Can you explain what you mean by that?

Sorry if I was unclear. What I meant was that 'system of mass torture and killing' is not a fact, but an opinion. I know plenty of people who find torture and killing abhorrent, but honestly don't believe this applies to the animals we eat.

Personally I disagree with that point of view, but it's a relatively common one and I do believe it should be acknowledged.

You can disagree that animals can perceive pain, or that killing is wrong, but you can't disagree that what we do to them wouldn't be torture and killing if done to a human. Most people also wouldn't disagree that animals react to painful stimuli and would struggle to explain how they don't feel pain.

IMHO this is just a really common form of cognitive dissonance, and that internal discomfort comes out as aggressive dismissal in a lot of people.

>You can disagree that animals can perceive pain, or that killing is wrong, but you can't disagree that what we do to them wouldn't be torture and killing if done to a human.

Keeping a pet dog would also be "kidnapping and slavery" if done to a human, never mind castrating the dog. But few vegans will think twice about it.

(Heck, "domesticating" dogs and cats would be a total crime of "breaking down" and ethnocide if it was done to humans, akin to what Bolson did to Greyjoy in GoT).

So, one can disagree that what we shouldn't do to humans we shouldn't do to animals also -- especially when its about feeding ourselves.

Not to mention that animals kill and eat other animals all the time.

Heck, even the lowly spiders eat much more (in mass) than we do.

This is the kind of line of conversation that I think is often brushed off for being just too far from the status quo to be grokkable but is actually fascinating. It seems you're using these points as some kind of argument for brushing off the idea that causing animal suffering is justified, but I think it rather opens up the nuances of the question even more.

The "kidnapping" point on dogs can be applied to people with intellectual disabilities, mental problems, the elderly, children admitted to state care, heck children in general in many many contexts. "Slavery" is even more easily analogised: even excepting volunteerism, the incarcerated, and unpaid internships, bed-and-board remuneration is the actual closest equivalent. And if you've ever worked with a working dog, you'll be hard pressed to argue they're unwilling. Much happier and more willing to work than most humans tbh.

Castration opens up huge cans of worms. Human overpopulation is a very serious problem but the idea of even dissuading reproduction is completely taboo in our society.

The last point is the most cliché and least interesting. Animals kill and eat eachother because they need to: massive physiological differences result in different nutritional requirements, or simply scarcity in the wild. Even so, it's rare (though not unheard of) to see animals involved in the systematic internment and subjugation to extreme suffering of other species.

>The "kidnapping" point on dogs can be applied to people with intellectual disabilities, mental problems, the elderly, children admitted to state care, heck children in general in many many contexts.

Only dogs don't have "intellectual disabilities, mental problems" etc. They are perfectly fine to function if let in nature.

>And if you've ever worked with a working dog, you'll be hard pressed to argue they're unwilling. Much happier and more willing to work than most humans tbh.

That's because they've been domesticated and/or conditioned from a small age (living with a human, in an apartment et al). They wouldn't "volunteer" to work otherwise.

>The last point is the most cliché and least interesting. Animals kill and eat each other because they need to: massive physiological differences result in different nutritional requirements, or simply scarcity in the wild.

No, they also do it for fun. Ever watched a cat play with its catch (and then not eat it)?

The greater point is that one can be too ethical for their own good. What's next? The rights of mosquitos?

> They are perfectly fine to function if let in nature.

Not really. Domesticated dogs are quite reliant on us.

> That's because they've been domesticated and/or conditioned from a small age (living with a human, in an apartment et al). They wouldn't "volunteer" to work otherwise.

You're right that it's due to domestication, but it's more innate than you make out. It's instinctive, breeds having been conditioned over countless generations.

> they also do it for fun

True, which I mentioned in my next sentence.

To be clear, I'm not making out that it's wrong to kill animals. I'm not a vegan either. But I think discussing these questions is extremely worthwhile.

> The greater point is that one can be too ethical for their own good. What's next? The rights of mosquitos?

Why not? There's been quite a lot of discussion of this on HN in the context of malarial vectors, with many advocating wiping the species out completely and others rebutting with points on previous disastrous examples of human interference in eco systems. There's very interesting research into actually using mosquitos to combat malarial spread.

You could go further and talk about the rights of protozoa. Why not plants. The further you go, the more bombastically ridiculous the conversation seems to get for some (e.g. those holding to the belief that all killing is wrong) but the more interesting it can be for others. For example, if you look at it from the perspective of minimising - rather than eliminating - harm, it becomes an issue of general environmental conservation, and the stereotypical motivations of animal-rights-motivated vs eco-motivated vegans could almost be combined harmonically​.

I don't think you're right though. One may disagree that the system is wrong or morally unjustifiable or whichever general view someone may hold there, but it is very much a fact that the meat industry does subject animals to intense suffering and does kill them in large quantities.

My statement is indisputably factual, the only subjective element is whether you believe that system is justifiable.

Depends on the meat. Grass fed beef tends to be treated well as animals are outside eating their natural diet, etc. Huge difference to a feedlot. Saying that the conditions in a feedlot are universal is inaccurate and completely guts your "indisputable facts"

I'm looking around for where I mentioned universality. "in large quantities" is the only vaguely similar term I used, which could still be 0.01% of agricultural practice and qualify as a "large" number of animals. Not that it is 0.01% of course: I live in Ireland where our beef is pretty much universally grass fed, and relatively well treated, but even here the same cannot be said of other meat production (chicken and pork really ain't great), and this is a tiny country, not producing on anywhere near the scale of many outside of Europe where standards are far worse.

I'm all for more advocacy for those involved in meat production who are adhering to a stricter standard of quality and ethics, but there mere existence doesn't negate the overall dreadful impact of the meat industry as a whole on animal welfare.

The only subjective aspect is whether you believe that's a worthy trade-off, but you can't argue that it isn't happening.

> but it is very much a fact that the meat industry does subject animals to intense suffering

>My statement is indisputably factual, the only subjective element is whether you believe that system is justifiable.

That sure sounds to me like it's universal. Which is why I responded the way I did. I'm not arguing that's everything is totally good. But your statement reads as everything is universally bad. Which isn't factually correct, as you've admitted.

Ultimately yes there's a lot of bad stuff going on in the system. But if you only buy animals that were humanely treated it's pretty easy to sleep at night.