debate

you adhommed me first bro heres your evidence https://blog.pachamama.org/how-animal-agriculture-affects-our-planet https://www.humanesociety.org/sites/default/files/docs/hsus-report-agriculture-global-warming-and-climate-change.pdf https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/dec/04/animal-agriculture-choking-earth-making-sick-climate-food-environmental-impact-james-cameron-suzy-amis-cameron id like to see yours now please :3

Okay, I can work with this, I appreciate you taking the time to clear the argument up a bit as I haven't been in the thread from the beginning. All indigenous people in the west are also part of first world nations, so that argument doesn't necessarily hold water. On top of that the ones that do hunting (particularly the Miccosukee and Seminole/Creek in the South east) still hunt in traditional ways, which can include a bow and arrow. I don't hunt anymore, this is true. The main reason I don't hunt anymore is because I don't need to. Thanks to being in a first world nation I have access to anything I need. The reason I brought up the hunting is because I could hunt. It was a skill I learned. I never learned to farm. Giving a situation in which I had no choice but to do one or the other to survive I would have to hunt. I can defend taking that deer's life if it means the continuation of my own. As for the human and moral consideration section. Yes I have moral consideration for animals. Given the same life or death situation as listed above I will kill a human if needed. The only difference to me is that I would get to choose based on actions since humans do actually have a certain level of morality and animals do not. What about your moral consideration for farmers that live and die based on their livestock? Do you care for them and their families when you don't partake? No, you can't just plant farmland anywhere, you can't just grow soy or other food anywhere, so that isn't an option, what happens to them? If I don't go to the grocery store and buy some meat one day as a protest, what do you think happens? You think the companies that mass produce it just let that particular chicken go to the wild? The weakest chicken either gets culled or someone else buys it in my stead. They don't just magically free certain ones based on the number that sell. Secondly, even if billions of people joined me in not buying, what would they do with these animals? They can't be freed anymore. No one wants to care for a product that doesn't produce. They would just be slaughtered and left to rot since caring for them would be a loss. That is the debt that being in a first world nation brings. It doesn't matter what moral ground you take, animals will die either way. Even millions of people switching to veganism isn't going to change that. In fact, millions switching to veganism could have completely destructive consequences to rural areas that depend on that production to survive. So do animals have more moral consideration than humans to you?

@Lamby I have no desire to see the cruelty. I was at the abattoir in Darwin how we take out Crocodiles. A bullet to the back of the head into the brain. Instant death and the meats, leather provide food and wealth for the region. The crocodile farm also makes demand for poachers non existent here so wild crocs are mostly left alone. I'm comfortable with this scenario. The scenarios you refer to I whole heartedly agree cannot continue. At the croc park there was deep sadness and seriousness around putting them down I can only imagine that on the factory scale. There needs to be a full inquest here in Australia assessing the humane conditions and sustainability of the different farming methods for animal products. We should reinforce the ability to distribute from those sources by investing in those specific supply chains. You also brought up that crop growth and meat production don't add up sustainability. To this I would seek research papers from multiple institutions to confirm this AND debate alternative methods. I could go on, but bottom line is that I personally would agree to investigate other ways of doing things. As for the RIGHT TO KILL an animal. You have the right to kill an animal in any way you see fit should you decide it necessary in my opinion. Animals also have the right to kill you if they think it necessary. You don't have the right to kill another person. It isn't that people are special or anything we are just communal animals and its typically frowned upon. Like a Penguin killing another Penguin.

