> try to blow it out of proportion
Profiting needlessly off of the death and suffering of others is as basic the definition of evil as any. It is the core feature of evil. We are not talking here about being carnivores is the thing, nor are we talking about starving people. What we're talking about is pic related, and part of why gluttony itself is evil. Like I have no problem with people living off the land hunting and fishing like >>10295
this guy says. In terms of religious dietary restrictions, those are removed when one's life is in danger. It is why a Muslim is allowed to eat pork when he's starving to death, or why capybaras are technically classified as "fish" by the Catholic Church, to skirt around the rules because starving people is also kind of evil.
But that's not what's happening. People are running industrialized killing machines for personal profit, and the consumers are only doing it for pleasure. The entire rationale is simply "it tastes good" and it's also hilarious when the same people will try to make some claim about how not eating meat isn't healthy when they look like pic related.
>but they don't suffer
I'd like to see some evidence for that. The last thing on the minds of these people is the welfare of an animal and I'm sure there's lots of people who rationalize what they're doing. In fact, the very fact you have to rationalize to begin with like your mum and her job even existing means people know it's wrong.
>inability to cut animal welfare/food safety corners because she had the authority to just shut the whole place down if they mistreated the livestock
Well, this is also an American perspective. Also so far as I'm concerned the way you treat other animals is often a direct reflection of how you really see other people. The whole idea of the Holocaust I think is so horrifying to so many people is just because it's treating a group of humans the exact same way we treat everyone else. Those were cattle cars for example. Same logic, same process, same complete disregard for life and utter lack of respect for living things.
>Mine is based in natural rights
Which is an irrational religious argument
>which differ between men and beasts.
Not entirely. I think any animals under our care and dominion pretty clearly have a right not to needlessly suffer. That compact is routinely violated.
>What she told me again and again is that the root of most of the ugly stuff in the industry today is that halal butchery requires them to bleed the animal to death.
You're only focusing on the moment of death here which is pretty telling. These are not animals leading cruelty free lives. Their whole existence itself is pretty cruel and it isn't being done by hunting for what you need to live.>>10296
>implied contract between the two parties?
I personally wouldn't argue that if only because it's at best built upon deception of the other party, and no contract is ultimately valid that's based on fraud. Since there is never the intent nor is it implicit imo you cannot claim this as breach of contract in particular, at least regarding the animals. I would say that many of these facilities cause enough suffering though that the animals are not being defrauded by being made to think they're safe. They pretty much lead their lives being cramped, filthy, and stressed out.
>Do you believe the animals feel betrayed as they are marched off to slaughter?
I don't know that most animals even have the capacity to feel betrayal because it requires a certain type of complexity in awareness and theory of mind that most species likely don't have.
Ignore the title of the video the content itself is unbiasedhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htUrjOShq0M
I mean you can tell the extent to which there is recognition in this animal. Also my understanding is that Halal butchery despite its overall barbarism comes specifically from the understanding of animal suffering because one rule is to "not allow it to see the knife"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhabihah#Islamic_slaughtering
>Care must be taken that the nervous system is not damaged, as this may cause the animal to die before exsanguination has taken place
That's indeed messed up although I wonder, wouldn't non-fatal damage to the spinal cord be exceedingly painful from a bad cut?
>It is also compulsory that each animal must be slaughtered individually and in seclusion. In a poultry farm or slaughter house, one animal must not witness another animal being slaughtered.
That video related. It is a recognition of animals as not mere soulless automatons. I think one acceptable definition of the shades of evil is how much you accept or enjoy suffering and death caused outwardly from you and your own ego, the most vicious and evil people on earth accordingly being the killers of their own mothers, and fathers, and children, and their lovers, particularly doing so for pleasure or profit.
Although on topic I guess one might also ask, what is the nature of man?