Total Posts:18|Showing Posts:1-18
Jump to topic:

Farm animals purpose in life (Now)

reddj2
Posts: 239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2011 4:38:55 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
What would happened to the cows,chickens,and pigs if we stop using them?
I mean use absolutely no farm animal products.
Would they just die out?
Would they're "quality" of life increase or decrease?
Would we just kill them(directly or indirectly)?
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2011 1:49:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/7/2011 4:38:55 AM, reddj2 wrote:
What would happened to the cows,chickens,and pigs if we stop using them?
I mean use absolutely no farm animal products.
Would they just die out?
Would they're "quality" of life increase or decrease?
Would we just kill them(directly or indirectly)?

Farm animals are domesticated. That means that they have lived with humans so long that they've evolved to depend on us for protection and even procreation (many farm animal can't bread naturally any more so farmers have to artificially inseminate them). If we had no need for them they would become extinct. I think a few people will have an interest in keeping the species in existence even if humans stopped eating them (e.g. biologist, zoo keepers, people who simply like having farm animals as pets, etc...)
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2011 11:25:51 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/7/2011 4:38:55 AM, reddj2 wrote:
What would happened to the cows,chickens,and pigs if we stop using them?
I mean use absolutely no farm animal products.
Would they just die out?
Would they're "quality" of life increase or decrease?
Would we just kill them(directly or indirectly)?

If we stopped using them, most would die. Some would go feral.

Note:their deaths can be humane.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2011 4:47:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
If that happened, we should send all the cows to India.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2011 8:00:36 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Of course they would die out. The main mechanism would be birth control. Farm animals are created for human purposes, so no new ones would be propagated.

Animals live short lives in the wild, and almost always come to an inhumane end. Raising animals for human use gives them life. Cruel and immoral vegetarians would stop that.
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2011 3:03:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/14/2011 8:00:36 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
Of course they would die out. The main mechanism would be birth control. Farm animals are created for human purposes, so no new ones would be propagated.

Animals live short lives in the wild, and almost always come to an inhumane end. Raising animals for human use gives them life. Cruel and immoral vegetarians would stop that.

You needlessly assume that all lives are worth living. Clearly this is not the case. If it were, people wouldn't commit suicide. Factory farms do more than anything else, short of a torture chamber, to make life not worth living. In fact, when you consider that factory farms castrate pigs and cows, brand cows and saw their horns off, sear the beaks of chickens, etc..., they should be considered a type of torture chamber. And that's to say nothing of the slaughterhouse experience.

By the way, I remember reading a couple of times that you defined morality in terms of intraspecies cohesion. Are you saying that it is immoral for humans to deprive other species of certain forms of pleasure (in this case, the assumed pleasure of simply being alive).
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2011 6:10:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/14/2011 3:03:40 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 10/14/2011 8:00:36 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
Of course they would die out. The main mechanism would be birth control. Farm animals are created for human purposes, so no new ones would be propagated.

Animals live short lives in the wild, and almost always come to an inhumane end. Raising animals for human use gives them life. Cruel and immoral vegetarians would stop that.

You needlessly assume that all lives are worth living. Clearly this is not the case. If it were, people wouldn't commit suicide. Factory farms do more than anything else, short of a torture chamber, to make life not worth living. In fact, when you consider that factory farms castrate pigs and cows, brand cows and saw their horns off, sear the beaks of chickens, etc..., they should be considered a type of torture chamber. And that's to say nothing of the slaughterhouse experience.

By the way, I remember reading a couple of times that you defined morality in terms of intraspecies cohesion. Are you saying that it is immoral for humans to deprive other species of certain forms of pleasure (in this case, the assumed pleasure of simply being alive).

"Worth" is a justification. Therefore, worth is determined by a conclusion, from any given perspective, that justifies it. It is up to the animal to determine whether or not its life is worth living, and every one of those animals, as they continue to live, clearly chose to justify it.

http://dictionary.reference.com...
reddj2
Posts: 239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2011 4:08:14 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/14/2011 1:33:58 PM, innomen wrote:
I'm trying to imagine what a feral dairy cow would be like.

search: wild bramen fallout
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2011 12:14:20 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/15/2011 6:10:37 PM, Ren wrote:
At 10/14/2011 3:03:40 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 10/14/2011 8:00:36 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
Of course they would die out. The main mechanism would be birth control. Farm animals are created for human purposes, so no new ones would be propagated.

Animals live short lives in the wild, and almost always come to an inhumane end. Raising animals for human use gives them life. Cruel and immoral vegetarians would stop that.

You needlessly assume that all lives are worth living. Clearly this is not the case. If it were, people wouldn't commit suicide. Factory farms do more than anything else, short of a torture chamber, to make life not worth living. In fact, when you consider that factory farms castrate pigs and cows, brand cows and saw their horns off, sear the beaks of chickens, etc..., they should be considered a type of torture chamber. And that's to say nothing of the slaughterhouse experience.

By the way, I remember reading a couple of times that you defined morality in terms of intraspecies cohesion. Are you saying that it is immoral for humans to deprive other species of certain forms of pleasure (in this case, the assumed pleasure of simply being alive).

