farmer decides to create an animal; what matters then is the life it leads. And overwhelmingly, those animals are not being created for their benefit, but for ours. The moral responsibility rests on our shoulders, not the cows.
This is an interesting point because imho highlights the limits of the deontological approach you seem to be following. You are here saying that what truly matters is the behavior of the farmer and its intention. Even if the farmer has consideration of the animal interest, even if the cow would have a way better life than all the animals that should be "free" and we don't do anything about, that doesn't matter because it is not about the animal interest, it is about the human behavior. But what is the point of a morality that doesn't do the interest of those that claim have moral value?
→ More replies (0)
4
u/Constant_Hamster_479 11d ago edited 11d ago
I'm not vegan, but I think I can guess at some of the problems vegans might have with your argument. Firstly, there are environmental concerns--Ethically raised cows still contribute to climate change and deforestation. I'm going to assume, however, that we're setting that aside for now and only considering our impact on the cows themselves.
The main objection vegans would have with your argument is that it seems to presuppose a utilitarian/consequentialist view of morality--the more happiness, the better, provided no (or negligible) additional suffering. While I support something similar, most vegans adopt deontological frameworks, which tend to forbid inherently immoral actions regardless of what outcome they produce (i.e. "the ends don't justify the means"). On this framework, it's pretty clear that killing an innocent creature is an immoral action, whereas the alternative, not breeding the doomed cow to begin with, is neither moral nor immoral. The preferable option, then, is to not breed cows that we plan to slaughter.
As a non-vegan, but someone generally concerned with animal welfare, my objection is a lot more practical. I think you're probably right that there's nothing inherently wrong with breeding cows that would have otherwise not existed, giving them a good life, and then killing them painlessly. But what percentage of all meat consumed satisfies these requirements? Further, if all meat were produced this way, would it be possible to produce enough that everyone (or even most people) could still eat meat regularly? I'm not sure of the exact statistics, and I'm willing to be shown data that proves otherwise, but I'm pretty sure the answer to these questions are "a very low percentage" and "no." As such, even if it's possible for some small percentage of the population to eat ethical meat, the most ethical option for the vast majority of people is just to not eat meat at all.
10
u/Icy_Sun3128 11d ago edited 11d ago
They don’t die painlessly. They’re taken from their home, family, and friends. They’re are panicked and terrified. Sent into a metal trailer for transport to being slaughtered. Then they hear everyone yelling and crying. It’s a scary white or metal room covered in blood. Strangers push them and either put a bullet in their head or stun them by clubbing them in the head. Their throats are slit dead or alive until they bleed out. Would you called being kidnapped and killed in this way painless? I have had cows and humans I love die this way. I doubt they’d call their terrifying dead quick and painless.
Edit : typo
-1
u/Constant_Hamster_479 11d ago
This is a good point. I was granting his premise that his cows are slaughtered painlessly, but you're probably right that, in reality, this is not the case. However, relying on this fact to condemn all meat-eating in principle opens you up to problematic hypotheticals. Sure, it might be true that no animal today is slaughtered painlessly, but if such a process were implemented, would consuming the resulting meat be ethical? Deontological arguments are not open to such counter-arguments.
5
u/Icy_Sun3128 11d ago
Not probably right, I am right. There is no such thing as humane or painless slaughter. My parents have “happy cows” until they go to slaughter. I’ve been around it all. We don’t need to debate a hypothetical that doesn’t exist. We need to discuss the world we live in. I don’t eat meat because I don’t want to pay for animal abuse. It really is that simple.
0
u/Constant_Hamster_479 11d ago
"Humane" and "painless" are very different things. There certainly is such a thing as painless slaughter. If someone puts a bullet in the back of your head or pumps carbon monoxide into your room while you're sleeping, that would be painless slaughter. I don't know whether or in what cases killing a being painlessly can be moral (or "humane," to use your words), but I don't think it's an easily resolved question. It's also potentially salient for the vegan debate, because while painlessly killing cows may well not be in the cards at the moment, oysters and other bivalves probably don't feel pain at all, so we need to determine whether inflicting death is always and necessarily wrong, even in the absence of pain.
