'oh, so you don't want any animal products?'
Person: 'but if we don't use them (or 'breed' them), they're going to die'
Me: *omg you smart*
What should I say? I mean I don't even know this is confuzzling.
Posted by The Hammer at 07/21/14 01:57:41Don't get caught up in such discussions, they are pointless.
I suggest simply reply with a counter question : "Did you ever see undercover videos and how animals are abused at animal factories? I don't want to contribute to that."
If you REALLY want to answer that question, the answer is "a cow or a pig in factory farms aren't a "species", they are not even "sub species", if we dont raise pigs on a factory farm anymore, there are still wild natural pigs that are almost 99.9% genetically identical as domesticated pigs."
But again, i recommend don't let people let ijack the topic and change it, stick to the horrors in the animal factories. and make people listen to them, don't start seriously answering weird questions because.....these people have a ZILLION of pointless weird anti vegan questions, and bottom line, aren't even seriously interested. Pathetic bastards that is what they are, they deserve a kick in the nuts to wake up about the cruelty on their plate. LOL
Posted by Immaterial at 08/03/14 22:06:30I think it could be claimed that a strong position is a position which can be defended. Although you could ignore arguments such as the one you've related, based upon the supposition that they're pointless, this could make your position seem weaker in the estimation of others, and leave them feeling justified in their choices.
Here's how I might suggest responding:
With regards to this specific argument, it might first be noted that it would seem to be something of a logical fallacy, specifically a false dilemma, in that it would appear to suggest that only two options exist where more are possible. Buffalo, elephants, and other similar animals are generally not raised for their meat (in so far as I'm aware), yet they have not gone extinct.
However, let's assume for the moment that their suggestion is an accurate one, that if we stopped raising the animals for consumption, that they would indeed go extinct. We could rephrase the question as the following: Is the mass scale subjugation and brutal exploitation of these animals, with its attendant suffering and death, preferable to the extinction of their species.
And to answer this question one would seem to need to address whether or not the continued existence of a species possess an intrinsic value in and of itself, and whether or not that value is sufficient to warrant the suffering entailed.
For my own part, I would argue that there is little if any intrinsic value (at least on a moral level) to the continued existence of a species as a whole, and that while the death of any individual might be a tragedy, the extinction of a species is not necessarily something to be mourned. The value which many seem to prescribe to the continued existence of a species might be reflective of a certain degree of status quo bias (this is something of a supposition on my part).