"Worth" is a justification. Therefore, worth is determined by a conclusion, from any given perspective, that justifies it. It is up to the animal to determine whether or not its life is worth living, and every one of those animals, as they continue to live, clearly chose to justify it.

http://dictionary.reference.com...

Farmed animals can't kill themselves. They lack the cognitive capacity and opposable digits to commit suicide.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2011 5:13:23 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/17/2011 12:14:20 AM, vbaculum wrote:
Farmed animals can't kill themselves. They lack the cognitive capacity and opposable digits to commit suicide.

http://news.discovery.com...

"THE GIST:

Animals of all sorts kill themselves.
Animal suicides can teach us a lot about human suicides.
For centuries people either denied animal suicides or took them as evidence of human-like intentions."
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2011 10:42:50 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/17/2011 5:13:23 AM, Ren wrote:
At 10/17/2011 12:14:20 AM, vbaculum wrote:
Farmed animals can't kill themselves. They lack the cognitive capacity and opposable digits to commit suicide.

http://news.discovery.com...

"THE GIST:

Animals of all sorts kill themselves.
Animal suicides can teach us a lot about human suicides.
For centuries people either denied animal suicides or took them as evidence of human-like intentions."

The article didn't say farmed animals could commit suicide. It just provided an "antidote" (as the article described it) of a dog that was said to have drowned itself. It also said that peas sometimes explode.

You haven't shown how a cow, for example, could aquire the know-how and the means of killing itself - and you can't because you're being silly.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2011 4:55:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/17/2011 10:42:50 AM, vbaculum wrote:
At 10/17/2011 5:13:23 AM, Ren wrote:
At 10/17/2011 12:14:20 AM, vbaculum wrote:
Farmed animals can't kill themselves. They lack the cognitive capacity and opposable digits to commit suicide.

http://news.discovery.com...

"THE GIST:

Animals of all sorts kill themselves.
Animal suicides can teach us a lot about human suicides.
For centuries people either denied animal suicides or took them as evidence of human-like intentions."

The article didn't say farmed animals could commit suicide. It just provided an "antidote" (as the article described it) of a dog that was said to have drowned itself. It also said that peas sometimes explode.

You haven't shown how a cow, for example, could aquire the know-how and the means of killing itself - and you can't because you're being silly.

Hehe, I'm not being silly.

An animal can lose its will to live and rather than actively seek death, accept it. You and I both know this to be true, and that is to what I was referring. Not that a cow will become depressed in slaughterhouse conditions, find a glock, and end it all.
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2011 3:17:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/18/2011 4:55:22 PM, Ren wrote:
At 10/17/2011 10:42:50 AM, vbaculum wrote:
At 10/17/2011 5:13:23 AM, Ren wrote:
At 10/17/2011 12:14:20 AM, vbaculum wrote:
Farmed animals can't kill themselves. They lack the cognitive capacity and opposable digits to commit suicide.

http://news.discovery.com...

"THE GIST:

Animals of all sorts kill themselves.
Animal suicides can teach us a lot about human suicides.
For centuries people either denied animal suicides or took them as evidence of human-like intentions."

The article didn't say farmed animals could commit suicide. It just provided an "antidote" (as the article described it) of a dog that was said to have drowned itself. It also said that peas sometimes explode.

You haven't shown how a cow, for example, could aquire the know-how and the means of killing itself - and you can't because you're being silly.

Hehe, I'm not being silly.

An animal can lose its will to live and rather than actively seek death, accept it. You and I both know this to be true, and that is to what I was referring. Not that a cow will become depressed in slaughterhouse conditions, find a glock, and end it all.

Your original claim was that, since farmed animals choose to live, then we can assume that they beleive that their lifes are worth living.

Now you are just pointing out that an animal can become depressed and "accept" death.

You still haven't shown how an animal has a choice in remaining alive or not (which was your original claim). You need to provide evidence that a farmed animal can "loss its will to live" and "accept [death]", i.e. commit suicide.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2011 4:29:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/19/2011 3:17:29 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 10/18/2011 4:55:22 PM, Ren wrote:
At 10/17/2011 10:42:50 AM, vbaculum wrote:
At 10/17/2011 5:13:23 AM, Ren wrote:
At 10/17/2011 12:14:20 AM, vbaculum wrote:
Farmed animals can't kill themselves. They lack the cognitive capacity and opposable digits to commit suicide.

http://news.discovery.com...

"THE GIST:

Animals of all sorts kill themselves.
Animal suicides can teach us a lot about human suicides.
For centuries people either denied animal suicides or took them as evidence of human-like intentions."

The article didn't say farmed animals could commit suicide. It just provided an "antidote" (as the article described it) of a dog that was said to have drowned itself. It also said that peas sometimes explode.

You haven't shown how a cow, for example, could aquire the know-how and the means of killing itself - and you can't because you're being silly.

Hehe, I'm not being silly.

An animal can lose its will to live and rather than actively seek death, accept it. You and I both know this to be true, and that is to what I was referring. Not that a cow will become depressed in slaughterhouse conditions, find a glock, and end it all.