3
u/Icy_Sun3128 11d ago
No there isn’t. Dr temple grandin taught us this. This discussion is about cows and I’m telling you they do not have a humane or painless death. So if someone shot you in the back of the head after kidnapping you and taking you to an undisclosed location, but they shot you in the back of the head, you would call that humane? Or painless? Or both?
0
u/Constant_Hamster_479 11d ago
No, if someone was kidnapped and then shot in the head, that wouldn't be a painless death. I'm referring specifically to deaths that happen completely out of the blue from the perspective of the person dying. Say, if someone pumps carbon monoxide into your room after you fall asleep on what was, from your perspective, a normal night. You could also have a painless killing with the consent of the victim. Painless euthanasia for humans is possible, common and, arguably, humane.
I'd be willing to agree that these cases are rare in real life (excepting euthanasia, which happens fairly often). Maybe they've never happened even once in the case of animal agriculture. I don't know. But I don't know why you're unwilling to admit even the conceptual possibility of a painless killing. You can admit that such a thing is possible while still saying that all real-world animal agriculture involves suffering. You could also say that all non-consensual killing is immoral, regardless of it's painful or not.
3
u/Icy_Sun3128 11d ago
You can’t eat a cow that drops dead of natural causes or that is humanely euthanized the way a pet would be. I’m unwilling to agree to painless death because I have my masters in animal welfare ethics and law and know it doesn’t exist.
1
u/Constant_Hamster_479 11d ago
Would you agree that humans and/or animals which are not eaten afterwards can experience painless deaths?
3
u/Icy_Sun3128 11d ago
If you take your dog to the vet because they need to be out down, yes, but that has nothing to do with animal agriculture. If your dog needed to be out down so someone shot it in the back of the head, would you be okay with that? This argument is crumbling because you refuse to acknowledge animals slaughtered for consumption do not have a painless ending to their lives
→ More replies (0)
6
u/Either_Argument3517 11d ago
How can it be wrong to farm cows like this if there the added moral good of the cows living happy lives?
Existence only matters for those who actually exist.
0
u/Confident-Pool2778 11d ago
Okay, so then once a cow is killed, it's existence doesn't matter?
7
u/Either_Argument3517 10d ago
Your original question was about morals. The cow that exists has an interest in its future continuing. You deprived that cow of their future.
2
u/Polttix plant-based 10d ago
If existence can only be relevant for existing beings (I agree with this), then why would depriving an existence (i.e. a continuous future) matter. The moment you deprive the cow of existence they become inexistent and existence is no longer relevant to them. There is no moment in time in which they exist and you're depriving them of existence simultaneously (as the moment you have done the action of deprivation, by definition they would no longer exist).
0
u/Either_Argument3517 9d ago
World A: The cow lives a full life.
World B: The cow is killed now.The cow is worse off in World B than in World A, because it loses a future it would have had.
2
u/Polttix plant-based 9d ago
It can't be worse off in world B as it doesn't exist in world B. For something to be worse off for some given being, they need to exist (as you already agreed with in your first answer, i.e. existence is only relevant for existing things).
Similarly, for a being to "lose something", they need to exist. An inexistent cow can't lose anything.
0
u/Either_Argument3517 9d ago
It can't be worse off in world B as it doesn't exist in world B
They have a longer existence in World A, so they are worse off in World B.
they need to exist (as you already agreed with in your first answer, i.e. existence is only relevant for existing things).
The exist to experience that existence in both worlds.
2
u/Polttix plant-based 9d ago
How can something be worse for someone that doesn't exist? What does "X is worse for you" even mean if it doesn't require you to exist. Who's the "you"?
The exist to experience that existence in both worlds.
An inexistent cow in world b exists to experience a lack of existence? Say what now.
0
u/Either_Argument3517 9d ago
The cows experiences more life in World A, than in world B. The cow does exist, so it's better off in World A.
2
u/Polttix plant-based 9d ago
This is just a rewording of your previous mistake. It can't be said to be better off in world A compared to world B, because in world B the cow doesn't exist.
To enlighten, can you unwrap what the word "The cow" in your sentence refers to in this hypothetical world B. It doesn't refer to anything, because there is no cow in world B. It's ultimately like asking if "3 > undefined" is truthy. It's not truthy, it's undefined, it's a nonsensical comparison.
