[split] "Some people eat animals, some don't."

[Monica]

All life seeks to persevere. That is one of the inborn directives of 2D. I'm saying that most do not choose so for themselves because it is a choice one can only consciously make. Think of a dog that dies of grief. That dog has chosen to die; it is not simply responding to an instinctive directive because the directive is to live.

It's easy to think that dogs are smarter than 'livestock' animals because we have more interaction with dogs, and because societal conditioning tells us that 'livestock' animals are 'just for food.' It doesn't appear that you watched the videos in my previous post, which prove otherwise.

Here are more:

Grieving mother Cows (Not graphic)

Cows Smart and acting like dogs <<== Does this look like instinct??

Cows grieving after being separated from best friend

I'm still not sure why killing is a bad thing. It becomes a fantastic thing when we have a pathogenic illness or a parasitic infection. In those cases, there's nothing we want more than to kill the critters.

It's the UNnecessary killing that's bad. Killing parasites is necessary for life and health. Plus, they are are parasites, invading another person's body. So they have crossed a line.

Killing animals for meat/dairy is, however, Not necessary. That is the difference.

How do you define necessary? Is it necessary to build our houses out of wood? Is it necessary to turn the soil that worms and mites live in, thus destroying their homes? Is it necessary to walk a trail on grass, thus killing that specific portion? Is it necessary to turn trees into books? Or fire? What would you strip away from our culture in the name of necessity?

At this point in time, yes, most of that is necessary to some degree. As we evolve, we will surely find better ways to live in harmony with the Earth. The first step is to quit killing animals for food!

It's important to note, however, that walking on grass doesn't kill it. That is a CLUE about what is acceptable and what isn't.

Monica is knocking down a strawman because the practices she rails against are mass-production practices. I find the inhumane treatment of animals in these factories as offensive as anyone else.

Yet you still support it when you buy meat and dairy. Just like most other meat-eaters who agree it's offensive, and claim to buy only 'humane' meat, yet still continue to eat at restaurants which of course use commercially-produced meat and dairy from those abominations called factory farms.

Furthermore, there is No such thing as 'humane' meat.

That's not what I'm talking about. That plus she introduces all manner of fallacious rhetorical devices like burning alive and rape.

Not fallacious or rhetorical at all! but literally true! Here's proof:

MILK=RAPE

More Details about how they use the Cow Rape Rack

This is what you support when you buy cheese, milk, yogurt or any dairy product. Cows are routinely raped every year. They have to artificially inseminate them to get them pregnant. Then the calf is taken away, and the process begins again. They must have a baby to produce milk, see?

Chickens routinely scalded alive <<== ROUTINELY, to the tune of about 90 still-conscious hens dunked in scalding hot water every HOUR. Some survive the scalding hot water so the torture isn't even over yet! These are the ones that the blade missed. And this is NORMAL.

And of course, we all know that crabs and lobsters are routinely boiled alive too.

In China, they routinely boil dogs and cats alive. They also torch them and hold them to the flame for many minutes, causing unimaginable suffering. All routine. But No different than what is done to millions of 'livestock' animals here in the US every day.

What follows is in response to Monica and Diana, but it's not really written for them because I don't expect to change their minds. What follows is written for those less decided on the matter. Perhaps my own experience and reflection can help.

Why it is STO to kill livestock

1. Mercy killing is STO.

Perhaps it would help if I explain a little better how killing animals is actually a service to them. Consider Peta. I don't like the organization for reasons I'm sure I don't need to get into. In any case, they do a lot of mercy killing. The motivation behind the mercy killing is that if they do not put these strays down, they will starve out on the streets and die of hunger, illness, or trauma. That is to say, death is better than the lives they will lead.

While members here may not believe in mercy killing, it is a logical consequence of consciously seeking to alleviate suffering: if you can't take care of an animal that you can see is destined for a painful or even cruel end, killing it becomes an act of service. On the flip side of this coin, I've known people who wanted to alleviate the suffering of animals but couldn't suffer the killing.

I actually do believe in mercy killing - when it really IS an act of mercy and the animal really IS suffering horribly and there really is NO hope. Those are the animals PETA kills - the extreme cases. It is tragic but there is no other choice in such cases. It is the final act of compassion to an animal, but only if it truly is a last resort.

But what does that have to do with killing animals for meat?

Nothing. Artificially inseminating animals so that they will produce more babies than they normally would in the wild, only to enslave them and then kill them, is NOT mercy killing!

If a man repeatedly rapes and tortures a woman for months and then years, until he finally murders her, do we call that mercy killing? Of course not! He is the cause of her suffering! Killing her is just his final act against her free will. Not the same as mercy killing at all!

2. Not all animals are fit to be pets.

Completely arbitrary, on the whim of humans, and therefore irrelevant. The only relevant point is: Can they suffer? If they have pain receptors, then they have the awareness to register pain, meaning that they can suffer. THAT is the point.

Plus, I just proved that 'farm' animals can show just as much awareness as 'pet' animals.

Monica gave a string of instances of persons making unusual animals into pets. That was a red herring. Of course you can make just about anything into a pet.

Ah, then you are retracting your previous statement that 'livestock' couldn't be pets. Thank you.

