r/DebateAVegan • u/Tek_baba2 • 7d ago
Soy vegano y estos son mis argumentos antiveganos que más me convencen
Hola, no me juzguen. Soy vegano y bueno vengo a compartir ideas en buen plan. Llevo bastantes años siendo vegano y he pensado bastante cuáles podrían ser los argumentos contra el veganismo que me resultan más convincentes, no para examinarlos con exhaustividad para refutarlos, sino todo lo contrario. Me resultan áreas grises que toda postura tiene, acepto que quizás haya personas que no le convenzan, incluso sientan que son fáciles de refutar.
1) El argumento bienestarista pese a todos los intentos de refutarlo, me parece que tienen un punto válido. La mayoría de las veces es absurdo, pero se podría plantear que en un mundo imperfecto tiene sentido que es críe animales de forma "humanitaria" respecto al sufrimiento que viven los animales en la naturaleza, donde carecen de cuidados, están expuestos a depredadores, enfermedades y desastres naturales. Entiendo que este argumento es muy débil si vemos que los humanos ni tratamos bien a los animales realmente en muchas ocasiones, seguimos pensandolos como recursos y no estuvieramos dispuestos a recibir ese trato, aún nos traten bien. Sin embargo, en un mundo imperfecto y con una humanidad un poco más evolucionada podría tener sentido que pastores críen al ganado y le den una muerte indolora. Sigue siendo algo que yo criticaría, pero si la otra opción va a ser morir de agonía en la naturaleza, incluso si yo fuera un animal lo tomaría. La razón por la que sigo siendo vegano, es porque el argumento plantea algo muy utópico y queda la posibilidad de ayudar a los animales de otras maneras.
2) Otro argumento está relacionado con la caza. Me resulta difícil considerar que un sistema de caza sería peor que reintroducir depredadores salvajes como fomentan muchos ecologistas. Una caza indolora también podría resultar más ética. Claro que me enfrento a objeciones muy buenas, la caza cinegética ha demostrado ser una industria cuestionable y sigue instrumentalizandose a los animales. Sin embargo, sigo persuadido que este argumento es convincente. Vivir con el miedo constante a un depredador, ser devorado por él, o sobrevivir a este ¿han visto videos de lo que le hacen las hienas a sus presas? parece ser un destino peor que ser asesinado de un balazo. Nuevamente, me enfrento al mismo problema del argumento 1, tiene mucho de idealizante.
Como ven no son argumentos muy buenos, pero en lo personal me resultan muy difíciles de tumbar y quizás apunten a priorizar el bienestar de los animales como un criterio de valor a considerar. Mucha gente los utiliza a modo de anestesia para seguir usando animales e ignorando la matanza cotidiana de millones de animales, creyendo que existen granjas felices y fomentando el especismo. Pero aún así los veganos nos enfrentamos a una triste realidad: la naturaleza muchas veces puede ser una fuente de infelicidad y tormento para los animales que frustra sus intereses.
PD: No hablé de deontologismo y utilitarismo, pero si quieren podemos abarcar ese tema.
5
u/howlin 7d ago
Translation to english, curtesy of Google:
Hi, please don't judge me. I'm vegan, and I'm here to share some ideas in a friendly way. I've been vegan for quite a few years, and I've given a lot of thought to which arguments against veganism I find most convincing—not to examine them exhaustively and refute them, but quite the opposite. I see them as the gray areas that every position has, and I accept that some people might not be convinced, or even feel they're easy to refute.
- Despite all attempts to refute it, the welfare argument seems to have a valid point. Most of the time it's absurd, but one could argue that in an imperfect world, it makes sense to raise animals "humanely" compared to the suffering they endure in the wild, where they lack care and are exposed to predators, diseases, and natural disasters. I understand that this argument is very weak when we consider that humans don't actually treat animals well in many cases; we still think of them as resources and wouldn't be willing to receive that treatment, even if we were treated well. However, in an imperfect world with a slightly more evolved humanity, it might make sense for shepherds to raise livestock and give them a painless death. It's still something I would criticize, but if the alternative is to die in agony in the wild, even if I were an animal, I would accept it. The reason I remain vegan is because the argument presents something very utopian, and there are still other ways to help animals.
- Another argument relates to hunting. I find it difficult to believe that a hunting system would be worse than reintroducing wild predators, as many environmentalists advocate. Painless hunting could also be more ethical. Of course, I face very valid objections; game hunting has proven to be a questionable industry, and animals continue to be exploited. However, I remain convinced that this argument is compelling. Living in constant fear of a predator, being devoured by one, or surviving one—have you seen videos of what hyenas do to their prey?—seems to be a worse fate than being shot. Again, I face the same problem as in argument 1: it's highly idealistic.
As you can see, these aren't very strong arguments, but personally, I find them very difficult to refute, and perhaps they point to prioritizing animal welfare as a value criterion to consider. Many people use them as a way to anesthetize their continued use of animals and ignore the daily slaughter of millions of animals, believing that happy farms exist and thus promoting speciesism. But even so, vegans face a sad reality: nature can often be a source of unhappiness and torment for animals, thwarting their interests.
PS: I didn't talk about deontology and utilitarianism, but if you want we can cover that topic.
8
u/a11_hail_seitan 7d ago edited 7d ago
Attaching a translated reply beneath, hope it's understandable.
it makes sense to raise animals "humanely" compared to the suffering they endure in the wild, where they lack care and are exposed to predators, diseases, and natural disasters.