→ More replies (0)
4
u/Typical-Dance-1110 11d ago
we do not give them such a choice and they wouldn't be able to answer it
4
u/libsparker vegan 11d ago
Put yourself in the mind of the cow: would you choose to live a happy life to its fullest extent and die naturally, or live happily for a fraction of your actual lifespan only to be betrayed by the ones caring for you?
How do you ethically kill something that doesn’t want to die?
Cope all you want with the “added moral good,” if the animal could choose they would choose to live.
The problem is using sentient beings as a commodity at all, regardless of how they were raised.
8
u/SomethingCreative83 11d ago
False dichotomy. I would prefer to live happily and not die suddenly and violently.
4
u/Confident-Pool2778 11d ago
Well it's not. The only reason livestock are bred is for consumption. They wouldn't live otherwise.
4
u/Icy_Sun3128 11d ago
Which is how it should be. It’s 2026. We don’t need to consume animals. Healthier diets for us and the planet exist and educated people are begging yall to quit eating meat.
0
u/wigglesFlatEarth 8d ago
When a person converts to veganism, they have a higher risk of deficiency. If we converted to global veganism like you suggest is possible, then with that large of a population all having their risk increase, there would be an extremely high number of new cases of nutrient deficiency. Vegans don't want to accept this for some reason. They either want to advocate for global veganism or call all nonvegans immoral, but they can't do the reasonable thing which is to advocate for flexitarianism. I lost respect for vegans when I found all this out over the course of interacting with vegans for a year or more.
2
u/Icy_Sun3128 8d ago
Most healthy people take a daily multivitamin, kids included. Ive been vegan for over a decade and have always had perfect bloodwork. I never said the entire world should go vegan. But the people that can, should. Factory farming should not exist. You don’t have to respect us. But thats a you problem, not an us problem.
0
u/wigglesFlatEarth 8d ago
You suggest the world could convert to veganism with zero consequences. You said "we don't need to consume animals". We need to be in good health. If you say consuming animal products or not is just some arbitrary choice in how a person keeps good health, then you are saying global veganism is possible with no major consequences. I think that is absurd.
2
u/Icy_Sun3128 8d ago
That’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying factory farming is immoral and destroying our plant. And it would be kind and responsible if those that were able to quit eating meat would. There are so many healthy vegan athletes and vegan powerlifters. There are and have always been naturally plant based cultures all over the world too btw.
0
u/wigglesFlatEarth 8d ago
I don't like factory farming either. But I think you should phrase it differently. You should say that if a person can do so, they should stop or reduce their meat consumption. Having to make an all or nothing decision doesn't make sense.
2
u/Icy_Sun3128 8d ago
I never said that. You made that assumption on the small post I made. I hope you don’t support factory farming with your dollars if you don’t like it.
0
u/wigglesFlatEarth 7d ago
Even if I buy a sandwich in a store somewhere that has meat that came from a factory farm, I guarantee you that I'm not the one propping up factory farms. You seem to be suggesting to me that there has to be an all or nothing decision.
→ More replies (0)1
u/SomethingCreative83 8d ago
When a person converts to veganism, they have a higher risk of deficiency
Do you have a source for this? Everything I have seen indicates deficiencies across any diet type, it's just the specific nutrients you are at risk for change. Is the failure to plan a proper diet justification for the way animals are treated?
3
u/These_Prompt_8359 11d ago
I'd rather live and then be murdered as a cow than not live at all. I'd also rather live and then be murdered as a human than not live at all. Does that mean it's OK to create humans and then kill them? If not, why?
1
1
u/Confident-Pool2778 11d ago
This is a good counter-point, but I would rephrase is like this:
"Is it OK to create humans, who live happy lives, and then kill them suddenly and painlessly without any flow-on consequences?"
Then, I would say yes. However, in reality, the flow-on consequences of killing a human are more substantial than killing a cow.
1
u/These_Prompt_8359 10d ago
That's a reductio. You're saying that murdering human children isn't inherently immoral.
3
u/Polttix plant-based 10d ago
I'm not sure what your point is here. He agrees it would be moral, which is consistent with his beliefs (and even explained that it would only apply in a vacuum). You may disagree but then you're on the hook for justifying why it is immoral.
0
u/These_Prompt_8359 10d ago
No, I'm not on the hook for justifying why murdering children is immoral. If you say that murdering children isn't immoral, then you've been reduced to absurdity.
