CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Slaughter describes only the act of killing an animal generally for the purpose of food, and ascribes no particular system or process to that act. The basic act of slaughter is not inconsistent with nature in any way, with animals killing other animals for literally millions of years. That we presently have a problematic infrastructure for doing so is not in and of itself a basis for opposing slaughter generally, only one particular method.
Living things have to eat, period. I believe those who oppose this see the term "slaughter" negatively, something done without a true purpose, which is entirely wrong in the context of this topic. It would be utterly impossible to supply the world with enough food without these mass production methods.
This is a debate that simply comes to survival of the fittest. If horses had evolved to develop language, government, and economy, we could be slaughtered and eaten. Nature intended us to eat or be eaten, and to do that, we must eat other animals. It isn't a difficult concept, and it shouldn't be questioned.
Anyone can go to the stock yards where these animals are sold; I suggest those that want them saved, buy them.
Horses for example are taken to the stock yards when they are no longer wanted (too old, tired of taking care of them, lost interest in them, etc.) If you want to keep these animals from being slaughtered, make it illegal to own them.
I once heard a horse buyer being interviewed about this subject. His response was,
"I don't bid for them, I just end up with them. When nobody else wants them, they get loaded in one of my trucks. You want them, bid on them."
He went on to say that he would like nothing more than to be put out of business, but there is just more broken down horses than people wanting them.
I really appreciate the down-votes for telling the truth.
People claim to care only because it appears popular to do so. I presented the reason animals are slaughtered and accept the fact people are heartless except when it benefits them to be other-wise.
This is one of those rare cases where I agree with you.
Horses, in particular, are a problem because we don't eat them here, but yet still have large numbers of them because they were used historically for transportation and as beasts of burden. These days, horses are used almost exclusively recreationally, and horse racing isn't as popular as it was even in recent years.
So we're left today with large numbers of animals with little to no function in modern society. They've been domesticated for centuries or millenia depending on the breed, so releasing them into the wild would be problematic even if we had space for them. Caring for horses properly is expensive, and the potential payoff is significantly lower than it once was- maybe it's heartless, but it seems to be the only rational solution to a problem we've created ourselves.
The funny thing is, animal rights activists want to see an end not only to slaughtering animals for food and other products, but an end to keeping them penned up as livestock period. Strangely, they are silent on what to do with the ~90 million head of cattle alone in the US should they make any progress- much less the rest of our livestock. I like to imagine their plan is to let us meat eaters have one last massive barbecue before we all convert to a soy diet.
Instead of keeping the animals caged up in the dark like companies such as McDonalds, and then gauging their necks so they can slowly and painfully bleed out, I would suggest a more charitable manner. Meat factories are the number one source of water pollution. Pollution is bad for, well, at least, all human life. So the people who are advocating this animal cruelty are unwittingly advocating their own declination (esp. in undeveloped countries).
------------
Here is what you 'pro-hideously kill innocent animals' advocates are unwittingly arguing for- and excerpt from [peta.org]
When land is used to raise animals instead of crops, precious water and soil are lost, trees are cut down to make land for grazing or factory-farm sheds, and untreated animal waste pollutes rivers and streams. In fact, it has such a devastating effect on all aspects of our environment that the Union of Concerned Scientists lists meat-eating as the second-biggest environmental hazard facing the Earth. (Number one is fossil-fuel vehicles.) And according to a report published by the Worldwatch Institute, a staggering 51 percent or more of global greenhouse-gas emissions are caused by animal agriculture. No wonder, when you consider facts like these:
Cows must consume 16 pounds of vegetation in order to convert them into 1 pound of flesh. Raising animals for food consumes more than half of all water used in the U.S. It takes 2,500 gallons of water to produce a pound of meat but only 25 gallons to produce a pound of wheat.
Producing just one hamburger uses enough fossil fuel to drive a small car 20 miles. Of all raw materials and fossil fuels used in the U.S., more than one-third are devoted to raising animals for food.
A typical pig factory generates the same amount of raw waste as a city of 12,000 people. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, raising animals for food is the number-one source of water pollution.
Of all agricultural land in the U.S., 87 percent is used to raise animals for food. That’s 45 percent of the total land mass in the U.S. About 260 million acres of U.S. forest have been cleared to create cropland to produce feed for animals raised for food. The meat industry is directly responsible for 85 percent of all soil erosion in the U.S.
More than 80 percent of the corn we grow and more than 95 percent of the oats are fed to livestock. The world’s cattle alone consume a quantity of food equal to the caloric needs of 8.7 billion people—more than the entire human population on Earth. According to the Worldwatch Institute, “Roughly 2 of every 5 tons of grain produced in the world is fed to livestock, poultry, or fish; decreasing consumption of these products, especially of beef, could free up massive quantities of grain and reduce pressure on land.”
