+Cowef Fection: "Our cows lived better than a lot of people do, died quick and clean when it was their time to feed us, tasted a lot better than modern meat. Being vegan isn't necessary to take care of animals; not being a nasty person is."
Errr... Hmm... I'm probably just confused by your point,+Cowef Fection; it seems like you're saying that it's OK to kill as long as you treat the victim well before-hand. Is that what you intended to convey, or did I just misunderstand?
+Cowef Fection: "Depends in if you're eating what you kill."
OK... In that case, it seems like you're saying that it's OK to kill as long as you treat the victim well before-hand and you eat the victim's body afterwards. Is that what you intended to convey, +Cowef Fection?
+Cowef Fection: "Yes, I do. I hunt, show respect to my kills, and do not waste what they have given for me."
Hmm... It's particularly noteworthy to me, +Cowef Fection, that you place such emphasis on respecting the animals you kill. Your position, if I understand correctly, is that if you hunt in a way that you feel is respectful, and if you raise an animal in a respectful way, then you're justified and moral in taking that individuals life.
The thing is, there's a glaring error of reasoning right in the center of that position.
What I mean by this is that when you acknowledge suffering is (or can be) occurring, and when you take explicit actions to show respect to a particular being, you're explicitly asserting the idea that there's a mind present in the individual; without a mind, how could it have an experience of suffering or receive respect, after all? So, by deciding to support "respectfully killed" or "non CAFO" or "free-range" or "suffering free" packaging/actions, you're explicitly expressing concern for the welfare of the individual beings that receive this special treatment.
As I'm sure you can see, there's some fairly clear cognitive dissonance involved between empathizing with the plight of a particular living creature so much that one would take the actions intended to ensure it had a "happy" life -- actions which cost extra time and money and effort -- but at the same time having that empathy fall juuust short of the idea that it's wrong to take the life of this individual to begin with.
That is the faulty reasoning in play. It's a conclusion that doesn't make sense, and doesn't follow from its premises. If the being has an intrinsic right not to suffer, then it must necessarily have an intrinsic right not to be needlessly killed since killing is a much greater violation of rights that inflicting suffering.
So, if we agree that the individual does have the right to be treated respectfully, then we must also agree that such a non-required taking of life is a fundamental violation of respect for those rights -- and all for no better reason than a desire to satisfy a sense of taste, community traditions, or habits.
Does that make sense in your view, +Cowef Fection?
+Cowef Fection: "I can see where you're coming from. There's a hierarchy to these things, very much related to the food chain, and hunting is (as far as I see) the best alternative to supplement our nutrition without relying on the modern network of food production and distribution with all the questionable practices/regulations associated with it."
Hmm... But "best" would seem to be a fairly subjective assessment, no?
For example, from the perspective of the animals being hunted and killed, this is certainly not the preferred action.
Or from the perspective of sustainability, hunting and killing animals "in the wild" could never sustain the current market demands for animal's flesh.
Or from the perspective of human health, contemporary nutritional science is unambiguous about the dangers of consuming animal's bodies, menses, and secretions in any quantity.
Withal, I think that when you say "best" in this sense, you're intending to convey the notion that this is a strong preference you personally hold, but that doing so not a necessity for you.
Does my interpretation match your intended meaning? I mean no disrespect if I got it wrong; I'm only attempting to understand your own reasoning in comparison with my own view of matter.
This post is one in a series in which excerpts of discussions on veganism from other threads are reposted (or paraphrased) for the sake of expanding the conversation. As always, your thoughts and questions are welcome. See the full collection via the #spommveganchats hash (or perhaps with a more robust search, such as goo.gl/JoxZC).
(for anyone requiring/desiring more context, the original conversation can be found at goo.gl/mG4s6Y)