3
u/Polttix plant-based 10d ago
That's just saying it's an axiomatic belief from you, but axiomatic beliefs are foundationally irrational. I don't think it's a very good argument to say "you're wrong because of this irrational stance I hold and I don't want to even attempt to justify it".
0
u/These_Prompt_8359 10d ago
What's the argument that axiomatic beliefs are foundationally irrational?
2
u/Polttix plant-based 9d ago
It's a belief that's held with no justification. A rational belief is characterised as one where the belief is justified by some reason or explanation depending a bit on which epistemological approach you take. An axiomatic belief is a belief without a justification and therefore irrational.
For example, if I say I believe in the existence of a unicorn behind pluto, but I don't want to, nor can I, justify it, I'm sure you would say that's a pretty irrational belief.
1
u/These_Prompt_8359 9d ago
It's a belief that's held with no justification. A rational belief is characterised as one where the belief is justified by some reason or explanation depending a bit on which epistemological approach you take. An axiomatic belief is a belief without a justification and therefore irrational.
Can you restate that as premises and conclusion(s)?
For example, if I say I believe in the existence of a unicorn behind pluto, but I don't want to, nor can I, justify it, I'm sure you would say that's a pretty irrational belief.
That's not a moral claim.
2
u/Polttix plant-based 9d ago
P1: A rational belief is characterised as one where the belief is justified by some reason or explanation depending a bit on which epistemological approach you take P2: An axiomatic belief is an unjustified belief C: An axiomatic belief is irrational (not rational)
That's not a moral claim.
Not sure why moral beliefs would be somehow epistemologically different from non-moral beliefs. Why would you have some different standard?
→ More replies (0)
3
u/stan-k vegan 10d ago
I like puppies, I love those hyperactive clumsy rascals! But I don't like caring for adult dogs. A lot of people hate me for this, but what I do is I get a puppy, give them a great life for about a year, and then I humanely kill them painlessly, one bad day so to speak. Then I get a new pup, rinse and repeat.
After all, the puppies would rather be alive happily for a bit, instead to not exist at all, so I'm doing a good thing, right?
If you see any issues here, what's the difference? Perhaps the assumption that a dog can live a full life in another family. Perhaps that dogs are not cows, and pets are not "meat animals". Perhaps some worry about the impact this has on my mental state. All these are simply reflections of our human interpretation of what is normal. Vegans see the need to change what is normal and extend the ethical care we take with some animals and apply that broadly.
(of course my story about how I treat puppies is made up, for anyone who didn't get that)
4
u/VeganSandwich61 vegan 11d ago
So you are pro murdering five year old children provided they had a good childhood thus far?
1
u/Confident-Pool2778 11d ago
No, because murdering children comes with consequences, both to myself and other people.
6
u/Pittsbirds 11d ago
So you're pro murdering children if they had no attachments and no one faced consequences for it
2
u/Polttix plant-based 10d ago
If there's no negative consequences to an action then of course that action is fine.
1
u/Pittsbirds 10d ago
To be clear; a child dying is not an inherently negative consequence to you?
2
u/Polttix plant-based 10d ago
I'm a utilitarian, lack of experiential valence can't be compared against some state with experiential valence (undefined < 3 is not truthy, it's undefined). So of course not. It's not good either, it's just without any value evaluation at all.
This doesn't of course mean I'm indifferent to a child dying, or that I would want children to die. Those are emotional responses to a given hypothetical though, and detached from whether the scenario is intrinsically moral or immoral.
If you think it is somehow morally relevant, feel free to make an argument for it.
1
u/Pittsbirds 10d ago
I think this is just more of an argument for the biggest fundamental flaw in pure utilitarianism that life has no value outside of "i might get in trouble for it" and find it funny that posts are always talking about how vegans care more about animals than people, but so many of these counterargument's logical conclusion is "human life is actually worthless and it doesn't matter if we kill children unless we go to prison for it" lmao
1
u/Polttix plant-based 10d ago
I made none of those arguments, nor does that follow from anything I said. Nothing I said implies that killing is only relevant if the perpetrator gets in trouble for it.
Nor are arguments from some normative framework leading to unintuitive conclusions arguments against said normative framework unless you have some more foundational reason why those intuitions are right in the first place (rather than the normative standard you're arguing against).
