A dog is a pig is a bear is a boy.

We are where we are because of human intervention - the entire landscape is nothing like what it would be except for human intervention. Domesticated animals and the entire plethora of garden plants/trees are here simply by human intervention - all would revert back to a wilder format or simply not survive without human intervention. Now, I have no problem with fancy plants but "fancy" = domesticated varieties of wild animals, sentient beings, that are born to be slaughtered does not appeal to me. The old chestnut that it is better to have lived than not at all is the carnivores mainstay argument, yet not one of them has ever talked to a domesticated animal to ask its opinion.

So, lets say that there exists a superhuman race who evolved from a common ancestor with us many millions of years ago. These superhumans have bred us mere humans in order to consume us. Better to have lived you say than knowing about how it will all end for us at the infant, child or teenage years (in the middle of the night with the superhuman custodians forcing you onto a truck with no physical restraint on their part). Shunted/beaten into the killing rooms for the old bolt in the head and then cut to pieces so that Mr Ordinary Superhuman can consume you. A lovely tasty bit of human leg Mary, says he. Of course, some mere humans will be allowed to live on for a while for procreation purposes. No oldies allowed as they would be economically a drain on the Superhuman economy. Most superhumans are lovely people, just your average guys n gals enjoying the simple things in life such as consuming a human child at festive celebrations, what with its lovely tender texture. Some superhumans keep a few human babies in stock as well - wring their necks for a tasty bite on the barbie when friends call over. Lovely superhumans, salt of the earth types, who attend their local spiritual services centre to thank the Great One for the human bounty he has so graciously delivered and to reaffirm how the great circle of life is inevitable - "we must respect the human animal" says the scriptures, human animals that the Great One has provided to us for our earthly needs, so that we can be nourished as we toil and strive to live a purposeful life that reflects the sublime peaceful doctrines of the Great One.

deaglan1 wrote: »

...
So, lets say that there exists a superhuman race who evolved from a common ancestor with us many millions of years ago. These superhumans have bred us mere humans in order to consume us. Better to have lived you say than knowing about how it will all end for us at the infant, child or teenage years (in the middle of the night with the superhuman custodians forcing you onto a truck with no physical restraint on their part). Shunted/beaten into the killing rooms for the old bolt in the head and then cut to pieces so that Mr Ordinary Superhuman can consume you. A lovely tasty bit of human leg Mary, says he. Of course, some mere humans will be allowed to live on for a while for procreation purposes. No oldies allowed as they would be economically a drain on the Superhuman economy. Most superhumans are lovely people, just your average guys n gals enjoying the simple things in life such as consuming a human child at festive celebrations, what with its lovely tender texture. Some superhumans keep a few human babies in stock as well - wring their necks for a tasty bite on the barbie when friends call over. Lovely superhumans, salt of the earth types, who attend their local spiritual services centre to thank the Great One for the human bounty he has so graciously delivered and to reaffirm how the great circle of life is inevitable - "we must respect the human animal" says the scriptures, human animals that the Great One has provided to us for our earthly needs, so that we can be nourished as we toil and strive to live a purposeful life that reflects the sublime peaceful doctrines of the Great One.

Poetic - maybe. Hyperbole - definitely. Reality - no

It remains animals have been eating other animals since the dawn of time. It is what it is. The eating of meat is a part of entropy and the recycling of energy in ecology . And yes humans eat other animals species and not as in your conflation sub species "humans". Like it or not we are now the dominant animals and have learned to farm animals that we once used to hunt. Farming allows us do this in a way which means we no longer have to chase animals over cliffs with spears etc.

Rather animals are reared, fed and protected from predation and diseases that would face in the wild. They are killed yes - under highly controlled and regulated conditions. Some humans choose not to eat meat and that's fine - others do - thats how it is.

Nice story at the end but tbh i dont know too many religous types who follow gospel and who use a godhead to decide whether they should eat normal a 'human' diet. Certainly there are religions with restrictions - but none that even come close to that piece of fiction - poetic or otherwise.

I think the big mistake in much of the logic is that animals don’t have human levels of comprehension, it’s just not true.

So if we humans were being bred for food and knew it i we would understand the concept all our lives.

My cows for example are just happy and relaxed, living their lives away in a big field of grass, moved to the next field of grass when that one is eaten. They’re not sitting round discussing the greater things in life, they’re just living each day as it is.
Our pigs the same, yes they have a level of intelligence, but transferring human level intelligence onto them is wrong.
You could explain it to them every day and they wouldn’t have a clue.

I know people here aren’t emotionally comfortable with animal slaughter and I respect that.

But imagining up feelings and intelligence levels for animals is wrong.

_Brian wrote: »

This is true indeed.
Back in the 90’s I was given a tour of a caged chicken farm producing eggs and it was shocking with cages stacked 12 high, bottom six cages the chickens had feathers burned off from dropping coming down through cages from above. . Seeing free range egg production now there is no comparison and the chickens have a decent life if a bit short.

Our chickens roam free, non laying chickens turn into pets living out their life with the laying hens, they don’t live long anyway.