Your original claim was that, since farmed animals choose to live, then we can assume that they beleive that their lifes are worth living.

Now you are just pointing out that an animal can become depressed and "accept" death.

You still haven't shown how an animal has a choice in remaining alive or not (which was your original claim). You need to provide evidence that a farmed animal can "loss its will to live" and "accept [death]", i.e. commit suicide.

A decision does not need to include logic. It is simply a selection of one out of two or more options. Animals do have an option, whether they know it or not. It is true that an animal will fight for its life, and it is also true that an animal can choose not to fight for its life. In that way, an animal can choose to accept death.

I decided to drop the suicide argument, because you seem inclined to semantic games and there's no way to prove either position on that subject. My point was that the determination of "worth" depends on the possessor, not a speculator. That is the root of my argument, so let's focus on that.
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2011 5:41:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/19/2011 4:29:46 PM, Ren wrote:
At 10/19/2011 3:17:29 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 10/18/2011 4:55:22 PM, Ren wrote:
At 10/17/2011 10:42:50 AM, vbaculum wrote:
At 10/17/2011 5:13:23 AM, Ren wrote:
At 10/17/2011 12:14:20 AM, vbaculum wrote:
Farmed animals can't kill themselves. They lack the cognitive capacity and opposable digits to commit suicide.

http://news.discovery.com...

"THE GIST:

Animals of all sorts kill themselves.
Animal suicides can teach us a lot about human suicides.
For centuries people either denied animal suicides or took them as evidence of human-like intentions."

The article didn't say farmed animals could commit suicide. It just provided an "antidote" (as the article described it) of a dog that was said to have drowned itself. It also said that peas sometimes explode.

You haven't shown how a cow, for example, could aquire the know-how and the means of killing itself - and you can't because you're being silly.

Hehe, I'm not being silly.

An animal can lose its will to live and rather than actively seek death, accept it. You and I both know this to be true, and that is to what I was referring. Not that a cow will become depressed in slaughterhouse conditions, find a glock, and end it all.

Your original claim was that, since farmed animals choose to live, then we can assume that they beleive that their lifes are worth living.

Now you are just pointing out that an animal can become depressed and "accept" death.

You still haven't shown how an animal has a choice in remaining alive or not (which was your original claim). You need to provide evidence that a farmed animal can "loss its will to live" and "accept [death]", i.e. commit suicide.

A decision does not need to include logic. It is simply a selection of one out of two or more options. Animals do have an option, whether they know it or not. It is true that an animal will fight for its life, and it is also true that an animal can choose not to fight for its life. In that way, an animal can choose to accept death.

I decided to drop the suicide argument, because you seem inclined to semantic games and there's no way to prove either position on that subject. My point was that the determination of "worth" depends on the possessor, not a speculator. That is the root of my argument, so let's focus on that.

You tried to prove a claim about animal suicide with evidence, but weren't able to. At that point, your remarks started to become vague: "An animal can lose its will to live and rather than actively seek death, accept it."

When pressed again to provide evidence for your original claim you responded by saying I'm play semantic games and your remarks became even more vague: "My point was that the determination of "worth" depends on the possessor, not a speculator."

I don't think this conversation is going anywhere. I will continue to watch this thread in case you say something concrete or interesting. Otherwise, I won't respond.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2011 8:56:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/19/2011 5:41:38 PM, vbaculum wrote:
You tried to prove a claim about animal suicide with evidence, but weren't able to.

That's false. I said that animal suicide is possible, and provided evidence. You chose to reject that evidence, and rely on your assumption of impossibility, providing no evidence to your point. Therefore, my point remains more valid than yours.

At that point, your remarks started to become vague: "An animal can lose its will to live and rather than actively seek death, accept it."

And, this point was to drive you away from playing semantic games (in essence, using my assertion that animals can kill themselves as some sort of indication that I'm suggesting that animals can make logical decisions beyond their capacity, which is not the case). Instead, I wanted you to concentrate on the point -- the justification of worth belongs to the possessor, not a speculator, which coincides directly with what I initially said, with the exception of the assertion regarding suicide.

When pressed again to provide evidence for your original claim you responded by saying I'm play semantic games and your remarks became even more vague:

You didn't press me for any further evidence. You chose to reject my evidence and made underhanded comments about its content. However, I already copy/pasted the gist, so its point and content is not up for question. You chose to question it anyway, and really, it's irrelevant.

"My point was that the determination of "worth" depends on the possessor, not a speculator."

Which is precisely correct. You can choose to accept that, or you can continue to haughtily assume that it sounds in any way logical that third party speculators should be able to determine the worth and therefore, existence of any arbitrary thing in which they come in contact.

I don't think this conversation is going anywhere. I will continue to watch this thread in case you say something concrete or interesting. Otherwise, I won't respond.

Feel free to place a counter argument whenever you want. Simply presenting petty criticisms of what someone says is not a counter-argument, it's called "going tit-for-tat."

And, sources will too serve you well to support your allegations, friend.