Why Do You Eat Animals?

[brimstoneSalad]

Hens are female, not male.

Congratulations, you know what a word means. You can rest assured that I do too (I know some other, bigger words too- I've studied animal husbandry a bit).

So it might be more like $12 a dozen if you're some kind of bizarre hypocritical psycho who is blissfully happy with grinding up all of the male chicks alive, but randomly cares about the welfare of the hens. It's reasonable to think that most people who care about hens will care about chicks of both sexes. It's also fair to say that hens would rather half their babies not be ground up alive, but let's ignore that for now.

I took the liberty of assuming that the other poster was not happy with that, but I continued to use the word she used in reply to her (note more of the conversation in context). Maybe it's not something I should have assumed -- some people are bizarre hypocritical psychos after all -- you'd have to ask him/her, but I don't think she/he is like that. If I'm wrong about that, that was my mistake.

I will be more careful to generalize with "chicken" in the future so people understand more clearly that all lives have value and they don't draw the strange conclusions you have. That's a fair catch of something I did not word well in casual conversation, and I'll try to be more specific.

First I did read that you listed to another poster "You could raise your own chickens." as an alternative to purchasing eggs from a store. When somebody goes to purchase hens for backyard egg production they are typically pre sexed to hens, females only.

I don't encourage people to buy chicks, just as I don't encourage them to buy dogs and cats from breeders. The topic at hand was related to rescues. I made no mention of where to get the original stock of hens/rooster if you wanted an ongoing operation.

Obviously if you want an ethical operation, you have to source ethically too. Since the eggs themselves would be very expensive, it might not make sense to bother with any of it anyway; I wasn't exactly writing a detailed how-to or a business proposal.

It's a thought experiment; are you familiar with them?

You don't think that their male counterparts get sent to a rooster sanctuary? Most of them are killed.

Of course the breeders kill them, because they're calloused profit focused people not unlike many dog and cat breeders who will drown or bash in the heads of any undesirables. This is why it's valid to multiply by at least two for any commercial production that was humane, because they would have to NOT follow this practice, and instead establish such a sanctuary (or find other methods which would also likely be quite expensive).

So if your going to include the lives of male chickens into your standard of a humanely produced egg shouldn't you also be against raising chickens for eggs?

Not rescues, which is the discussion I linked to. You should follow the link and read the whole argument.
After you rescued enough, you could hypothetically begin keeping some fertilized eggs, and not kill the males (or deal with the situation in another way).

Now in regards to keeping the males alive to meet your criteria of a humane egg. This is highly impractical. In fact I would argue that it's so impractical that putting any sort of price on a humane egg (your criteria) would be arbitrary and that the position you should take is that it's not possible.

Here's something you need to learn: Impractical and impossible are not the same thing.

If somebody is willing to pay enough for something, almost anything is possible in this regard. It's also pretty trivial to low-ball it; they probably cost at least as much as hens. Doubling the price is a reasonable conservative estimate that gives the current farmers the benefit of the doubt. Conservative. Do you know what the term means? It means it's a lower price than it might really be, despite it being to my benefit to suggest a higher one.

You do understand I was low-balling it based on a hypothetical scenario, don't you?
Is the idea of giving the opposition the benefit of the doubt, and using conservative numbers, so foreign to you that you don't understand when somebody is actually being generous to the opposition?

However, I have explained this general notion at greater length elsewhere, including the inherent tendency of abuse in any commercial operation due to the profit motive (cutting corners is a way of business).

That under your standards the only moral choice would be to not eat eggs.

Not the only one, the only practical/affordable one perhaps. Why are you so eager to jump on the irrational/extremist bandwagon and paint all people with the same brush?

I'm not as interested in dogma as you seem to be. And I resent you trying to paint all vegans as dogmatic.

Roosters of typical egg laying breeds tend to be pretty aggressive. You can't have a bunch of male roosters housed together. It would just be a bunch of cock fights. And you can't house them 50/50 with hens either, that's just adding hen rape into the mix. There is a reason for the expression too many roosters in the hen house.

Can you really not work your creative thinking skills a little bit to come up with a solution other than grinding up all of the male chicks for kibble?

Think about it a little. You can come up with something, probably several models, that would be potentially viable if you tried.
Only a little practical testing of the model would prove its functionality and cost, but the point here is that it's a conservative estimate- it's not likely to get cheaper than that.

That's what the words "at least" mean.

Can live to be and natural life span is not the same thing in my opinion.

It's a little difficult to determine how long animals live in the "wild"; sometimes it's longer than in captivity, sometimes shorter. But the poster was talking about treating the chickens to the standards of a family dog, which certainly includes protection (although predation is more of an issue on farms where an artificial population concentration has been created and contained, bred to purpose, and outside any natural habitat than in "the wild"), and basic medical care.