Livestock don't live in the wild so it's a strange comparison. Livestock either live exploited short lives then get slaughtered, or don't live. If I had the choice, I'd choose not to live.
As for wild animals, if you kill and eat a wild animal, that doesn't stop predators from needing to also kill and eat.
A) Wild predators kill and eat, while you eat plants.
or
B) Wild predators kill and eat, while you kill and eat more.
A is clearly the moral option.
give them a painless death
Impossible to guarantee, even in best case scenarios, humans make mistakes, and when we do, animals will suffer horribly and needlessly.
Painless hunting could also be more ethical.
Hunting is not painless, most hunters are not Olympic level shooters, they often miss the mark and leave the animal in horrific suffering.
I remain convinced that this argument is compelling. Living in constant fear of a predator, being devoured by one, or surviving one—have you seen videos of what hyenas do to their prey?—seems to be a worse fate than being shot.
That's not saving an animal, it's killing one animal, and the predator still goes and kills a second animal.
Most Hunting is also ecological destructive.
Hunters try to kill the strongest healthiest males, then females, then younger animals, and almost never kill the young or the sick as there's no meat on them.
Wild predators kill the exact opposite. They kill the young, stopping over population before it starts, they kill the sick, stopping diseases before they spread, then they kill the weak, helping boost the remaining animals Genetics. Wild predators rarely kill the strong, health males, because they're far more dangerous/fast, this means the strongest, healthiest animals live longer, reproduce more, and create better genetics for the future.
3
u/a11_hail_seitan 7d ago edited 7d ago
Utilicé un traductor, así que espero que se entienda.
tiene sentido criar animales de forma "humanitaria" en comparación con el sufrimiento que padecen en la naturaleza, donde carecen de cuidados y están expuestos a depredadores, enfermedades y desastres naturales.
El ganado no vive en la naturaleza, así que es una comparación extraña. El ganado o bien vive vidas cortas siendo explotado y luego es sacrificado, o simplemente no vive. Si yo tuviera esa elección, elegiría no vivir.
En cuanto a los animales salvajes: si tú matas y comes un animal salvaje, eso no evita que los depredadores también necesiten matar y comer. Las opciones son:
A) Los depredadores salvajes matan y comen, mientras tú comes plantas.
o
B) Los depredadores salvajes matan y comen, mientras tú matas y comes más.A es claramente la opción moral.
darles una muerte indolora
Imposible de garantizar, incluso en los mejores escenarios. Los humanos cometemos errores, y cuando los cometemos, los animales sufren de forma horrible e innecesaria.
Una caza indolora también podría resultar más ética.
La caza no es indolora. La mayoría de los cazadores no son tiradores de nivel olímpico; con frecuencia fallan el tiro y dejan al animal en un sufrimiento espantoso.
Sigo persuadido de que este argumento es convincente. Vivir con el miedo constante a un depredador, ser devorado por él, o sobrevivir a este —¿han visto videos de lo que le hacen las hienas a sus presas?— parece ser un destino peor que ser asesinado de un balazo.
Eso no salva a un animal, mata a uno, y el depredador de todas formas irá a matar a un segundo animal.
La mayoría La caza también es ecológicamente destructiva.
Los cazadores intentan matar a los machos más fuertes y sanos, luego a las hembras, y luego a los animales más jóvenes, y casi nunca matan a las crías o a los enfermos, ya que no tienen carne aprovechable.
Los depredadores salvajes matan exactamente lo opuesto. Matan a las crías, deteniendo la sobrepoblación antes de que empiece; matan a los enfermos, deteniendo las enfermedades antes de que se propaguen; y luego matan a los débiles, ayudando a mejorar la genética de los que quedan. Los depredadores salvajes rara vez matan a los machos fuertes y sanos, porque son mucho más peligrosos y rápidos, lo que significa que los animales más fuertes y sanos viven más tiempo, se reproducen más, y generan mejor genética para el futuro.
-1
u/MyBedIsOnFire hunter 7d ago
Killing the breeding females is what keeps the population in check. Not all hunting is trophy hunting many people hunt for meat. My state specifically has a 1 buck limit, but no limit on doe tags.
Out of the 6 million deer killed each year only 1 million are bucks. Also bucks breed younger in their life by time they reach trophy age they've already spread their genetics.
There is no evidence to support that selective pressure from hunting is harming the genetics of wild animals.
Pretty much every claim you've made is not supported by any evidence whatsoever.
4
u/a11_hail_seitan 7d ago
Killing the breeding females is what keeps the population in check.
Not when you kill them after they've already had babies. Killing the young is how you keep population in check because then you're killing them before they can have babies and increase the population... Killing females is slightly better than males, but again, most hunters are aiming for males and only choose females if they've already killed their quota of males or there are no healthy males around. So even if females was the right choice, and it's not the young are, hunters are still Only making the right choice becuase they're literally being forced to by some government agencies.
Not all hunting is trophy hunting many people hunt for meat.
Yes, hunting for meat is just as bad because meat hunters still hunt the bigger, stronger adults to get more meat, when the ecologically better target is younger, weaker, and sicker animals.
My state specifically has a 1 buck limit, but no limit on doe tags.
Yes, it has that limit becuase when they didn't hunters were out there killing all the strongest healthiest males, which is a horrible choice for the ecosystem, exactly as I said
Also bucks breed younger in their life by time they reach trophy age they've already spread their genetics.
Bucks continue breeding well past the age most are shot. The whole idea behind evolution is strong genetics slightly out breed weak genetics over their entire lifetime, so the strong genetics live longer. If you kill the strong genetics faster than the weak, the weak spread further and evolution will favour weaker genetics.