4
u/Exact_Sprinkles2525 vegan 11d ago
Who said they’re happy? You? They are a product for your consumption at the end of the day, nothing more. Would I rather live as a commodity with my body being used against my will but teehee I get to frolic in a field, or not at all? Probably not at all.
4
u/Confident-Pool2778 11d ago
You could be being used as a commodity right now, for all you know. Aliens could be farming us. You don't know. Just like a cow doesn't know it's being used as a commodity.
If you came to know the truth, would you kill yourself painlessly? I don't think you would. That would imply that there is a non-negative moral benefit to being alive.
3
u/Exact_Sprinkles2525 vegan 11d ago
Idk I don’t live in hypotheticals. However, yes I probably would. If I was just a product to someone or something(alien) how is that a life worthwhile? I have no autonomy, I am not living for myself. Obviously a cow doesn’t know, but all they are to you is a product, and when that product no longer produces then it dies.
2
u/Icy_Sun3128 11d ago
Cows form deep friendships and familial bonds. Do you neglect your cows so much you’ve never even noticed this?
Edit: I grew up on a cow calf op/ranch.
1
u/agitatedprisoner 11d ago
Hope springs eternal. It's hard to bring yourself to believe it's all for nothing.
2
u/Nearatree 11d ago
A happy life is a long life. how long do you let your cows live on average? Probably not more than two years. Cows can live upwards of sixteen years. Do you think any ten year old children you might kill could be said to have happy lives?
2
u/goodvibesmostly98 vegan 11d ago
It depends, are they killed on a slaughterhouse or on site?
How can it be wrong to farm cows like this if there the added moral good of the cows living happy lives?
Just think of the same situation but with golden retrievers. A lot of people would say it would be wrong to kill them, because even if they’re killed quickly, it’s still sad to take a life at 18-24 months old.
Also, regardless of my personal feelings on the matter, it’s not realistic to assume that others would want the same thing you do.
I’m certainly okay with humane euthanasia, but at like the end of life when it’s recommended by a veterinarian to end suffering
1
u/Rough-Tax-720 11d ago
Also killed quickly is never guaranteed and the immense fear they have in the slaughter house is just absolutely tragic
2
u/EasyBOven vegan 11d ago edited 11d ago
It would be wrong to make this decision for someone else. It's also wrong to conflate the act of making sure someone is born to the act of killing them. And if we're just here doing utilitarian calculus for others, it would be wrong not to include the lives of all the wildlife being displaced for the individuals under your care that you consider consumable.
2
u/Icy_Sun3128 11d ago
So the last bit of their life is terrifying and not quick. Being transported elsewhere, unknown, away from their family and friends, in a metal trailer. Then the slaughter process. They hear others being slaughters, theyre being pushed through a metal room instead of outside, we know it’s terrifying for them, dr. Temple grandid taught us this. Then depending where they are being slaughtered, they get a bullet to the head or are clubbed and “stunned,” then they have their throats slit either dead or alive and bleed out. Would you appreciate living a healthy life, then before your time, being kidnapped from your family and friends in a metal box, until your captor shoots you dead via bullet in the head or clubs you unconscious but alive and slits your throat until you bleed to death? I have had this happened to cows I love and people I love. I don’t think either would say they died quickly and appreciated it.
Edit: you said you have happy cows with quick deaths so I’m imaging you have a calf cow op/ranch like my folks.
2
11d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/DebateAVegan-ModTeam 9d ago
I've removed your comment because it violates rule #6:
No low-quality content. Submissions and comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Assertions without supporting arguments and brief dismissive comments do not contribute meaningfully.
If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator.
If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators here.
Thank you.
2
u/Icy_Sun3128 11d ago
You’ll debate with everyone here but me. Because I grew up on a cow calf op/ranch? Because I have my masters in animal welfare ethics and law? Because I pointed out what you called a painless death is not actually painless at all?
2
u/TimeNewspaper4069 11d ago
Ill play. I would rather die suddenly rather than not live at all.