A tight mesh fence? Which then comes into question if it's big enough and the chickens are being provided with what would be considered true free roam.

I don't consider that a very difficult question. Some vegans think that's an impossible issue to overcome- I don't see any reason it would be.
Why do you again automatically jump to extremism?

You want us all to be extremist and unreasonable, it seems.

And medical care, not exactly what I think of when speaking of a natural lifespan.

And yet it's part of what is seen as humane treatment for any pet, by an owner- a responsibility they take on.

This is reinforcing my initial suspicion that your numbers are arbitrary.
"A $2 egg is about the cheapest you'll find for "free range".
Is either an outright lie or because your vegan and don't buy eggs are just uninformed to what they cost.

Steve, stop being deliberately dense and assuming everybody but you is an idiot. $2 dozen. I obviously didn't mean $2/$4 for a single egg, if you read on, I was talking standard package.
If you would read the whole post and do some first grade math, you'd see I multiplied the $4 "egg" by 6 to get $24 for a dozen eggs.

I could have been extra careful to say "dozen" every time, but as it is I only said it a few times, from which the rest should be been implicit. I was talking about type of egg, costed by standard unit.

This kind of egg is $2, this kind of egg is $4 (a dozen).

The eggs are $7 USD a dozen or about $0.58 an egg, not $2 an egg.
These are for eggs that are better then "free range" which I agree is kind of a BS term.

The most expensive I could find were around $8. That looks like a good reference link.
I didn't use that high cost, because I was being generous.

The first "free range" eggs I found online were $6.08 a dozen.
I've seen "free range" eggs on sale at my local market for about $4 a dozen.
I've purchased eggs from small "backyarders" where the birds had free roam from $4-6 a dozen.

That's why I used $4 as my target number; It's common and conservative.

Why are you multiplying $4 an egg x 6? Just trying to hit your original figure of $24 but forgot that a dozen is 12?

I didn't multiply "$4 an egg".
Because you're being too much of a biased asshole and assuming that all vegans are complete idiots. I clearly meant $4 a dozen by "$4 egg" (e.g. type of egg, $4 per standard unit- dozen).

If I said "this is $4 rice" would you say "wow, one grain of rice for $4? You're clearly a liar!" Or maybe I meant a pound, or a kilo... hmm. Maybe you read on and notice that I'm talking about a larger unit... hmm...
You really could have figured that out if you tried.

Instead or making a few simple, reasonable deductions to account for my perhaps hasty and imprecise wording (I wrote the post quickly, and for your benefit Steve), you decide to call me a liar, and then say I don't know how much a dozen is...

Yes, I could have specified more clearly, but I thought it was obvious enough that I didn't have to, and I was in a hurry (on the way out the door at the time, which I am now too).

What kind of idiot would think an egg costs $4? Apparently that's the kind of idiot you're hunting for.

What if you, as I try to do, actually gave people you disagree with the benefit of the doubt.
I was talking about type of egg, not a single egg. Which my math should have made abundantly clear even if my wording wasn't as clear as it could have been.

Are you multiplying by 6 because of the x 2 for male life and x 3 for natural life span that you wen't though.

Yes, that is what I explained. It's pretty simple.

In which case I'd ask then how on earth do you reach the cost of $4 an egg?

I don't. That would be idiotic. I get $2 per each single egg, after multiplying roughly $0.33 per single egg times six (because they cost $4 per dozen eggs, which is 12, and 4/12 is 1/3 or 0.3333... (with 3 repeating), which I expressed approximately as $0.33 above).

None of that achieves a cost of $24 a dozen.

No, a $4 single egg, as a dozen, would be $48. That's how math works Steve, notice how I didn't say $48?
Even half asleep I can almost guarantee you I'm better at algebra than you are, probably better at trig and calculus too.

How about you stop assuming everybody else is an idiot? Step down off your high horse.

And if one did get sick or hurt and die, they're chickens, that's life. I don't think the absence life extending medical care equates bad treatment.

That's not pet standard treatment, which was what was being discussed. But it can be argued that if you bring a new life into the world for your purposes, you have some responsibility to it.

What's $100 a bird per year in medical spent on?

For pets, mainly medical checkups, which aren't very expensive, occasional antibiotics and injury treatments, and then more rare surgery for serious conditions (usually later in life).
You'd have to look at common medical expenses people face when they have pet chickens.

Also it's a non factor here in that aspect has nothing to do with treatment and could be identical to factory farms.

When the eggs are more expensive, spillage is more expensive. But I left distribution out.