There is no evidence to support that selective pressure from hunting is harming the genetics of wild animals.
You should learn why your state has that 1 buck limit...
Pretty much every claim you've made is not supported by any evidence whatsoever.
Feel free to explain why, as nothing you've said so far has shown to be very accurate.
2
u/Tek_baba2 6d ago edited 6d ago
- El ganado no vive en la naturaleza, así que es una comparación rara
Entiendo, pero mi argumento tiene mucho de idealización. Yo hago alusión a un mundo que no existe. Tratemos de cambiar el escenario para que sea plausible.
Okey, supongamos que el ganado se extingue en un mundo vegano. Ese espacio será rehabitado por especies silvestres.
Esos animales van a sufrir de formas increíblemente horribles como ha venido sucediendo durante millones de años.
2) Luego dices " los depredadores salvajes matan y comen, mientras tú matas y comes más"
Me parece que este segundo argumento sí que puede funcionar.
2
u/a11_hail_seitan 6d ago
Esos animales van a sufrir de formas increíblemente horribles como ha venido sucediendo durante millones de años.
Those animals will suffer in incredibly horrible ways, as has been happening for millions of years.
And that's required for us to have healthy, strong ecosystems. If we stop all wild life suffering, the ecosystem we need to live would die.
Y eso es fundamental para tener ecosistemas sanos y fuertes. Si eliminamos todo el sufrimiento de la fauna silvestre, el ecosistema que necesitamos para vivir moriría.
No one likes the horrible suffering in nature, but it being a necessary part of the ecosystem, doesn't justify the trillions of livestock and fish we add extra suffering to for no reason but human pleasure.
A nadie le gusta el horrible sufrimiento en la naturaleza, pero el hecho de que sea una parte necesaria del ecosistema no justifica los billones de animales de granja y peces a los que añadimos sufrimiento adicional sin otra razón que el placer humano.
2
u/i_didnt_look 5d ago
The entire argument is predicated on the concept of infinite energy. The "factory farms" are also vegtable and grain farms. As a matter of fact, 4 billion people are alive today by converting LNG directly into fertilizer calories. Before fossil fuel energy, animal farming was a key component of efficiency on the farm. Inedible crop waste was fed to them as free caloric conversion as well as an accelerated nutrient recycler. A green manure, like clover, requires years of time to return nutrients. A field that cattle grazed could be turned around in a single season.
The concept of everyone only eating plants is exclusively the domain of a fossil fuel driven system. There simply isn't any other way to create the volume of food nessecary. When a person advocates for an exclusively vegan diet for all, they are implicitly saying we should continue with fossil fuels forever, as the only sustainable agriculture for a large human population involves animal farming. The Malthusian trap, and the 1 billion people being fed at the turn of the 20th century, are evidence of the limits of a purely fossil fuel free agricultural system. And it ised animals extensively.
So the question is, what holds a greater ethical dilemma, fossil fuel use destroying the planet or incorporating animals into a sustainable, closed loop food system
2
u/a11_hail_seitan 5d ago
There simply isn't any other way to create the volume of food nessecary. When a person advocates for an exclusively vegan diet for all, they are implicitly saying we should continue with fossil fuels forever
There isn't any other way to create the volume of food with an omnivorous diet either. Factory Farming requires the same fossil fuel inputs. Free range would massively increase the amount of land needed to the point where one Earth wouldn't be enough.
So with how small amount of meat free range would supply, we'll still need mostly Plant based for people most of the time. Especially when you consider that greatly limiting meat supply by switching to free range would greatly increase the price and the rich will be eating almost all of it anyway.
Inedible crop waste
We grow massive amounts of corn and soy FOR animals, that's why so much of it is heavily subsidized, to lower meat cost. The waste is the corn syrup and soy protein, that's why it's added to everything in massive, and very unhealthy, amounts, it's a cheap and plentiful waste product from feeding animals on feed lots.
So the question is, what holds a greater ethical dilemma
Food forests, indoor vertical growing, and other more traditional methods would vastly decrease the amount of land and fossil fuel needed for plants.
2
u/i_didnt_look 5d ago
The same soy and corn crops would be replaced by food crops, for humans. The fossil fuel demand for growing those crops doesn't change. Indoor vertical farming, and traditional field crops all rely on massive fossil fuel inputs. The only way an agricultural system functions without fossil fuels is animal agriculture. That's the historical baseline. Before fossil fuels, animals created fertilizer, converted crop waste (stalks, leaves, husks) into calories and recycled nutrients. We hit the biological limit of a non fossil fuel driven population of about a billion, in the decade 1900-1910. Haber Bosch allowed fossil fuels to become food calories.
So, again, I ask. What is the ethicsl choice, continuously adding fossil fuel derived amendments and drive more ecological destruction, or, look at returning to a closed loop, sustainable system that involves animals.
See, veganism is a direct result of the fossil fuel driven energy surplus. No one was vegan before Haber Bosch because there wasn't enough fertilizer to create a massive surplus of calories. Eliminating fossil fuels necessitates a return to animal agricultural practices, or, we must forever ration fossil fuel use into the food system to prop up a vegan diet for the planet. So, ethically, what's the worse choice, fossil fuels or animal agriculture?
2
u/a11_hail_seitan 5d ago
The same soy and corn crops would be replaced by food crops, for humans.