Similarly commercial pig units while clean and warm resemble nothing close to a pigs natural environment. Farrowing crates, well I don’t know how essential they are, guy we buy piglets from doesn’t use them, some losses as a result but he feels it’s a more natural set up. I think the crates guaranteed 100% survival where without it would be 70-80% piglet survived.

At the very least animals should be reared and kept in conditions close to that of their ancestors and how they developed.

Our pigs live outdoors with a small shed for shelter and they choose to either be in or out themselves. Growth rates are but a fraction of commercial rates though, similarly we use just a fraction of the meal they feed. The result I feel it happier pigs and a better end product.

We’ve been moving our cattle to a similar system over the winter with access to green pasture all the time and anshed to use for shelter, they spend huge % of time outside during winter and bad weather.

All this reduces profitability. But I beleive were overproducing meat at present and it’s become a basic commodity cheaply priced. I’d like to see less meat production but better prices, that would better reflect the product it is.

I’d be interested in the sums on the pigs. The pigs reared indoors in a warm commercial unit are fed adlib ration mixed with water when finishing.say one of them pigs eats x amount of ration to hit target lw.

You’re pigs outdoors are roaming and using way more energy in order to forage and stay warm compared to the commercial pig.you may be subbing it’s ration with household food waste.
That outdoor pig is surely eating as much if not more in ration than the commercial pig when you factor in the extra time in weeks it will take for the outside pig to hit target lw

Doctors room ghost wrote: »

I’d be interested in the sums on the pigs. The pigs reared indoors in a warm commercial unit are fed adlib ration mixed with water when finishing.say one of them pigs eats x amount of ration to hit target lw.

You’re pigs outdoors are roaming and using way more energy in order to forage and stay warm compared to the commercial pig.you may be subbing it’s ration with household food waste.
That outdoor pig is surely eating as much if not more in ration than the commercial pig when you factor in the extra time in weeks it will take for the outside pig to hit target lw

Nonfogures here as we rear purely for our own table.
There many free range commercial growers though.

I think what your hinting at is it would drive an increase in unit price ??
I’d actually like to see this, meat is a valuable commodity, making it cheap demeans the effort and true value of it. People eating better quality, ethically reared meat will pay more and possibly eat less quantities, nothing wrong with that picture.

I’m not comfortable with grow houses for pigs or cages for chickens, I’d rather see the food more expensive.

deaglan1 wrote: »

I appreciate that you are a person who strives to provide a nice environment for your animal stock. Can anyone, layman or scientist, define an animal's level of comprehension and, even more importantly, an animals level of emotions? Using throwaway phrases such as "they're not sitting around discussing the greater things in life" and "wouldn't have a clue" are too crude of descriptions to define animal psyche. Take a simple example of cows being separated from calves so that humans can avail of milk and milk-based products - to say that the cows are clueless would be a gross insult when witnessing that very distressing sight. Becoming inured to routine farming methods is inevitable for a farmer just as the abattoir routine is to a worker there. Normality & familiarity do not necessarily mean that the slaughtering of sentient species is therefore an acceptable practice. Why do you believe that empathizing with the feelings and intelligence levels of animals is wrong? - is it not giving due consideration to other species, even if we do not yet have sufficient knowledge to know what these levels of feelings and intelligence are or how they relate to the human versions of these characteristics.

Thank you deaglan1 for expressing what many people instinctively feel but may not be able to put into plain words (at least, not without constantly being given some kind of keyboard mugging ).

gozunda wrote: »

"Science" can be used to tell us a lot of things. Unfortunate those telling us that are in the main not scientists. And if you mean the Diatetic Association of America etc - the association was co founded by a vegan Seventh Day Adventist and the advice written by veg*ns.

Ah the old "why dont you eat dog" megabulk****e argument favoured by some militant vegans. Let me ask do you a question - Do you eat all vegetation? Grass? Cactus? Why not? Are you are speciest?. How measured does your response seem now? & etc ...

Plenty of people eat dog, I’ve had it and for me it’s a poor quality meat not worthy of a good meal.
What meats we eat is just a feature of our food culture, food culture is a fascinating subject. I’ve had horse a few times in France, probably more times in Ireland than I actually knew about too. It’s fine.

gozunda wrote: »

Yeah that's the problem. It's ****e quality meat. Eaten in poorer countries. But I just love the logic that If I eat beef then by extension I should also eat rat! Hmmm I just love a juicy rat and cactus burgers - they're yummy!

Haven’t had the opportunity to sample rat, it’s eaten in poor parts of India and Korea from programs I’ve seen, not sure if it were available would I sample it, maybe.

gozunda wrote: »

"Science" can be used to tell us a lot of things. Unfortunate those telling us that are in the main not divested scientists. And if you include in that lot the Dietetic Association of America etc - the association was co founded by a veg*n Seventh Day Adventist and the advice written by veg*ns.

Ah the old "why dont you eat dog" megabulk****e argument favoured by some militant vegans. Let me ask do you a question - Do you eat all vegetation? Grass? Cactus? Why not? Are you speciest?. Why is that? How measured does your response seem now? & etc ...

