Animal agriculture and eating meat - Is it etichal?
Debate Rounds (3)
The truth is that animals born into in these sorts of industries are treated with the utmost lack of respect. They are cramped into restricted metal boxes filled with filth and live their whole life under the stress of this intense confinement.(1) They are artificially impregnated by humans in order to keep their milk flowing and then traumatically separated from their baby at birth.(2)They are genetically manipulated and force fed antibiotics to grow quicker and produce more meat, something that often causes them to become crippled by their own weight and collapse with lung failure and heart attacks.(3) All this for our daily strip of bacon, glas of milk and fried egg.
I do not believe that it is right that one group of living being anguishes under the hand of another and i certainly do not believe that it is the animal's responsibility to feed and clothe us as they do today. I don't believe that we should prioritise our tastebuds or greediness over the lives of other earthlings. So why is it that we today, knowing that we can live healthy vegan lives still raise and kill animals in the most inhumane ways possible? How can we believe that it is morally correct to mechanically mass murder living beings? Is it out of habit or are humans really that cold hearted?
(1)Pigs Used for Food, http://www.peta.org...
(2)Cows Used for Food, http://www.peta.org...
(3)The Chicken Industry, http://www.peta.org...
Thank you for opening this debate, I appreciate being able to talk to you today over this issue that many people are facing and thinking about on a personal level.
To begin, I think that the framing that the instigator has set this debate within is problematic; their calls to what it means to be 'an ethical person', or to a call of a wider 'ethics' is rooted in a deepened longing for a utopian world. Their view of animal agriculture being universally anti-ethical is exactly what Stavrakakis in 1999 writes  as being the daily creation of utopianism, where what we are doing is trying to appeal to a wider ethics.
Think of it this way; when we say that something is universally bad, we are trying to create something that is universally good. This is the creation of a utopian worldview.
And, with utopianism, comes a wide array of problems -- including a direct turn of the case. When you condemn something as anti-ethical, you can never fully get rid of it (this is the reliance on the Other that Baudrillard and many other write about). When we have a universalist utopian approach to living life, and that fails, we actually generate even more exclusion to the Animal that we are trying to save. Stavrakakis uses this quote that I find very useful, "... every utopian fantasy construction needs a ‘scapegoat’ in order to constitute itself" - in the context of the negative speech, this would mean that the scapegoat will be people that eat meat (either to survive, or due to long tradition of being Human), and they would have just as much suffering as the animals -- where, even if some people don't eat meat, there can still be a system of domination and control over them due to the new perverse culture -- much like how the Nazis had used the Jews in Europe as a scapegoat for their actions, people will use 'but they eat meat' (even if they do not) and their calling to a wider ethic to justify their atrocious actions.
And as a pre-emption argument, you cannot say that you can reject a utopian worldview while also rejoicing in the speech act that was the negative speech; you cannot reject the utopian worldview while also fantasising about it  and you simply can't accept any utopian politics or ethics, because just the accepting of such politics is the cause of utopianism into the future .
Now, I would like to devote some time, not so much as a direct refutation of your claims, because I believe that I have made good attacks on those using my Stavrakakis evidence, but I would like to offer a source indictment that leads to all of the claims being offered left on no evidence. PETA, which all three sources of the negative have come from, is an organisation that is:
There are many more issues (including their use of pseudoscience), but I believe that this list is formed well enough.
I look forward to your response, as always.
. Stavrakakis, Lacan and the Political, pages 127-129
. Stavrakakis, Lacan and the Political, pages 100-101
. Stavrakakis, Lacan and the Political, pages 116-117
. Stavrakakis, Lacan and the Political, no specific pages
. Time, PETA Takes Heat over Claims it Killed 90% of Animals Dropped off at Virginia Shelter
. Snopes, PETA is Stealing and Killing Pets?
. Feministing, QUICK HIT: PETA OFFERS PATHETIC EXCUSE FOR THEIR MISOGYNY
. Ben Norton, There’s a Reason No One Likes PETA – It Has Horrible Sexist, Racist Politics
Slothsloth forfeited this round.
Slothsloth forfeited this round.
And another life has been destroyed by Debate. Why must we continue killing?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 9 months ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||1|
Reasons for voting decision: Con ff many times, so conduct to Pro.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.