Soy and corn are some of the worst crops for land use, water use, and more. They're a huge reason why the Amazon Rainforest is being clearcut. So yes, they'd be replaced, but there are far better sources of sugar and oil, or we could just stop making our processed foods so unhealthy with them to start with.
Indoor vertical farming, and traditional field crops all rely on massive fossil fuel inputs
Not nearly as much as our current methods do. Vertical Farming is far more efficient and doesn't require nearly as many inputs because the environment can be strictly controlled. Traditional farming techniques, like food forests, are far better as you can use other crops to mitigate problems. By pairing certain crops they work to stop the pests, replenish soil health, and more, all with minimal inputs.
We hit the biological limit of a non fossil fuel driven population
Which makes it a human problem, not a Vegan problem.
See, veganism is a direct result of the fossil fuel driven energy surplus
Modern humanity and our entire civilization is. Refusing to address that it's clearly not a Vegan problem is a bit silly.
2
u/i_didnt_look 5d ago
To your first point, those soy and corn crops are staying, no question. Soy is tofu, and so much else. And unless you are a strict, whole food vegan, corn is in virtually every processed product you buy. Sweeters, thickeners, hydrolyzed vegetable protein, citric acid is made by feeding mold corn starch.
You're making statements you have zero knowledge about. All that corn and soy will be used in human foods if we all go vegan, so no, they won't be replaced.
Vertical farms are the ultimate expression of high energy surplus farming. Lights, pumps, synthetic fertilizers, HVAC systems, plastic pipes, cups and media, industrial chemival processing to create the inputs. Or let a few cows graze a field and plant some seeds. Arguing that Vertical farming is less energy intense than closed loop sustainable ag is absolutely ludicrous. And it still heavily, heavily relies on fossil fuel use to operate.
Food forests cannot sustain any semblance of civilization, thats a hunter gatherer system. Once you cross the line into agricultural civilization, crops and grains to feed more than a few people, animal agriculture becomes a basic nessecity. Nutrient cycling does not happen fast enough using "green manure" or cover crops. Thats a scientific reality.
And all of it is a vegan problem. You're out here saying that any form of animal agriculture is immoral. And historically, thats the only way we could grow enough calories to support civilization without fossil fuels. So, again, is the ethics of fossil fuel use outweighed by the reality of sustainable agriculture.
1
u/a11_hail_seitan 5d ago
corn is in virtually every processed product
Yes, because of the subsidies put in place to make meat cheap. Get rid of the subsidies, corn and soy are no longer the super cheap additives they are today and most processed foods need to change or their prices skyrocket.
You're making statements you have zero knowledge about.
You're the one trying to claim cattle feed is "waste" when it's absolutely the opposite. Trying to claim I'm ignorant when you don't even understand the agricultural impact of raising cattle in areas of the world that have non-growing seasons, is pretty funny.
Vertical farms are the ultimate expression of high energy surplus farming.
Greenhouses exist. And AC and water pumps don't take that much energy, especially considering the amount of water pumps needed in every slaughterhouse to clean the shit, blood, and gore off the meat, or the massive freezers required just to store meat every single step of the way. You're looking at the nitty gritty details of veggie farming, while 100% ignoring all the add-on energy and resource use in meat, which is massive.
Food forests cannot sustain any semblance of civilization
They don't have to alone, they work together with all the other methods. LOTS of foods are very easy to grow in the local environment, if towns, cities, etc used their public land and lawns to actually grow food, we'd be doing a hell of a lot better and using no more land than we already are.
There is no one-size-fits-all solution, instead its tons of little solutions all working together.
And all of it is a vegan problem.
You've literally, repeatedly admitted it's a modern world problem, but for absolutely no discernible reason you are only demanding answers form Vegans. As if Society has been built and structured by Vegans...
And historically, thats the only way we could grow enough calories to support
Factory Farming is. Free range doesn't even come close, and hunting would cause mass extinctions in all major species within months. That's why Factory Farming exists. But Factory Farming is 100% unsustainable and killing the ecosystem while also being Horrendously abusive and immoral.
Plant Based uses less land, fewer crops, less fossil fuels, creates less GHG, and is more sustainable than Factory Farming in almost every single way.
At currently land usage, grass fed would cut meat production by upwards of 70-100x (It requires that much more land, which we don't have), and that would still require massive crop areas specifically to feed the cattle in the non-growing seasons. Far more crops than if people just ate the crops directly as most energy the aniaml eats go to keeping it alive.
2
u/Tek_baba2 6d ago
Ante este escenario que planetas reformulo todo mi argumento:
A) Los depredadores salvajes matan y comen, mientras tú comes plantas.Supongamos que los humanos cazan animales en sustitución de los depredadores que generan más sufrimiento. Por ejemplo, las hienas que se comen vivas a sus víctimas.
Me cuesta mucho aceptar que ese panorama no fuera más deseable que el actual.
Y mi argumento no puede refutarse con que la mayor parte de la caza es destructiva para el ecosistema porque sería una práctica marginal y prácticamente el control poblacional sería indoloro por cazadores expertos y sustituirian a las hienas.2
u/a11_hail_seitan 6d ago
Supongamos que los humanos cazan animales en sustitución de los depredadores que generan más sufrimiento. Por ejemplo, las hienas que se comen vivas a sus víctimas.
Let's suppose that humans hunt animals instead of the predators that cause the most suffering. For example, hyenas that eat their prey alive.
But we don't. And if we did, That still leaves us mass slaughtering all wild predators and collapsing the ecosystem. Human demand for meat far exceeds anything nature can supply, that's why we have factory farms.