Gozunda, I am not quoting anything sensational, nor from any specific organization, whether scientifically reputable or quackery based - it is a simple mundane etched-in-stone, calcified fact that humans do not require animal-based products to meet their nutritional needs.

The dog was included because it is an animal that many people are very fond of as pets. From our day of birth though we tend to be overwhelmingly conditioned to withdraw that empathy for other more culturally acceptable edible species - to me, this is akin to the desensitizing of soldiers going into battle with other humans - they are no longer human, just vile filthy things.

I don't eat all vegetation because much of it is highly poisonous or too acrid.

Doctors room ghost wrote: »

I agree with you in that I’d rather be eating a pig that spent its life outside in a proper environment with the sun on its back.
I was just questioning your sums as I reckon unless you are getting food waste for free to fatten the pigs outside, I reckon on paper the outside pigs will cost you more in ration to finish as opposed to your original statement saying the indoor pigs would eat more.

Yep, they are more expensive. But that’s ok. I’ve saod before I think meat is too cheap. It needs to cost more to reflect its true intrinsic value.

There is also no energy consumed in environmental controlls etc.

We rear them this way for ethical rather than financial reasons.

Brian, you have put a lot of unbecoming thoughts together in your response to what I feel was a fair and balanced reply by me to a posting by Gozunda. There was no attempt on my part to include surreptitious wording. I have no desire to go down the mudslinging route with you or anyone else.

_Brian wrote: »

it’s probably just an extension of the emotional weakness and confusion that brings on veganism in people.

Don't expect to be taken seriously if you make comments like that.

deaglan1 wrote: »

We are where we are because of human intervention - the entire landscape is nothing like what it would be except for human intervention. Domesticated animals and the entire plethora of garden plants/trees are here simply by human intervention - all would revert back to a wilder format or simply not survive without human intervention. Now, I have no problem with fancy plants but "fancy" = domesticated varieties of wild animals, sentient beings, that are born to be slaughtered does not appeal to me. The old chestnut that it is better to have lived than not at all is the carnivores mainstay argument, yet not one of them has ever talked to a domesticated animal to ask its opinion.

So, lets say that there exists a superhuman race who evolved from a common ancestor with us many millions of years ago. These superhumans have bred us mere humans in order to consume us. Better to have lived you say than knowing about how it will all end for us at the infant, child or teenage years (in the middle of the night with the superhuman custodians forcing you onto a truck with no physical restraint on their part). Shunted/beaten into the killing rooms for the old bolt in the head and then cut to pieces so that Mr Ordinary Superhuman can consume you. A lovely tasty bit of human leg Mary, says he. Of course, some mere humans will be allowed to live on for a while for procreation purposes. No oldies allowed as they would be economically a drain on the Superhuman economy. Most superhumans are lovely people, just your average guys n gals enjoying the simple things in life such as consuming a human child at festive celebrations, what with its lovely tender texture. Some superhumans keep a few human babies in stock as well - wring their necks for a tasty bite on the barbie when friends call over. Lovely superhumans, salt of the earth types, who attend their local spiritual services centre to thank the Great One for the human bounty he has so graciously delivered and to reaffirm how the great circle of life is inevitable - "we must respect the human animal" says the scriptures, human animals that the Great One has provided to us for our earthly needs, so that we can be nourished as we toil and strive to live a purposeful life that reflects the sublime peaceful doctrines of the Great One.

A species as intelligent and boney as humans wouldn't be of any use as farm animals. I think there's a lot of vegans out there that somehow are conflating the life of a human to that of another species. Perhaps also ignoring owls that eat mice etc. We happened to evolve this way and are at the top of the chain.

_Brian wrote: »

So you infer that meat eaters are akin to “vile filthy things”, a term that implies less than human traits by saying things rather than people.

But you get upset because I call you out on that behaviour.
“Vile” amd “filthy” are the exact words used both by you and by Nazi leaders to demean and disparage people you have a problem with.

They were your choice of words just as Hitler chose them for the same reason.

Don’t go running away from the conversation because I shine a light on your behaviour. The exact way you chose to try and demean meat eaters here is exactly the way extremist vegans behave the world over. It’s the exact same way we see extremists the world over, be they vegan, political or religious. It reeks of ignorant intolerance.

Brian, you need to chill and jettison your emotional angst. I am not running away from any conversation with you, I just don't know what the conversation exactly is. Robust dialogue and constructive criticism are good - I am happy to interact with you there; but a diatribe of inferred connections between bad events in history and my opinions about the unnecessary slaughter of animals for food, is very odd. Just look at the wording that you and you alone have brought to the thread in this single post: extremism, nazism, Hitler, demean, disparage, reeks of ignorant intolerance!!! Attempting to transpose those terms from your mind to my character and then define my character based on those terms is a form of circular reasoning. I am ready for something more grounded, more factual and more constructive Brian.

gozunda wrote: »

Btw your statement "science has told us that all our nutritional requirements can be obtained from non-animal sources"

is quite different from your first statement that:

humans do not require animal-based products to meet their nutritional needs.

To get from one to the other requires an exponential jump and the later is not reflected in the usual dietetic diatribe tbhb

How are they different? There is no jump. The two sentences are essentially conveying the same thoughts.