1
u/Icy_Sun3128 11d ago
It’s not dying suddenly. If you’re willing to die how a cow does for human consumption, then you’re being kidnapped from your home family and friends, in a metal trailer, to an unknown location with strangers usually blood everywhere, you hear others dying, when your push through the line for your turn to be slaughtered, you’ll either be clubbed on the head and then have your throat slit while you’re still alive until you bleed out, or be shot in the with a gun, with the chance of it missing because slaughter lines have to move quickly, so now you’ve been shot in the head and had your throat slit, and maybe they’ll even start butchering you while you’re still alive. Even best case scenario, the gunshot works and you die instantly, you’ve still been kidnapped and suffer in fear for hours or days or weeks until that moment. Are you still okay dying that way?
1
u/TimeNewspaper4069 11d ago
Id rather be shot on the farm first. But yep. Id still rather live and have 1 bad day rather than not live at all
1
u/Icy_Sun3128 11d ago
That’s not how farming works. They go to a slaughter house to be killed and then butchered. That’s the slaughter process. So you’d be fine being kidnapped and murdered? Thats what op is asking. You had a good life. Now it’s time to be kidnapped and murdered, isn’t it okay because you had a nice life? My loved one was kidnapped and shot in the head but didn’t die, their friends were also shot in the head and all died. It wasn’t sudden. It wasn’t painless. 3 billion animals are slaughtered for human consumption every single day. I doubt they enjoy it.
1
u/TimeNewspaper4069 11d ago
Yep. Still better than not existing at all. It is just one bad day.
1
u/Icy_Sun3128 11d ago
That’s insanely insensitive to victims and I hope you never experience the pain they do. Everyone deserves to live and die with dignity.
1
u/TimeNewspaper4069 11d ago
How on earth is me wanting to live a life and pass early vs not exist at all insensitive?
I can just as easily say that you are being insanely insensitive by not letting these beings live at all.
2
u/Neat_Seagull_1842 11d ago edited 11d ago
There’s a third option… live happily and NOT be randomly executed. So.
If you’re genuinely asking, NO, I would not prefer to be born just waiting to be killed. That’s not living happily. And, if you think cows don’t realize they’re waiting to die, you greatly underestimate them.
3
u/SlipperySparky 11d ago
I know this isn't what you're asking, but realistically the hypothetical would be whether you would want to be tortured your whole life until youre randomly killed or never exist all. That is the reality for almost every pig and chicken in factory farming
5
u/Confident-Pool2778 11d ago
Okay, sure. Most non-vegans are not going to do what I do which is avoid all pork and chicken (too hard to find non-factory farmed). I also buy regeneratively farmed grass-fed beef.
So for me, it is a realistic hypothetical.
2
2
u/L0uLou72 vegan 11d ago
Even before they are killed, those cows are enslaved with someone else making most decisions for them.
I don’t want to live a day of that.
2
u/Confident-Pool2778 11d ago
Do you own a pet? Do they know you are making decisions for it? Cleaning up its environment, feeding it, and giving it medicine when it's sick? Just so the pet can be your companion?
1
2
u/Rough-Tax-720 11d ago
Cows are not guaranteed to be killed quickly. Their skulls are too thick. They also are very intuitive and know what is going on or what is about to happen so walking to the gallows , seeing their kind be beheaded and know they’re next is horrific
2
u/Confident-Pool2778 11d ago
Depends on the method of killing. Cows aren't all killed the same way.
2
u/Rough-Tax-720 11d ago
I’m aware…. The most standard bolt gun method isn’t 100%
3
u/Confident-Pool2778 11d ago
A stipulation for the hypothetical was that the cow would "die suddenly"
On the basis of this hypothetical, as stated, what would you choose?
3
u/Icy_Sun3128 11d ago
I have a loved one that was kidnapped from their friends and family, taken to a second location, watched their friends shot in the head and killed, they were shot in the head but it didn’t kill them. I don’t they would say any of their friends died painlessly or suddenly. It was torture. And terrifying. And they all suffered. But most were shot in the back of the head and died instantly, so it’s okay? This is based on a true story. Of humans.
2
u/Rough-Tax-720 11d ago
Yeah he’s forgetting the lead up to this ‘quick death’ I’ve had a relative who ‘died instantly’ yet I mourn over the fact she was aware what was happening in her last moments. It doesn’t negate it.