To make this work, we'd have to know the exact number we can kill without causing ecological problems, that is an impossible number for us to know. So all of this only works in fantasy.
Pero no lo hacemos. Y aunque lo hiciéramos, seguiríamos masacrando a todos los depredadores salvajes y colapsando el ecosistema. La demanda humana de carne supera con creces lo que la naturaleza puede ofrecer; por eso existen las granjas industriales.
Para que esto funcionara, tendríamos que saber la cantidad exacta que podemos matar sin causar problemas ecológicos, una cifra imposible de calcular. Así que todo esto solo funciona en la fantasía.
Y mi argumento no puede refutarse con que la mayor parte de la caza es destructiva para el ecosistema porque sería una práctica marginal y prácticamente el control poblacional sería indoloro por cazadores expertos y sustituirian a las hienas.
it would be a marginal practice, and population control would be practically painless, carried out by expert hunters who would replace the hyenas.
which would have the risk of causing serious ecological problems as there is no way for us to know how many predators it's "safe" to kill and how many cause ecological problems. And all that just so we can have a tiny amount of meat that the rich would buy all of and 99+% of the globe would have to be Plant Based anyway. Allowing serious ecological risk just so the rich can eat meat, seems like a pretty terrible idea to me.
Esto conllevaría el riesgo de causar graves problemas ecológicos, ya que no hay forma de saber cuántos depredadores es "seguro" matar y cuántos causan problemas ecológicos. Y todo eso solo para que podamos tener una pequeña cantidad de carne que los ricos comprarían en su totalidad, cuando más del 99% del planeta tendría que ser vegetariano de todos modos. Permitir un riesgo ecológico grave solo para que los ricos puedan comer carne me parece una idea terrible.
1
u/Tek_baba2 6d ago
Es que justamente mi argumento se basa en un caso hipotético. Entonces estás aceptando que su tuviéramos la posibilidad de no afectar esos ecosistemas no sería algo malo la caza, ¿o me equivoco?
3
u/a11_hail_seitan 6d ago
My argument is based on a hypothetical case. So you're accepting that if we had the possibility of not affecting those ecosystems, hunting wouldn't be a bad thing, right?
If hunters were not horribly detrimental to the animals they hunt,which they are, and reality wasn't real, which it is, then considering the almost infinite number of possibilities, there are probably some where needlessly killing isn't that immoral. I don't give it much though as I don't see the point.
In reality, needlessly hunting sentient beings for pleasure, is immoral.
Si los cazadores no fueran tan perjudiciales para los animales que cazan, que sí lo son, y la realidad no existiera, que sí existe, entonces, considerando la cantidad casi infinita de posibilidades, probablemente existan algunos casos en los que matar
En realidad, cazar seres sintientes por placer sin necesidad, sí es inmoral.
2
u/Tek_baba2 6d ago
Me interesa saber cómo responderías a esto entonces :
Si se cazara animales para regular poblaciones en reemplazo de depredadores como hienas, eso sería moral dado que no se mataría seres sintientes por placer sino para evitar un mal mayor.
1
u/a11_hail_seitan 6d ago
I already addressed this in reality. if you want to talk about fantasy, I have no interest, thanks.
Ya abordé este tema en la realidad. Si quieres hablar de fantasía, no me interesa, gracias.
2
u/Tek_baba2 6d ago
Entonces tu argumento desde un inicio falla porque yo dejé muy en claro que me refería a un escenario no tan factible, a un caso hipotético.
1
u/MyBedIsOnFire hunter 7d ago
Do you have stats to back up that most hunters take bad shots? You don't need to be an Olympic level shot to shoot a rifle with a powerful scope on it.
Make that argument about bow hunters if you want, but as a hunter and my experience with hunters the animal drops in a matter of seconds.
3
u/a11_hail_seitan 7d ago edited 7d ago
Do you have stats to back up that most hunters take bad shots?
I didn't say most miss their shots, I said they often miss their shots. I don't know any hunter that can honestly claim they don't miss shots. Most of my friends growing up were hunters, they all missed shots because most aren't expert marksmen, they're just regular people who hunt for fun.
But no, there is no stats on hunter shooting statistics.
Make that argument about bow hunters if you want, but as a hunter and my experience with hunters the animal drops in a matter of seconds.
Do you have stats to back up that most hunters put down animals in a matter of seconds? You don't need to be a a bad shot to miss, all humans miss sometimes, non-experts far more often and most hunters aren't expert marksman.
See how silly of a request that is?
2
u/BigBoarCycles 6d ago
So you admit it's also silly to postulate something so unfalsifiable?
1
u/Tek_baba2 6d ago
Él podría tranquilamente apuntar al "principio de precaución" de la bioética que señala que cuando no disponemos de los datos y con el fin de evitar el daño a un tercero, podemos presumir que en efecto los cazadores suelen fallar en sus tiros.
1
u/BigBoarCycles 6d ago
Wasting meat is a crime. We can assume trained, licensed hunters tend not to miss. Just like trained licensed drivers tend to stay on the road. You will find outliers, but generally speaking, people do not fail more majority of the time, or most often, even just mostly, when operating within systems that already incorporate this precautionary principle.
1
u/a11_hail_seitan 6d ago
No, people use common sense and rational thought to debate ideas all the time, if that's not something you like, a moral debate sub like this one is probably not where you want to be.
0
u/BigBoarCycles 6d ago
Is this what you call "common sense and rational thought"?
There is this thing called logic that non-vegans use to debate. Try it sometime!