So a hundred for medical a year and $33.33 for food, labor, water, etc. Why just sound good? An even third of a hundred? Sure why not.
You didn't even touch on some of the addition costs I thought would be needed like additional space/land and labor, dogs.

Either you're deliberately ignoring the entire point of my post, or you're an idiot.

I told you repeatedly, I was low-balling for the minimum likely cost of such a kind of egg. OF COURSE there are more expenses.
I'm not Recommending this as a viable business plan.
I'm making a conservative estimate for the minimum cost based on a thought experiment.

Why do you refuse to understand that?

I said they'd need to cost at least that, and "at least" means that they would very likely cost more.

Your just being condescending here. If your interested in being a decent human being you would of excluded this portion from your response.

No Steve, you're just being an asshole right now, because when you said "respectfully" you clearly meant no such thing. You're dead set on painting all vegans as dogmatic idiots.

Step out of your little bubble and look at what I was actually communicating.

This is a thought experiment, not a business plan.
I was low balling the minimum likely cost based on a general estimate.
Such a kind of egg would probably cost more.

I was explaining to the other poster how the "free range" eggs by economic necessity have to include many of those forms of cruelty (killing male chicks, killing the hens very young) in order to deliver the prices we see today.
IF I saw a kind of egg that sold for $24 (a dozen) I would still be skeptical, but I would consider that it might be economically possible that they could avoid those things if they used a very efficient business model, and had their farm set up in just such a way, etc.
Like I said, in practice it would probably cost more.

Low balling, conservative estimate, thought experiment.
Look up those terms.

I believe that you're capable of not being an asshole, Steve, but it's something you have to work on because you're making a lot of assumptions right now. When you assume...

[miniboes]

Ok, so i'm not gonna get into the moral/financial argument, but I don't see why anyone would ever want to consume an egg.

1. I don't like milk as a food for humans, but at least it's meant to be food for something. Eggs are unfertilized; they come out with a hens menstruation cycle. They're hen periods. Fucking disgusting.

2. They're extremely unhealthy; they bulk of cholesterol and animal protein. For more info, i'd recommend checking out some videos on nutritionfacts.org.

Even if you don't give bat shit about how chicken are treated, you probably care about your own body. Because, you know, without it you don't have anything. Heart disease and strokes are by far the largest killers in the world so lowering your cholesterol intake is probably a good idea.

Also, hen periods. Gross.

[Dino_ROAR]

1. I don't like milk as a food for humans, but at least it's meant to be food for something.

.

I have to correct you here. You seem to forget that for the first year as a human we are exclusively breastfed. Breastfed from a female human, either your mama or a "wet mama". Most moms choose to give their children fortified cow or soy milk. My heart goes out to those poor babies forced fed cows milk daily and it hurts there tummies and they're fussy mean babies because their tummy hurts all the time and all the caretaker does is change the poopy diaper that hurt so bad coming out and give baby another bottle. How fucking sad.

[miniboes]

1. I don't like milk as a food for humans, but at least it's meant to be food for something.

.

I have to correct you here. You seem to forget that for the first year as a human we are exclusively breastfed. Breastfed from a female human, either your mama or a "wet mama". Most moms choose to give their children fortified cow or soy milk. My heart goes out to those poor babies forced fed cows milk daily and it hurts there tummies and they're fussy mean babies because their tummy hurts all the time and all the caretaker does is change the poopy diaper that hurt so bad coming out and give baby another bottle. How fucking sad.

I meant non-human milk (cow/goat), sorry for not being clear on that.

[Dino_ROAR]

I think we all forget humans are all born vegetarians. Having breastfed for a year it is no easy task and getting a clogged milk duct or cracked nipples is not fun especially because you have to continue breastfeeding through the pain. I even had a painful case of mastitis, a bacterial infection in your breast that mimics flu like symptoms. I am an animal.

[brimstoneSalad]

I think we all forget humans are all born vegetarians. Having breastfed for a year it is no easy task and getting a clogged milk duct or cracked nipples is not fun especially because you have to continue breastfeeding through the pain. I even had a painful case of mastitis, a bacterial infection in your breast that mimics flu like symptoms. I am an animal.

Did you use a pump at all?

[Dino_ROAR]

Did you use a pump at all?

This is actually a really good question. Not properly pumping the breast is what caused the painful mastitis, clogged milk ducts and yes even the cracked nipples. The only relief from pain I had was when my son breastfed and properly drained my breasts. If your milk flow does not properly "let down" and get drained completely your ducts will get backed up with milk aka clogged. A pump can never tell when your milk is properly drained only your baby can do that. I had to hand express after pumping to make sure I got everything out. Poor mama animals who have their children and milk stolen from them worst part is their children never get to taste their mamas sweet milk they're fed watered down nutrients to expand their livers rapidly and it dehydrates them and makes them have diarrhea and mamas breasts are hooked up to a timed pumping machine that doesn't properly express their milk leaving their milk ducts clogged full of puss and blood and each pump is more painful than the next. Their breasts are so engorged they wish they'd just pop to alleviate the pressure and the pain of what feels like a thousand needles poking into you all at once.