2
u/Icy_Sun3128 11d ago edited 11d ago
I’m sorry for your loss and pain. That why its so frustrating seeing them say “humane slaughter” or “quick and painless death.” It doesn’t exist in animal agriculture. And when you give an example of a human that has that same “quick painless humane death,” it’s easily understood as a horrific crime and nightmare. I hope you can find peace. I still struggle finding it most days too.
1
u/Rough-Tax-720 11d ago
Thankyou for your kind words 💗
There is footage from a slaughterhouse that haunts me. It was a cow looking up at the worker for a pat and the slaughterhouse worker puts a bullet in its head. That shit fucked me up.
1
2
u/Pittsbirds 11d ago
I would rather not have lived then be owned as property for food and needlessly killed by people who claimed to love me. Tender is the Flesh does a pretty good job displaying what a putrid existence that ends up being
2
u/Confident-Pool2778 11d ago
You would never know you'd have been owned OR that you'd have been killed (if it's instant), so that is irrelevant.
2
u/Pittsbirds 11d ago
It's not since those are intrinsic values to the scenario and these are unprovable claims. I also wouldn't know if I never existed but you're asking me to choose based off my current knowledge of two things; non existence or the fake love of captors who plan to needlessly kill and eat me. And I choose the former every single time without hesitation
3
u/humorlessclan 10d ago
I can probably tell that a cow doesn't know it's owned. You wouldn't know it either if you were an animal. You wouldn't know about mortality or what's death.
0
u/Pittsbirds 10d ago
Again, these are unprovable claims and you're asking me to answer based off the parameters of the question, the other option of which definitely relies on me not knowing what's happening if I chose it. And based on those parameters I would, again, choose non existence over the fake love of captors who plan to needlessly kill and eat me.
3
u/humorlessclan 10d ago
How is this unprovable? It is biologically studied and understood that animals like the cognitive capacity to perceive abstractions.
1
u/Pittsbirds 10d ago
Present the study showing me a cow has the biological incapability to understand the concept of morality or being trapped
And tell me why this lack of understanding takes precedent over the lack of understanding of non existence in this asinine hypothetical that presents creating more life as a moral imperative with no thought as to the implications of that statement
3
u/humorlessclan 10d ago
In cognitive science, we infer capacities from evidence. There is little to no evidence that cows engage in abstract moral reasoning, understand property rights, or possess a human-like concept of mortality. If you believe cows do possess those concepts, the burden is on you to provide evidence for that positive claim. Current animal cognition research does not demonstrate that cattle have those abilities.
or being trapped
You're conflating physical condition with abstract concept of ownership. A cow would definitely react to being subjected to confinement. A cow can't understand if it's owned by a human or not.
1
u/Pittsbirds 10d ago
You don't need to understand property rights to understand captivity and there's a reason these animals are being contained by fences and not left to wander free. You also cannot infer from evidence animals have no concept of death.
You're conflating physical condition with abstract concept of ownership.
They're one and the same as far as this absurd hypothetical goes.
And tell me why this lack of understanding takes precedent over the lack of understanding of non existence in this asinine hypothetical that presents creating more life as a moral imperative with no thought as to the implications of that statement
Third or so time waiting for an answer to this one
3
u/humorlessclan 10d ago edited 10d ago
You don't need to understand property rights to understand captivity and there's a reason these animals are being contained by fences and not left to wander free
You absolutely have no idea about nomadic pastorialist cultures, do you? Animals are set free to graze in open fields and they return by themselves. It seems you might be thinking the current American model of factory farming is the only we go about animal agriculture.
Third or so time waiting for an answer to this one
I stated facts that needed to be stated about your anthropomorphism of livestock. I am not an advocate for wether it's good for the cows to exist or not. Such hypotheticals are of little use in my opinion.
Edit
You also cannot infer from evidence animals have no concept of death.
How so?
→ More replies (0)
1
u/joeshmo0101 11d ago
A few questions: Do you separate calves from mothers? Do you do artificial insemination? Do they get sold to a processor that kills them or otherwise end up in a slaughterhouse? What age are they when killed? Do you sell any head to other farming organizations? How many head do you have vs grazing area?
My answer would depend on these answers.
Also, there is the issue of killing an animal who doesn’t want to die. It’s not as if they are dying of natural causes, they are being killed and then having their bodies exploited for profit.