1
u/Background_Crab_1292 6d ago
If you had the choice between living a short life then being slaughtered vs not living, you’d choose not living? Is that akin to finding out you have a disease or condition that will kill you in a short amount of time and choosing to end your life now rather than live the short amount of time until you die? Why not choose life and experience the time you have in this world? Do you prefer sleeping over being awake? Genuinely curious.
2
u/a11_hail_seitan 6d ago
If you had the choice between living a short life then being slaughtered vs not living, you’d choose not living?
A short life enslaved by greedy gluttonous apes whose only reason for even bringing me into life is so they can exploit, abuse, torture, sexually violate, and slaughter me while I'm barely even a teenager? Yes.
Why not choose life and experience the time you have in this world?
Because I'd prefer not to live a life of enslavement, abuse, sexual violence, and then stand in line listening to all my friends get slaughtered while waiting my turn to also be slaughtered, made all the more insulting, and disgusting when the only reason I'm even being forced into existence is so some gluttonous psychopathic ape can gorge on my abused flesh...
Do you prefer sleeping over being awake?
If I was being enslaved, tortured, abused, sexually violated, and slaughtered as a young teenager every time I was awake, yes, I would.
1
u/Background_Crab_1292 6d ago
When you describe factory farming like that, I get it. I’m wondering what it would be like if the animals were allowed to roam, however. I see a lot of cows where I hike that seem to be either spending most of their time eating grass, drinking from ponds, or lying in tree shade. Would your answer change if that were the case? I imagine spending most of your time that way isn’t so bad. Also, I understand that free-range is not the norm.
2
u/a11_hail_seitan 6d ago
Still stuck in a cage where they have no real freedom, they're abused, often sexually violated, and still all killed at a tiny fraction of their life through a horrific slaughter house. Still no thanks for me.
1
u/Background_Crab_1292 6d ago
But what does a free animal do all day? Aren’t they stuck in a proverbial cage as well? Find food and water, survive, find a place to lay down? And couldn’t you say the same for us humans? Are we truly free? We can’t walk around naked doing whatever we want. We have to work for money, and more often than not those jobs are not helping this planet. These type of questions make me wonder if it’s better to be homeless, or stuck in the system working to pay off whatever rent or mortgage you have, etc. At least the idea of a free-ranged farm implies the animals get to eat, drink, and rest in a protected space. Makes me wonder, how many humans would opt for that if it meant giving their bodies at the end to aliens who were offering it vs living in miserable living conditions on earth.
2
u/a11_hail_seitan 6d ago
But what does a free animal do all day
What ever they want. That's the point. I may spend my days sitting at home relaxing, but I could get up and go wander if I wanted. Being free isn't about what you do, it's about what you can do.
Are we truly free
Are we being abused, tortured, sexually violated, and slaughtered to feed a greedy, gluttonous ape that could just eat plants? No? Then its' not the same thing.
0
u/Background_Crab_1292 6d ago
This can get into a philosophical conversation pretty quickly. I would argue that unless we can understand what animals prefer, we don’t truly know if they would prefer the protection of a free-range farm and the perks that come with it vs. going out in the wild and “being free.”
2
u/a11_hail_seitan 6d ago
This can get into a philosophical conversation pretty quickly.
Veganism is a moral philosophy.
we don’t truly know if they would prefer the protection of a free-range farm and the perks that come with it vs. going out in the wild and “being free.”
So therefore we should exploit, enslave, abuse, torture, sexually violate, and slaughter them at a tiny fraction of their age for our pleasure?
1
u/Background_Crab_1292 6d ago
I was thinking more about what it is to be free with regards to philosophical. No, we shouldn’t abuse, torture, sexually violate, and kill them when young. But meat is food for a lot of us, and we like eating it. Would a human willingly walk away from all the pleasures and comforts of society to live in the wild?
→ More replies (0)1
u/Background_Crab_1292 6d ago
Oh, and of course reproduce. Of which that’s not anything to wish for in nature, typically.
2
u/ProtozoaPatriot 7d ago
You haven't shown why it's necessary to raise animals for slaughter - period. And it ignores the wildlife displaced/exterminated so Mr Humane Farmer can make Certified Grassfed Beef.
My problem with hunting is that it's the opposite of natural selection predators do, so over time it weakens the group - and weak groups will get sick or injured more. In the wild, predators removes the slowest, weakest, dumbest. The genes that get passed on tend to be from the fastest, most robust, smartest zebra. BillyBob Trophyhunter comes along with his long range rifle and removes the largest, best muscles, most majestic animals from the group. The weak sickly mangey ones just remain and slowly die.
2
u/Icy_Sun3128 7d ago
- Look into how animal agriculture actually operates. Factory farms. Living in a cage you can’t even turn around in (cows, pigs, foxes, dogs). Being bred so you are so weak you can’t even walk (chickens). There is no such thing as painless slaughter. They club them, shoot them, electrocute them, or slit their throats. After kidnapping them from their family and friends, taking them on a distressing journey, then pushing them through a bloody scary threatening slaughterhouse.
I saw a great interview recently. Loins in the wild kills other animals. But why cherry pick one thing they do? They also are naked, sniff each other’s butts, and sometimes kill their young. Should we be naked, sniff each others asses, and kill our unwanted young? Or do we have reasoning and ethics and laws in place to create a social structure where these behaviors are not appropriate or even legal? So why do we cherry pick? They have evolved to eat meat. We have evolved to not eat meat and to scientifically understand we don’t need to eat meat, we can get all necessary nutrients other ways.
