Eating meat; did it give us higher intelligence?

To say that beasts are killed humanely, is to be completely unaware of the reality of abbattoirs and slaughter rooms. Even breeding processes aren't humane. They don't call it a crush, because it's friendly and humane. It holds the beast so unsavoury tasks like castration, dehorning (have you watched this happen?) and drenching can occur in a business-like fashion.

This video contains content from eOne UGC, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds.

I have met many a vegan who considers their diet a badge of their superiority, but I'm not trying to make a case that this is the primary reason why people choose to not eat meat, and certainly not specifically in your case.

This appears to be your way of saying that you don't consider my meatless diet to be based on a desire to appear superior. If that was your intended meaning, then I will validate it for you by telling you that you are correct. However, I made that clear in the last paragraph of my post. You must have missed it, or you read something into it that wasn't there.

Why is it more OK to eat an insect or a mollusk than a pig or a cow?

I don't know. You'll have to ask someone who eats insects and mollusks.

Why is it more OK to kill and eat a plant than to kill and eat a chicken?

You must have also missed this: If I plant a seed and a green pepper appears, I eat it and I am sustained. If I don't eat it, then I go hungry. Also, if I don't eat it, it will end up rotting on the ground and be absorbed by the earth in short time. This is good. If I eat it and then return the unused portion of the vegetables to the earth, that is good. Either way is correct function. The vegetable or apple will die regardless of whether or not I eat it. What do you think would be a more appropriate way for vegetables to die?

Why do you believe humans eating meat represents a callous disregard for life?

Why do you believe that I believe that? My mention of a callous disregard for life was in reference to those who believe that killing a green pepper is a callous disregard for life, and therefore no different from killing a pig. Reread my post.

If I don't eat the flesh of other beings, but I walk on the grass, I could be accused of killing that lifeform because I perceive it to be of less value than a furry animal, and that I also probably killed a number of insects in the process. But I must walk on the grass; I also give it a cutting every so often. However, you have to differentiate between correct function and callous disregard for life. A virus loosed in your bloodstream is attacked and killed by your white blood cells. Again, you have to differentiate between correct function and callous disregard for life.

So, let's assume that we are referring to livestock raised and dispatched in this manner. Does this still represent a callous disregard for life?

Not if the destiny of the livestock you are referring to is to be raised and slaughtered for your meal.

So, do you believe that the destiny of livestock is to be mass-raised and slaughtered for your meal? There are people who don't believe that? Do you believe that their reasoning is unfair to others?

Also, let's stipulate that the entirety of the animal is used for food: Snout to tail. So all the meat, all the offal, the blood; everything that is edible. Would this still represent a callous disregard for life?

If killing is necessary to the survival of the human, then there's no arguing that.

Finally what about animals . . . ?

Animals are involved in their own life structures. They all eat what they eat. If a tiger doesn't kill, it doesn't eat. I'm not blind to nature.

Once I was hammered away at by someone who interpreted my admission that I don't eat meat as a slam on him/her, and society in general. I simply reassured them that I don't eat meat because I'm not willing to kill an animal unless I have to, but that I don't mean nothin' by it. That rarely satisfies those who are offended by my abstinence.

To say that beasts are killed humanely, is to be completely unaware of the reality of abbattoirs and slaughter rooms. Even breeding processes aren't humane. They don't call it a crush, because it's friendly and humane. It holds the beast so unsavoury tasks like castration, dehorning (have you watched this happen?) and drenching can occur in a business-like fashion.

It's part of the cognitive disonnance, of the assumptive "apex" predator, to state that the food they eat is killed humanely.

I'd posit that 95% of today's western human "apex" predators wouldn't last a week in the wilds, even with weapons, and ammo.

Has someone argued that all livestock used to feed humans are killed humanely?

How about animals that are hunted, killed and eaten? Here again, let's assume that the animals are killed quickly and cleanly with a single shot. No use of traps that could result in long periods of suffering and a requirement that the hunter be skilled and experienced enough to dispatch the animal with a single shot, not a bunch of drunken fools or inexperienced kids who would be likely to simply wound an animal and allow it to suffer for a long period of time before dying. Also, let's stipulate that the entirety of the animal is used for food: Snout to tail. So all the meat, all the offal, the blood; everything that is edible. Would this still represent a callous disregard for life?

Quote:

Has someone argued that all livestock used to feed humans are killed humanely?

You did. Last page.

Quote:

How about animals that are hunted, killed and eaten? Here again, let's assume that the animals are killed quickly and cleanly with a single shot. No use of traps that could result in long periods of suffering and a requirement that the hunter be skilled and experienced enough to dispatch the animal with a single shot, not a bunch of drunken fools or inexperienced kids who would be likely to simply wound an animal and allow it to suffer for a long period of time before dying. Also, let's stipulate that the entirety of the animal is used for food: Snout to tail. So all the meat, all the offal, the blood; everything that is edible. Would this still represent a callous disregard for life?

No, I didn't miss that at all. It explains why you will eat a plant. It doesn't explain why you won't eat a chicken. The pepper you eat could be eaten by another animal. If you don't eat it, it won't necessarily end up rotting and dying. Likewise, if you chose not to kill and eat a chicken, it may still be eaten by someone or something else. Obviously it won't be by you, but as with the vegetable or apple, regardless of whether you eat the chicken it will die. I don't know that there is an appropriate way for a plant to die. Whether it is consumed or rots, it's life force will go towards sustaining other life either directly through consumption or by creating soil nutrients that will enable other plants to grow. The same, of course, can be said for the chicken. It's life force, one way or the other, will be used in some fashion to sustain life.

Your referenced walking on grass (with it's potential for killing one or more life forms) in juxtaposition with eating the flesh of other beings and then stated the importance of differentiating between correct function (walking on grass) and callous disregard for life You may not have meant to imply that the eating of flesh is a callous disregard for life, but I don't think's it unreasonable to have read what you wrote that way.

Clearly it is the destiny of certain livestock to be mass-raised and slaughtered for meals because it happens all of the time

earlier in the thread, you indicated that you did not eat meat for both physiological and philosophical reasons. So there is a philosophical reason why you do not do what they do. I am just trying to better understand that reason.

but you are not willing to kill an animal unless you have to for some reason, and I'm interested in that reason for no other purpose than intellectual curiosity.

I will not eat the meat of mammal predators. I have no well thought out philosophical reason for this practice, just an affinity for mammal predators that makes me feel as if eating one is very wrong.