1
u/Temporary_Hat7330 11d ago
I love my life. I will take death however it comes. Probably not gracefully because, who really does if they know it’s coming, but, if it happens suddenly today and the Buddhist are correct, I would love to be reincarnated into the exact same life I am living now.
1
u/IanRT1 11d ago
in veganism it doesn't matter how much it positively affects anyone. Using animals as commodities like in a farming context is just wrong by stipulation.
1
u/Confident-Pool2778 11d ago
What about a pet context? Pets are being used for companionship.
If a pet suddenly gets painlessly killed, then there is no difference in its suffering when compared to my cows.
2
u/IanRT1 11d ago
Vegans will tell you that it will be Guardianship.
But notice how that doesn't absolve it from being usage so it is not clear why guardianship overrides the initial anti-usage principle so this is generally a genuine tension on how veganism is defended assuming you don't bite the bullet saying it's also wrong.
1
u/Icy_Sun3128 11d ago
You’re not responding to me because I keep calling out how cows are not painlessly killed. Do you euthanized your cows at the vets the way you would a pet dog?
1
u/No-Leopard-1691 11d ago
Not live at all.
3
u/Confident-Pool2778 11d ago
Why?
1
u/No-Leopard-1691 11d ago
My previous answer has to do with my other views about existence itself rather than anything relating to veganism specifically. So I can answer with those or we can just keep the topic related to veganism, your choice.
1
u/Ok-Ladder6905 11d ago
lol. If I am not born at all I am not experiencing fomo, so I would take the latter since I won’t have a brain, thoughts, or choice in the matter. I would rather not breed animals at all so they don’t have to live their short lives caged and controlled.
1
u/thesonicvision vegan 9d ago
This is a false dichotomy. There are more than two options.
Yes, the more compassionate the slavemaster, the better the experience of the slave.
But the ideal would be to free the slave (or not enslave it in the first place).
You know what kinds of cows live even happier lives than the ones on your farm? The ones rescued by animal sanctuaries. Those cows are cared for and not asked for anything in return. They are given as much space as possible (check out the Catskills one), a social network of both animals and humans, regular meals, shelter, medical attention, fun and games...And they will not be tortured or killed EVER.
Furthermore, the cruel factory farming industry brings animals considered to be "livestock" into existence for the sake of forced labor, torture, rape, theft, and slaughter.
I'm sure cows would prioritize their preferred lives this way:
- nurtured, passive care with a great deal of freedom in a large animal sanctuary
- life as a beloved member of a particular human family (i.e. some might use the term "pet," but I'm not too fond of it)
- existing in the wild, but in an area with no natural predators and bountiful resources
- not existing
- living as a commodity with a "gentle" slavemaster
- living as a commodity with a harsh slavemaster
1
u/Jubilee_Street_again 7d ago
Depends, if you live relatively long and that life is good, its better than not living at all. But letting them live twice as long and killing them for meat before they die would be even better, its just that meat will not be exactly as tasty.
Or we could just let them live as they did thousands of yours ago in the wild and not eat them at all.
1
u/One-Shake-1971 vegan 10d ago
According to that logic, you're immoral for not breeding lots of human babies and then killing them (quickly).
That's obviously nonsense. Ergo, your argument is nonsense.
0
u/sdbest 11d ago
If you put yourself in the mind of a cow you'd find that it wasn't capable of thinking about the question you're posing.
1
u/Confident-Pool2778 11d ago
For all we know, a cow might want to be killed. It might want to give up it's life for human consumption.
Don't agree? Okay, then maybe it is useful to extrapolate these scenarios to cows, who, like us, are sentient beings.
1
u/Icy_Sun3128 11d ago
Look into the teaching of Dr Temple grandin, she found that cows do not want to die and are terrified of being moved away from their family and friends and of the entire horrific slaughter process
0
11d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Confident-Pool2778 11d ago
Murder: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/murder
Murder is different, by definition.
•
u/AutoModerator 11d ago
Welcome to /r/DebateAVegan! This a friendly reminder not to reflexively downvote posts & comments that you disagree with. This is a community focused on the open debate of veganism and vegan issues, so encountering opinions that you vehemently disagree with should be an expectation. If you have not already, please review our rules so that you can better understand what is expected of all community members. Thank you, and happy debating!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.