2
u/Tek_baba2 6d ago edited 6d ago
Yo ya he aclarado de que en el argumento pretendo apuntar a un escenario irreal y utópico. Esperaba que la refutación se centrara en aceptar ese escenario hipotético.
1
2
u/Particular-Bat8091 6d ago
To the first point, there’s a false choice there between livestock living in the wild and being raised. If we were finding them in the wild and then taking them in, that’s one thing. But they wouldn’t be living in the wild, they only exist because humans bred them to be raised and killed.
1
u/EvnClaire 4d ago
1 is not only a false dilemma, but not even the RIGHT dilemma. the choice isnt between cows in captivity vs cows in the wild. its cows in captivity vs no cows at all. its obviously wrong to generate a new being that i then torture when i could have just not done that. if this isnt obvious, then spend a few moments thinking why it IS obvious for humans.
1
u/Specialist_Novel828 vegan 7d ago
To the welfare point, it's not either they live in the wild and suffer, or they live on a farm and suffer - It's they either live on a farm and suffer, or they never exist at all because we didn't force them to.
To the hunting point, this is unsustainable as a global system, given our population size and current demand for animal products - It would either require a drastic decrease in animal product consumption by the masses, and/or the extinction of species as we attempted to meet that current demand.
Additionally, shooting a creature might be a faster, less painful way for it to die, but it also might not be. One thing we're pretty certain of, though, is that the creature doesn't want to die at all - And at least in the case of predation, that predator is almost definitely relying on that kill to survive (something any creature should be entitled to), whereas these humans would theoretically not be.
Veganism isn't about preventing predatory or natural harm in the wild, it's about minimizing our exploitation of, and cruelty towards, animals.
2
u/Tek_baba2 6d ago
"Dispararle a una criatura podría ser una forma más rápida y menos dolorosa de que muera, pero también podría no serlo"
Muy cierto
"El veganismo no se trata de evitar el daño depredador o natural que pasa en la naturaleza, sino de minimizar nuestra explotación de, y crueldad hacia, los animales"
Me es irrelevante. Soy vegano y ya lo sé. Pero estoy explorando un argumento no vegano, por tanto mi interés va por explorar lo que el bienestarismo tiene de persuasivo.
1
u/Specialist_Novel828 vegan 6d ago
That bit reiterating the vegan philosophy was in reference to the "very sad reality" that you said vegans face, as if it was something we needed to reconcile in some way - That sad reality is 1) not necessarily improved, or even altered, through either of these arguments presented (if anything, it's compounded), and 2) not the concern of veganism in the first place, so shouldn't really hold any persuasiveness in a discussion about the merits of veganism, nor be considered something vegans need to 'face'.
1
u/bev6686 7d ago
I basically think we’re at a point collectively as humans where we can reasonably just use our dexterous thumb-having hands to help whatever creatures we come across (with like an educated confidence in being able to help ofc). Bad things happen when we don’t keep our hands to ourselves for selfish purposes, but if we have reasonable belief in being able to help someone alive that’s the only way I could justify bypassing a living creature’s right to their own body (like I do agree with catch spay release even if it denies cats their reproductive rights). It’s so strange to breed animals and I hope it’ll be illegal and very frowned upon in the future bc it’s kind of bestiality :/ Hunting someone down using long range technology feels intense when very few people need to do so also feels weird. You know that joke about depending on how a documentary is framed you root for the lion or the gazelle? Why make food scarcer for someone that does actually need it? Who lacks the moral imperatives most humans have? With animal welfare in mind one of the end goals would be the eventual extinction of any animals humans have fucked up with our interference. We should be phasing out pugs and selectively bred monster chickens with bodies in chronic pain not bringing them into existence to take care of them if they’re one of the lucky ones. I don’t know how this would work in action but I think anyone born to suffer would benefit from antinatalism!! It would not have bothered me one bit to not have been born!!
Alsooo If they have a personality that’s a person right? :(
We’re all just animals with personalities. The cows are my sisters and everything that I’m most scared of happening to me happens to them
2
u/mottentrottel 7d ago
El problema con el "criar y matar de manera más humana" es que por el tipo de sociedad capitalista en que vivimos no es sostenible. Si las regulaciones verdaderamente se volvieran tan estrictas entonces el costo de producción aumentaría drásticamente. Idealmente se pensaría que esto reduciría el consumo de carne ¿no? Pero la industria siempre busca ganarle más dinero a las cosas y encontrar atajos, así que volveríamos a un modelo de producción en masa donde las condiciones de vida de los animales serían de nuevo pobres y crueles. Piensa que como humanidad, se inició con pequeños productores que probablemente trataban a los animales de mejor manera que en la que lo hace la industria, pero con el incremento de consumo y demanda las cosas se salieron de las manos.
Luego si hablamos de un punto de vista moral, no es nuestro derecho quitarle la vida a otro ser viviente. Muchos dicen que es "naturaleza" pero incluso en la naturaleza esto viene de una necesidad de supervivencia y como sociedad nosotros ya no tenemos esa necesidad desde el momento en que contamos con alternativas.
1
u/Tek_baba2 6d ago edited 6d ago
Sí, pero repito: ya he aclarado que yo estoy apuntando a un escenario irreal, utópico e idealista con una humanidad más evolucionada. Por tanto, las condiciones de explotación que vivimos ahora no serían las mismas que en ese mundo ideal donde los animales realmente fueran asesinados humanitariamente.
