Would you respect being eaten as part of the circle of life? What about your family?

Where is the line drawn?

Explain to me the difference between disrespect and being cattle-bolted through the skull.

When the fish is yanked out of the factory farm and suffocated in air or chilled and frozen alive do you think they experience this respect we're talking about? If so, where?

Does the operator say thanks to each fish before their brutal, agonizing, often prolonged for market death?

'respect' is about the most stupid thing I can think to bring up when referencing loss of life in animals.

It's a meta human concept that means nothing other than the mans approval of method -- it means nothing with regard to the animal or the suffering.

▲

troyvit 3 days ago | parent [-]

> Explain to me the difference between disrespect and being cattle-bolted through the skull.

I think if you could choose between that and being slowly consumed by five or six coyotes from the ass forward, you'd go for the cattle bolt. I have a ton of problems with the US meat industry (to the point where I only eat meat once a month or so unless somebody is throwing it away), but there are ranchers out there who do try to do their best for the food they raise.

	▲	glenstein a day ago \| parent [-]
		One has human moral responsibility, the other doesn't. I actually do think, if we solved all the other problems in the world and had time left over, it would be right to intervene in nature to stop the harms you described too, and that conversation is a pandora's box of its own. But I don't think the upshot of these harms in nature is that we're also allowed to engage in similar harms at any scale we choose, as long as the badness isn't as bad as what happens in nature. Mainly because that comparison sidesteps the role of unique human moral responsibility and implies an unmade argument that analogies to nature can serve the function of authorizing human-initiated moral harms.