Just to be clear, I don't mean to argue in favor of factory farming by any stretch, I'm not trying to conflate the issue, I'm bringing up something that needs to be considered. I do apologize for the tone of mockery in my last statement, it was not directed towards you specifically- more towards a more self-righteous and ignorant variety of vegan that I encounter more frequently. I'm aware of the downsides to factory farmed meat. This, in addition to my perception of superior quality, is why I get most of my meat from a local butcher, sourced from local farms (one of which I worked on as a teenager) and occasionally game- I prefer hunted game to livestock generally speaking, prefer goose and duck to chicken and turkey, deer to beef, etc. but since it's not technically legal to sell game meat it's a bit harder to come by. As far as factory farming is concerned, we're in agreement; we disagree in that I think smaller farms with more humane practices are perfectly acceptable despite their drawbacks (which are significantly less severe than those of factory farms, among other things producing significantly less environmental problems due to much lower population densities and less heavy equipment needed).
The problem with an end to these practices remains, though: There are ~90 million cows, ~9 million horses, BILLIONS of chickens, and countless other forms of livestock currently occupying the united states alone. What are we to do with all of these animals? I'm not trying to deflect the issue- this is a legitimate problem and obstacle that must be dealt with if any meaningful change is to be had, regardless of whether it's the elimination of factory farming or all meat farming. The only way I see to avoid dealing with this problem is to maintain the status quo, which is still killing billions of animals per year in the US. A phase out program would still need to cull a significant number of animals, after all.
All I will say is humans should be able to be slaughtered in the same manner as horses on any other animal. I will respect animal slaughtering s soon as humans are incorporated into this field.
In certain sections of the store should have human meat. Life is life, humans horses, pigs all suffer. So to say one section should be regarded as dispensable and giving no logical reason for it, I would say, then, that it is fair for humans--innocent, guilty, retarded and all--to be slaughtered hideously for their goods - and to argue against this proposition is to be biased.
Your argument presumes the legitimacy of its premise - that humans must treat other animals fairly - without warranting it whatsoever. There is also a rather obvious explanation for intra-species preference: evolutionary selection.
You've ignored my statement explaining how certain people wish to consume their own kind but aren't granted this liberty due to powers that suggest natural actions (cannibalism) aren't permissible (morally or otherwise).
You cannot invoke evolutionary explanations given the prevalence of cannibalism amongst most species--esp. our closest relatives 'chimps'. (Its like saying one shouldn't with the same sex because of how evolution designed a "opposite sex preference" for obvious reasons.)
You've ignored my statement explaining how certain people wish to consume their own kind but aren't granted this liberty due to powers that suggest natural actions (cannibalism) aren't permissible (morally or otherwise).
I overlooked it because you did not state it so explicitly as you are now. I fail to see why this is problematic. We regularly restrict human behavior through laws; why should this be any different? By your line of reasoning we should also allow murder, rape, theft, etc... because certain people wish to do it. Obviously, that alone is a rather meager basis from which to permit behavior.
You cannot invoke evolutionary explanations given the prevalence of cannibalism amongst most species--esp. our closest relatives 'chimps'. (Its like saying one shouldn't with the same sex because of how evolution designed a "opposite sex preference" for obvious reasons.)
The prevalence of cannibalism in other species is entirely irrelevant to a discussion of evolutionary selection specific to human behavior. While cannibalism has been a recurrent practice throughout human history, it is not presently a common practice or desire among the majority of the species indicating that an intra-species preference has been selected for over time in our species. Your statements have already rather tacitly conceded that human society generally opposes cannibalism (i.e. "certain people wish to consume their own kind but aren't granted this liberty due to powers [...]").
Ultimately my evolution point was merely posing one potential explanation for why human society does not generally condone cannibalism, but the why is rather less relevant than that fact itself. The more substantive point of my response appears to have been overlooked: namely that your original comment suggests ideas of fairness and equality among our species and others without advancing any substantive basis as to why this ought to be the case.
This is different because cannibalism is, again, natural and prevalent in certain geographical locations; my problem is that cannibalism isn't permitted everywhere, yet, animal slaughter is?
The prevalence of cannibalism in other species is entirely irrelevant to a discussion of evolutionary selection specific to human behavior
Invoking cannibalism amongst relative species is important for it is behavior amongst our closest relatives that help us better determine if what we are doing can be viewed as being irregular. (Again, like homosexuality: if homosexuality wasn't viewed as being natural amongst most species then it would've been viewed as being unnatural while also a choice, or unholy in religious terms.)
While cannibalism has been a recurrent practice throughout human history, it is not presently a common practice or desire among the majority of the species indicating that an intra-species preference has been selected for over time in our species. Your statements have already rather tacitly conceded that human society generally opposes cannibalism (i.e. "certain people wish to consume their own kind but aren't granted this liberty due to powers [...]").
Cannibalism is prevalent among African tribal groups, India, New Zealand, Fiji, Brazil (which is one of the most populated country in the world) Asia, etc. Though it may be practiced in secrecy in places where it is illegal, it is still a common practice.
Now, I am not suggesting, as you seem to be indicating, it should be legal for someone to go out and kill someone and eat them, the practice of cannibalism can be regulated, but what I am suggesting is that such practice shouldn't be viewed as impermissible given the naturalness of it (same as homosexuality).