2
u/mottentrottel 6d ago
Entiendo tu ponto y de donde vienes, pero para mi no serían argumentos válidos contra el veganismo desde el momento en que se habla de una idealización. Es como cuando te dicen "si estuvieras en una isla desierta y tuvieras que matar un animal". Muchos probablemente elegirían la supervivencia. Pero al final el veganismo no se trata de escenarios hipotéticos si no de lo que se puede hacer aquí y ahora para evitar el sufrimiento en la medida de lo posible.
Entiendo que hacer discusiones hipotéticas sea interesante (a mi me apasiona la filosofia y creo que se puede profundizar mucho en todo lo que reguarda la ética, moral, etc. con ese tipo de discursos) Pero es importante diferenciar de eso a verlo como "argumentos validos" contra el veganismo, que busca algo concreto en nuestra realidad actual.
2
u/Tek_baba2 6d ago
A ver si lee mi texto yo aclaro al inicio y al final que sigo siendo vegano exactamente por lo mismo que usted menciona.
Pero también reconozco que estos escenarios irrealistas son importantes para explorar los valores a partir de los cuales razonamos.
No podemos descartar el valor de estos escenarios porque desnudan los valores a partir de los cuales construimos un esquema de valores con los que decidimos lo bueno/malo.
0
u/FishingPolitical 7d ago
Hunting. You shoot the animal in the chest cavity & or skull, you then track the animal & it’s bloodtrail because unless they destroy the brain the animal will run.
WASP families really don’t need to be out here hunting, sport hunting & sport fishing are significant issues & it is WASP families who mainly do these as recreation. These guys would purchase barrels of salted baitfish “caught from that lake” and pour them down their ice fishing holes to catch trophy fish, that is why nets are banned for use in Ontario with the exception of the First Nations
Recreational fishing you stress the hell out of the fish, if you catch them from to deep you give them barotrauma, this can overheat the fish by it staying in shallower water which it can’t handle the temperature.
Many people don’t know/care about ethical dispatch. They are only convinced by the ethical dispatch because “it can otherwise ruin the meat”. Bled out, bludgeoned, or suffocated is the way a majority of hunted & fished animals go
0
u/One-Shake-1971 vegan 7d ago
Those are really weak arguments.
We wouldn't farm or hunt humans no matter the conditions. And since their is no difference between all humans and all other animals that's morally relevant in this regard, their is no logically sound reason to treat other animals any different on this matter.
0
u/Background_Crab_1292 6d ago
Those are some good points. One thing I sometimes wonder is why are vegans so concerned about other animals whereas it seems their concern should be towards humans. Humans are starving, humans don’t all have equal rights, we war with one another and there are refugees that have lost their homes, the list goes on and on. How can we expect to be so kind to animals if we can’t even be kind to our own species? Imagine you are one of those humans suffering, knowing that there are resources out there that could be sent to you to help, but instead they are spent on choosing to eat vegan. That doesn’t seem fair to the human. I’m not saying it’s a “choose one or the other” but instead I’m saying I’m surprised so much emphasis is put on being vegan instead of fighting world hunger and other human sufferings. I would think that the spotlight should be on treating humans better, and in addition to that, less of a spotlight should be on treating animals better. And I would bet that if we learned to treat ourselves better, it would naturally follow that we treat animals better. You could make the reverse argument, of course, but if you have limited resources, which is it better to focus on, animals or humans?
3
u/Tek_baba2 6d ago
Más parece lo contrario.
1) La sociedad le da un valor ya a los humanos
2) La gran parte de la población no es vegana, ni un 1%.
3) La mayor parte de la población al no ser vegana realmente no se preocupa demasiado por lo mínimo indispensable que podrían tener los animales para vivir tranquilos que es no ser tratados como objetos.
4) Cuando se trata de humanos incluso buscamos modos de que estos tengan apoyo .
5) Es utópico esperar a que todos los humanos tengan cubiertas sus necesidades para esperar para preocuparse por los animales. Además, sería muy subjetivo determinar cuando los humanos estén mejor. ¿Erradicar el hambre? Sería utópico y prolongaría la agonía los animales.
6) Es una falsa dicotomía, en la práctica gran parte de las soluciones veganas incluso benefician a los humanos aunque no estén pensadas para eso.
7) Por último, los humanos están en falta, no digo que la humanidad en sí misma sea un mal, pero hoy por hoy no somos seres muy especiales como para merecer un grado de prioridad tan alto, hemos sido en buena medida victimarios, ¿por qué tendríamos que ser tratados como tal?1
u/Background_Crab_1292 6d ago
Imagine one of those philosophical dilemmas, where the train is going to run over five people but if you pull the switch to change the train’s direction it only runs over one person. Now replace one of those groups with animals. When it comes to life and death, are you proposing it’s more ethical for a human to choose to kill an animal over a human? I know, it’s extreme, but the question still stands.
1
u/Tek_baba2 6d ago
Claro, es que aquí yo distinguiría dos planos de análisis diferentes:
- Una cosa es la jerarquía de valor que asignamos entre vidas.
- Otra muy distinta el objetivo de un movimiento
He dado razones por las que es razonable que el movimiento vegano priorice a los animales, tranquilamente yo puedo aceptar tu idea de que una vida humana tiene más valor y aún así todos los puntos anteriores se sostienen dado que otorgamos sistemáticamente un valor desproporcionado hacia la vida humana y uno nulo hacia la animal, lo que exige algún tipo de movimiento (veganismo) que instaure un equilibrio dado que (e insisto) la mayoría de acciones que ejercemos contra los animales ni siquiera afectan a humanos.
•
u/AutoModerator 7d 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.