Comment by gnull | Hacker News Reader

Comment by gnull | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> nobody would like it done to them […] Would you say the same if it was for dogs, cats or horses?

Yes, I would. If an animal needs to be killed, this is one of the most humane way to do this. Where I'm from, a lot of farm animals die more painful deaths (nobody can afford electric shockers there).

This is one of the least painful ways to die. If I had to die and wanted a painless death, I'd choose being stunned with electricity and not feeling anything.

> above is obviously very cruel

Argument "it's obvious" works when something is obvious to the person you're talking to. In this case, it's obvious only to you.

And if "it's obvious" is your best argument, it usually means you don't understand very well why you came to that conclusion. Think about it.

> cruelty of the above is only ignored because it's normalised through culture and tradition

Yes, and it's not normal to you because of your culture and tradition. People's views are formed by culture and tradition, yes, there's no discovery here. If you grew up on a farm and saw animals getting slaughtered since your childhood, this idea wouldn't be so shocking to you.

"If this is inhumane, how should humane slaughtering look like according to you?"

Have you considered the answer is that there isn't a humane way to slaughter and that's why the people in the video had that reaction? Even if you've grown up seeing this, I don't see how you can describe slitting the throat of something that doesn't need to or want to die as humane. It's even more indefensible when there's many meat alternatives now.

I see your perspective, I understand that for some people this feels unacceptable.

But I don't think of it this way. I come from a different background (a less developed region of a less developed country), and we set the bar lower where I'm from, because we have more vital problems.

I consider factory farming inhumane, it's bloody concentration camps and they shouldn't exist.

But small, local farms where we take care of the animals (no sadism, animals walk on the grass, play with their babies and whatnot) and let them live until certain (not too old) age are fine. Taking the lives of other animals to get food is normal. And even after we have good substitutes for meat, I would keep some small amount of farms to keep people used to killing animals for food, and take kids there for excursions to show that it's normal.

(There was a Danish TV show where they were showing naked adults to children and let them any ask questions; to make kids used to thinking that naked body is normal and there's nothing shameful about it. I think we should have the same thing but with killing animals.)

> Even if you've grown up seeing this, I don't see how you can describe slitting the throat of something that doesn't need to or want to die as humane.

I guess, my perspective is more about what you have to do rather than what you want to do. The animal may not want to die at the age of 2-3 years, but sorry, it has to; it's better than nothing and it's way better than what animals get in wildlife. Life is not a carte blanche where you can order anything you want.

Growing those animals for food helps sustain their species. If we don't get their meat, who's going to pay it?

> It's even more indefensible when there's many meat alternatives now.

I think something like this map [1] can explain such a difference between your and my perception of this. You sound like a person with ~2 points on "Survival vs. Self-expression scale". Am I right? The place where I'm form has -0.7 points (yes, it's minus there).

[1]: https://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/WVSNewsShow.jsp?ID=428

Reply on news.ycombinator.com