If only mama could have breastfed her child ...

[GhassenDh19]

Hello i'm new to the forum and relatively new atheist. I don't know that much about being a vegan but here are my reason why i eat meat.
1- don't have the time nor the money to follow a meat free diet
2- meat tastes great, and so does fish and all that come from it.
3- This might sound stupid to you, and maybe it is , but this makes sense to me. Since we are animals, why should we go against nature. I mean animals eats animals all the time, are we special ? Doesn't survival for the fittest rule apply in our lives, i mean i know we have a conscience and so on, but what if a human was to face a tiger in nature, wouldn't his instinct is to devour us, i feel the same instinct of eating apply here.
4- Animals provide great resources
5- I come from a 3rd world country, and i think of Veganism as a 1st world problem that is too soon for it's time. Most of the people on the globe are working their asses of to provide to their families what to eat, sometimes its fish, sometimes it's meat, it depends, isn't a little egoistic to ask why do you eat animals.

I by no mean agree on the barbaric method of killing animals, although the result is the same, death, it's only human to choose a relatively merciful way to kill them
It's my first comment on this forum, i hope i don't get mocked so hard

[TheVeganAtheist]

1- don't have the time nor the money to follow a meat free diet

Doesnt take any more time to eat or prepare vegan food then it does to eat or prepare non-vegan food. Also, doesn't have to cost you more. In fact it can cost you a whole lot less.

2- meat tastes great, and so does fish and all that come from it.

so does vegan food, especially after you have lost the taste and smell of non-vegan foods. Tastes and cravings change with time.

3- This might sound stupid to you, and maybe it is , but this makes sense to me. Since we are animals, why should we go against nature. I mean animals eats animals all the time, are we special ? Doesn't survival for the fittest rule apply in our lives, i mean i know we have a conscience and so on, but what if a human was to face a tiger in nature, wouldn't his instinct is to devour us, i feel the same instinct of eating apply here.

Other animals eat other animals most of the time out of an actual need and a lack of alternatives. We also don't know how sophisticated their sense of morality and justice is, so we can't blame them for not understanding right from wrong. Most humans, especially in affluent countries, have options, have a sense of morality and justice, and can live a life reducing the amount of harm caused to others. A tiger would eat you because the tiger has a need to eat meat, and if you were easy game, he/she would not think twice. You don't need to eat meat, and have alternatives that do not cause direct harm to other sentient animals. Its a no-brainer.
If you look to nature to determine behaviour, then you would have to be okay with humans who eat their young, rape, murder, etc (as all of these take place in the wild).

4- Animals provide great resources

Resources? What do you mean? Fur? Wool? Leather? If so, humans could be used for much the same purpose... Would you suggest we skin humans too to make a jacket?

5- I come from a 3rd world country, and i think of Veganism as a 1st world problem that is too soon for it's time. Most of the people on the globe are working their asses of to provide to their families what to eat, sometimes its fish, sometimes it's meat, it depends, isn't a little egoistic to ask why do you eat animals.

Our choice to eat animals has an impact on the lives of billions of animals, the environment of the entire globe and the health of each person. I advocate for people to be vegan if they can. If you can afford to spend time on a forum (pay for computer, internet, etc) then you have time and money to be a vegan.

I by no mean agree on the barbaric method of killing animals, although the result is the same, death, it's only human to choose a relatively merciful way to kill them

What would you say is a nice way of killing animals unnecessarily? How would you enforce billion dollar industry to ensure they take these animals seriously and kill them in a nice "merciful" way? How is "merciful" to kill innocent animals when you have no need and many alternatives at your disposal?

[Humane Hominid]

3- This might sound stupid to you, and maybe it is , but this makes sense to me. Since we are animals, why should we go against nature. I mean animals eats animals all the time, are we special ?

Actually, most terrestrial animals are herbivorous.

Doesn't survival for the fittest rule apply in our lives, i mean i know we have a conscience and so on, but what if a human was to face a tiger in nature, wouldn't his instinct is to devour us, i feel the same instinct of eating apply here.

"Fitness," in an evolutionary context, doesn't mean what you seem to think it does. Fitness just means dying with the most children who have reached reproductive age. It doesn't have anything to do with who is stronger, smarter, faster, etc., in individual terms.