Well, it doesn't cause prion diseases, it just spreads them. It's only transmissible by consumption of conspecifics (or often, as in mad cow disease, by eating similar species - when farmers were feeding cows dead chickens and cows).
So you're saying the only thing stopping you from eating factory farmed human meat is the risk to your own safety?
Oh we're talking about eating humans now, we're well past dogs as it seems like a fair few people here would be okay with factory farming them.
Personally, my ethics are simple and easily define - if it displays sentience, I won't eat it. It's unethical to kill and eat something that feels pain. I'm more interested in your more nebulous ethics, where some species are okay to eat, some not
It sounds like you're okay with eating dogs, which id argue is demonstrably disgusting, but in your opinion, is it okay to rear, kill and then eat humans?
Right, but what's inherently wrong with eating your own species? I mean, I know, I think any sentient life shouldn't be killed for my pleasure. But with your logic that some species are okay to kill and eat, and others aren't, I'm wanting to know why those others aren't.
Ignoring "societal norms", as they've been used to commit genocide, slavery, and all manner of atrocities - why is cannibalism logically, in your opinion, bad?
Cows are forcibly impregnated in perpetuity by humans, separated from their children and then had their milk taken so we can drink it. As soon as the cow can longer be impregnated and becomes unprofitable, it is killed for meat.
If a man sticks his fist in the vagina of a cow for fun, it is sexual animal abuse. If a man sticks his fist in the vagina of a cow, hoping to later kill and eat it's flesh, it's lunch.
I think a comparison is valid. Just because you are a willing participant and enabler in this animal sexual exploitation does not invalidate or soften the facts.
"Meat tastes good" as an argument for immoral actions is not valid logic. "Sex feels good" is not valid justification for sexual assault. "Men taste good" is not justification for Jeffrey Dahmer.
"Let's eat less meat". Again, there is no valid moral argument for "just a little bit of sexual assault". "Only a wee bit of animal abuse", "only occasional racism". A moral wrong is a moral wrong. But hey at least it isn't "I'd go vegan, but I just love cheese!". Well then go vegan but eat cheese.
As for rural NY, I'd use Happycow.net to find places. I've eaten vegan in rural Bali, rural NZ, rural Australia, rural England, and never paid more than my meat eating counterparts. But if that's still a concern, then eat vegan at home, meat when going out.
Although I'd still argue that "it's more convenient for me commit sexual assault than to hire a sex worker" isn't a valid justification.
Seriously if you get the option, read that book I recommended, even just the first chapter. I can buy you a copy of you like, DM me an email address and I'll gift a copy. If you read it, I will genuinely send you PayPal money for a vegan dinner in rural NY. I've taken everyone else who read the book out to dinner, it's only fair you get a free one!
Pushing people into corners is what good debate is about. If people find their refutations are weak enough to have them back into a corner, then they should abandon that argument.
I grew up on a farm in the south of New Zealand. My brothers were dairy farmers, my front yard was cattle, I was a staunch anti-vegan who swore he'd never eat vegetarian as long as he lived.
I will never care because meat tastes good. Except now I do.
There is no level of regulation that permits - in good moral conscience - the subjugation and slaughter of animals for our pleasure.
Meat is only easily accessible because it is heavily subsidized by the government. A vegan diet is nearly always cheaper - consider that most developing nations eat vegan/vegetarian because of this.
There's a short book I read that absolutely convinced me of veganism called "This is Vegan Propaganda and Other Lies The Meat Industry Tells You". I've had 5 people read it, and ALL FIVE have gone vegan. It's straight up insane how brutal a grip the meat industry has on people, through lobbying, ad campaigns, purposeful obfuscation of the industry. Bananas!
Go on, give me a valid defense for western populations killing animals for taste alone.
That's why I said "avoiding the brain and spine, to avoid prion diseases". You might have misread my comment.
I'm not suggesting that animal eating leads to cannibalism, which WOULD be a slippery slope.
I'm suggesting that if meat eaters are okay with killing and eating animals, why not the human animal? I probe because the line drawn in the sand is unclear with meat eaters.
Also, humans are animals. This is primary school stuff here.
What separates eating animals from eating people for you?
No serious study suggests plants feel pain. They do not have a brain or central nervous system. At most, they respond to stimuli.
Many more plants "die" for animal feeding than with a vegan diet.
If you're worried about grass pain, you should focus more on the animals that DO have nociceptors, central nervous systems and brains, and the ability to feel fear that you subject them too, purely for taste preference.
Only if you eat the brain or spinal column, which I was careful to add. Otherwise the risks are as manageable as with cow meat, i.e., parasites and bacteria. Given that you're okay with eating cats and dogs, and now simple-minded humans, what's to stop me from killing and eating you? I mean, all anyone needs to assert is that they're mentally superior to their food, what's off the table for you?
I'm sure mass scale cannibalism might actually be as good for the environment as a plant based diet. Maybe you're on to something. We'd be so morally consistent!
So... If there were no risk of disease, you would consider cannibalism and "normal meat eating" to be basically equitable, and equally justifiable? If not, why not?
Sorry I'm just having a hard time getting some solid admissions here, nobody wants to just straight up answer.