Indigenous people in the west? Can you clarify what exactly you mean by this? I'm pretty sure native americans have access to grocery stores even if it may be a drive outside their reservations. And if not then yeah, I'm not shaming them for hunting, but you aren't them. "The reason I brought up the hunting is because I could hunt. It was a skill I learned. I never learned to farm. Giving a situation in which I had no choice but to do one or the other to survive I would have to hunt. I can defend taking that deer's life if it means the continuation of my own." The point is that is a needless killing. You didn't kill that deer because you'd starve without it, it was a choice. Humans can live just fine without the consumption of meat and even healthier in most cases. So again, you don't need meat to live. "As for the human and moral consideration section. Yes I have moral consideration for animals. Given the same life or death situation as listed above I will kill a human if needed. The only difference to me is that I would get to choose based on actions since humans do actually have a certain level of morality and animals do not. What about your moral consideration for farmers that live and die based on their livestock? Do you care for them and their families when you don't partake? No, you can't just plant farmland anywhere, you can't just grow soy or other food anywhere, so that isn't an option, what happens to them?" And I would kill an animal if I needed it to survive too, but this isn't the situation we live in and i've already stated I don't mind indigenous people eating animals so clearly I don't hold animals lives above humans. If a cow was attacking someone i loved i would kill that cow to save them in a heartbeat. We do not give animals the right to vote nor should we. But that doesn't mean we should needlessly torture and kill them. I do not need to hold the rights of animals above the rights of a human to give them moral consideration. Farmers that live in first world nations can go to grocery stores like anyone else and they can simply farm vegetables, which is the majority of farming in the world. I've already stated that if they do not live near a grocery store and can't get the grains, beans, and fruits needed to sustain themselves then I'm fine with them eating meat. You keep bringing up this point as if it has any bearing on your life and your choices to eat meat and contribute to the killing and torture of animals. "If I don't go to the grocery store and buy some meat one day as a protest, what do you think happens? You think the companies that mass produce it just let that particular chicken go to the wild? The weakest chicken either gets culled or someone else buys it in my stead. They don't just magically free certain ones based on the number that sell. Secondly, even if billions of people joined me in not buying, what would they do with these animals? They can't be freed anymore. No one wants to care for a product that doesn't produce." I'm curious, do you know what culling is? Do you know what they do with baby male chicks? So I know that if people stopped buying meat those animals would die, but they were going to die regardless. At least with their death follows the death of that cycle of torture and murder. Also more people are going vegan by the year, so if this trend continues yes it will put a dent in the pockets of animal agra, but I will point out that what your using here is an appeal to futility, not a real argument. (might i add im one man debating against two people right now. not bad)

(working on my response right now dont worry) no no its fine, iv fought like four people at the same time before on this thread >w>/ i enjoy debating veganism because its hard to argue against, so im taking the easier position

Can you tell me why the murder is good enough to eat but not good enough for your eyes? My assumption would be that you actually don't want those animals to be murdered, but you are willing to turn a blind eye for your own taste pleasure. Also these animals are not given an instant death, especially not in the leather trade. Fur and leather is leagues crueler than meat farming. The issue is this isn't about a hand full of crocodile farms, it's about the majority of the animal cruelty which stems from animal agra. About the food inequality here is a paper regarding it. It isn't a controversial fact as cows eat more than humans do in crops and the meat we get from cows in return is hardly anything. This isn't even considering chickens, which have much, much less meat on them. https://www.animalvisuals.org/projects/data/1mc https://www.humanesociety.org/sites/default/files/docs/hsus-report-industrialized-animal-agriculture-world-hunger.pdf https://www.ciwf.org.uk/factory-farming/people-and-poverty/ http://www.fao.org/3/v8180t/v8180T07.htm These are all off a quick google search. Ok so I have the right to kill animals? Why is that? Can I kill your pet? Can I torture animals as well while I'm at it? Why not? What about the people in china who celebrate the chinese dog festival where they catch street dogs and boil them alive for food? This is perfectly ok? And why is it that because penguins will kill each other us humans should as well? Rape is also prevalent in the animal kingdom, does that mean rape moral? These aren't rhetorical questions by the way, please answer them all.

It isn't hard to argue against, you just aren't arguing back. Your debating is mainly deflecting the things that aren't easy to counterpoint and ignoring the points that you can't counter. And in your last post to the other person you say "These aren't rhetorical questions by the way, please answer them all." You aren't doing that yourself. Also, it is hard to take you seriously when you link sources from Humane society and animal rights blogs, just saying. Answer me this: How many animals were used as slave labor to get your last meal on the table? If you can't answer that then you don't have any right at all to attack us for not having empathy.

what have i deflected? ok so again your appealing to futility that because you cant do something to the fullest you might as well not do anything at all and what animals were used as slave labor for my meals? people use tractors these days and the point of veganism is doing as little harm as possible, not being a saint and dying because you cant stop all harm so please answer what i have deflected and i will answer your statement more clearly

Nothing, but I knew you would grab on the only thing you can hold onto so I baited you with it. You ignored the actual question in the post, my exact point.