That's not what's at issue here. What is at issue is that most animals that incarnate are not at a stage in their evolution that is conducive to pethood. That is to say, the animal species soul chooses how its individuated mind/body complexes will incarnate, with an eye toward giving that unique signature of self the experience appropriate to it. Those who become pets were probably ready to become pets. I have direct experience with this, myself. My first wife and I used to take in stray cats. We gave shelter to a pregnant one so that we could keep or give away the litter. One of the kittens, though, was different. You couldn't domesticate her. It was as if she was born feral: she'd bite and scratch you for no reason than that you were near, she wasn't interested in a litterbox, and probably other unsavory behaviors that I can't remember. We had to put her out of the house: she was unfit to be a pet. Monica's examples do not shed light on the phenomenon that some animals just aren't suitable pets.

Feral cats simply require more patience. Of course they bite and scratch at first; they're scared! But they CAN be tamed. I've done it many times and so have many other people. It simply takes a great deal of time and patience.

But whether we win over the heart of that cat or not is irrelevant. Just because the cat is still scared doesn't mean it's ok to torture and kill her!

Nor is it any proof at all of the animal's level of awareness. Case in point: Some human children who were abandoned or abused are scared like that, and behave much the same way. They simply need patience...and love! It says nothing about their level of self-awareness.

Anyway, why should a being's worth be based on whether humans decide they are good pets or not? That reeks of speciesism!

My experience, and the experience of most I think, is that pets will choose their masters. When she was younger, my fiancée knew a family who raised sheep. She was particularly attached to one of them who had a name and would go in and out of the house. One day, she came over and noticed that the family was grilling lamb chops and that her friend was nowhere to be found. They had slaughtered the pet. While this particular pet was meant to be livestock, it chose to be a pet. I am trusting that animals who are ready for pethood make it known.

Well you sure are putting a lot of trust in your theory. But again, it's a completely arbitrary notion that only 'pets' are worthy to be free from suffering and unnecessary killing...only 'pets' should be granted the basic right to not be tortured and killed.

That sounds a lot like the notion that only whites should have basic human rights, and it's ok to torture and kill blacks, because if they were ready to be treated like humans then they would have been born white.

Racism=Speciesism

We do not cultivate pet relationships with livestock, but we do care for them and tend them as we would a garden.

Small-scale farmers might take better care of the animals before slaughter, but then they slit their throats just the same. They also steal their babies and rape them just the same.

Your analogy to a garden reminds me of pedophiles who claim to 'take care of' little girls out of 'love'. It's Not love. It's sick and self-serving, No matter how you slice it.

This is investment and, considering that 3D investment is necessary for 2D graduation, it is a service even to those animals who are not harvestable. The same extends to dairy cows and chickens raised for eggs, as long as they are humanely treated.

Oh, so we get to decide which animals are 'worthy' of life and which aren't? I just showed you how 'livestock' animals can be just as loving, affectionate, and smart as 'pet' animals. There is NO distinction other than the arbitrary line drawn by humans.

And, there is No such thing as 'humane' slaughter. That is a myth.

4. If we did not kill livestock, we would not raise livestock.

This one is pretty obvious. The opportunity for an intermediate form of human investment can only exist within a certain paradigm: we would never keep so many non-pet animals in a domestic setting if they were not furnishing us with food. We could, perhaps, go visit animals in the wild, but that context is dramatically different. In the wild, we do not protect and feed the animals; rather, we are merely visitors. Visiting an animal in the wild is a also an intermediate stage of human investment, but it is further removed than livestock.

Animals don't need human investment if that investment is slavery and slaughter.

5. Therefore, It is a service to raise livestock and a service to kill livestock.

It is a service to kill livestock because if we did not, they would multiply beyond our means to keep them.

Not true. The only reason there are so many billions of 'livestock' animals is the artificial reproduction imposed by humans.

The same is true of eggs. In killing livestock and eating eggs, we preserve the integrity of a context in which animals unready for pethood can benefit from human investment.

How does enslavement have any 'integrity' at all?

Your references to 'ready for pethood' sound very elitist to me.

If we set livestock free in the wild or allowed them to live out their lives to old age, they would meet with famine and disease.

Of course. Humans' lust for animal flesh and created a huge mess and no one's saying it will be easy to clean up the mess. But that doesn't justify continuing to support the machine that is creating the monster mess in the first place...which is also destroying the planet, by the way.

It doesn't matter whether it's necessary. What matters is that we render a service unto each other.

Indeed. Offering the 'service' of enslavement and murder is the task of STS-oriented entities. Is that the kind of 'service' you wish to support?

It's true that livestock cannot inform us that they are willing to feed us if we treat them well,

Sure they can, and they do! Every. Single. Time.

They tell us by the look of fear in their eyes. They tell us by frantically trying to escape the killer. These are basic signs of "I don't want to die! I want to live!" but you'll notice these signs only if you are paying attention.

but I trust that the exchange is equal and acceptable. The litmus test for my act of faith on the matter is how settled I am about it. And I am settled.

Are you sure? Why are you participating in this discussion then?

Besides, I find it perfectly plausible that an animal that was livestock in one life incarnates as a pet in the next.

Does that make it ok? A raped/murdered woman will surely incarnate as another baby human. Does that make it ok to rape and murder her?

It's equally plausible that the tortured, raped, murdered woman will reincarnate as a sociopath, embittered and hateful.

It's equally plausible that the tortured, raped, murdered cow will reincarnate in her first life as a human: an embittered, hateful human...and the meat/dairy industry is populating a planet of sociopaths.

Humans will have to answer for their part in this.

...