Though your point seems to be rational, it is not what powers, and mostly others, argue. So my substantiation is respective of the "powers" rationale for not permitting human meat sections and human consumption.
This is different because cannibalism is, again, natural and prevalent in certain geographical locations & Cannibalism is prevalent among African tribal groups, India, New Zealand, Fiji, Brazil (which is one of the most populated country in the world) Asia, etc. Though it may be practiced in secrecy in places where it is illegal, it is still a common practice.
I challenge your assertions as to the prevalence of cannibalism among certain populations, particularly as I have visited and know people in New Zealand where cannibalism is decidedly neither legal nor prevalent despite your indication to the contrary. While my knowledge of the other cultures you listed is less extensive, you might understand why your inaccurate portrayal of New Zealand rather undermines your credibility with respect to your other examples. Please provide some actual substantiation. I further challenge your implied rationale that prevalence among isolated populations translates into evidence of prevalence for the species at large.
Invoking cannibalism amongst relative species is important for it is behavior amongst our closest relatives that help us better determine if what we are doing can be viewed as being irregular. (Again, like homosexuality: if homosexuality wasn't viewed as being natural amongst most species then it would've been viewed as being unnatural while also a choice, or unholy in religious terms.)
I reiterate my stance that the behavioral practices of other species is less relevant, if not ultimately irrelevant, to the behavioral practices of the human species as it is the latter which is in question and not the former. I reject the counter rationale you present as equally on the matter of homosexuality as I do with respect to this matter, so I find your reiteration of the same rationale through a different example entirely unpersuasive.
[...] my problem is that cannibalism isn't permitted everywhere, yet, animal slaughter is?
Similarly, I find the comparison between the legality/permissibility of cannibalism and that of other animal slaughter unpersuasive. They are, to me, independent issues and thus ought to be evaluated on their own merit; I think you would be hard pressed to demonstrate that the social effects of animal slaughter and human cannibalism are similar enough to be interchangeable.
Now, I am not suggesting, as you seem to be indicating, it should be legal for someone to go out and kill someone and eat them, the practice of cannibalism can be regulated, but what I am suggesting is that such practice shouldn't be viewed as impermissible given the naturalness of it (same as homosexuality).
I never indicated any distinction between homicidal cannibalism and necro-cannablism.
Naturalness alone seems to me an inadequate basis from which to advance an advocacy for permissibility. The human dispositions towards murder, assault, rape, and theft are arguably far more prevalent than cannibalism yet generally speaking we do not permit them. This is because far more goes into the consideration of legality (or ought to) than naturalness alone. Arguably, the very function of laws is to moderate the natural behaviors of the individual members of the species and to subjugate it to the interests and desires of the whole.
Though your point seems to be rational, it is not what powers, and mostly others, argue. So my substantiation is respective of the "powers" rationale for not permitting human meat sections and human consumption.
I find the common rationalization to be generally lacking in most matters; this is certainly no exception. Yet the invalidity of the common opposition to legalized cannibalism cannot legitimately be advanced as its own independent argument in support of the same.
A belated clarification for the record: I am not actually in disagreement with your conclusion, though I do not agree entirely with your rationale. I am challenging the latter more than the former, and my opposition to the former is more in the name of devil's advocacy than sincerity. If at any point you would prefer to here my sincere thoughts on the matter, merely indicate as such and I shall provide them.
Yes, as an extension of human/group behaviour in general. With some outliers, as a whole we tend to support the 'group' we're in, regardless of what 'level' we're talking about, even that of the individual.
Individuals tend to favor themselves over others in most cases.
Tightly knit groups of people, such as families and peer groups, tend to favor their group and members over outsiders.
The population of Towns tend to favor their town and citizens over other towns.
...counties...
...states/provinces...
...regions...
...nations...
...ethnic groups...
...religious groups...
etc.
At nearly every divide between humans I can see, humans tend to overwhelmingly favor their own 'side.' I see no reason why this trend wouldn't continue if we were looking at humanity as a whole vs. another species.
Pigs, goats, sheep, cows, chickens, ducks, turkeys and fish are bred, raised, fed and sold to meat companies. Consumers consume. What part of this food chain is illogical?
The system is illogical, some people want to consume others but the system won't allow it because they consider human consumption wrong.
Also, why don't we use some humans to feed certain animals? Because its considered wrong, or "better" to feed certain carnivores other animals because animals other than humans are dispensable.
According to your view everything would just die eventually. Humans don't eat humans the same as the majority of animals don't eat their own species of animals. Humans eating cows or whatever is no different than a lion eating a antelope. Humans use methods of raising and harvesting, or blatantly put "slaughtering," as a means to substitute the action of hunting.
Lots of animals, namely our closest relatives chimps, practice cannibalism regularly. So your suggestion of cannibalism being irregular and/or unnatural is highly contentious. So, again, why is the act impermissible?
(Note: I might also add humans practice cannibalism where it is permitted.)
And the torture farmers put animals through before slicing their neck suffocating them while they're alive until they bleed out is what us animal rights advocates call the act of 'slaughtering'.
