Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

cruelty free meat-would you eat it & why? Watch

  • View Poll Results: Would you eat supermeat?
    Yes.
    16.17%
    No-never!
    16.42%
    Need more information.
    57.96%
    Yes, but would still eat regular meat.
    6.22%
    Only when eating in resturants.
    0
    0%
    Yes, but the conditions when I would and wouldn't are not listed on this poll.
    3.23%

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thunder_chunky)
    If this is your attempt at trying to look funny or smart, you're achieving neither. Try a little harder cupcake. *
    It's not. Your conceptually contradicting yourself when you say they don't have interests but we can be cruel to them. Hence I figured that term had confused you.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Because there are other consideration to take into account.

    I may get a lot for personal enjoyment from hitting you round the head with a base ball bat. Why should I not do that? To not do that would deny me enjoyment and would be the inferior option.
    He's saying because when something first comes out it can be inferior, if the product changes, it remains inferior, no matter what the change is. You're giving way to that premise, are you sure you want to?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)




    Why would it be more or less ethical?Eating "meat" grown in a test tube seems no more or less moral than eating potato grown in the soil in terms of suffering of living things. Any differences would be infinitesimal.

    If it was possible to buy a burger grown from a test tube as apposed to a burger grown from a cow that grew up and died in holocaust like conditions, or even a free reign cow that gets butchered in an abattoir, the test tube burger is obviously the better option in reducing animal suffering. I'd be willing to pay more tax so government could help it get off the ground if it was more expensive.
    Well it's certainly going to cause less suffering, but will it end suffering completely? I'd like to see it's claims about the biopsies met, as well as have a very strong independent investigation into the living conditions of the animals. I'm sure it will over time, but until then I remain vigilantly skeptical
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    What's the very first thing on the post after the title? A youtube link to a video that's 3 minutes 10 seconds long that explains everything.

    The second link is to the faceook page of supermeat.
    do not trust youtube + vid too long
    facebook requires logging in = too much effort
    WTF.
    Is.
    Supermeat.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CheeseIsVeg)
    do not trust youtube + vid too long
    facebook requires logging in = too much effort
    WTF.
    Is.
    Supermeat.
    You don't trust youtube on what basis? This isn't some indie documentary, this is a group making a video about their own product.
    • TSR Support Team
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    PS Reviewer
    I will almost certainly eat it in my lifetime as it will be a lot cheaper once commercialised than your standard meat. I'd be happy to eat it.

    I'd also pay the premium and buy some actual meat as well.

    Also hyperbole of peace with the hidden adhoms with regards to animals suffering. It's a matter of opinion whether the majority of animals raised for meat actually truly do suffer and as we've discussed many times I'm of the opposite opinion to yourself
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    You don't trust youtube on what basis? This isn't some indie documentary, this is a group making a video about their own product.
    I just hate youtube.
    I'll just go without knowing then.
    Spoiler:
    Show
    :ashamed:
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Because there are other consideration to take into account.

    I may get a lot for personal enjoyment from hitting you round the head with a base ball bat. Why should I not do that? To not do that would deny me enjoyment and would be the inferior option.
    These other considerations being? I'm not one of these people that cares about being able to claim the moral high ground, and anybody who's willing to pay for that is frankly a moron.

    There is also a legality issue with whacking me round the head?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    Still waiting for you to comprehend what my post means. Your premise remains false. If you continue to repeat yourself I'll just iggy list you
    How kind and constructive of you.

    Chicken has less flavour than other meats- inferior
    Artificial meats have less flavour than their natural equivalents- futhrt inferiority
    Artificial meats are relatively expensive to produce- paying more for inferiority

    Is it so hard to grasp the concept "paying more for less is stupid?"

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    These other considerations being? I'm not one of these people that cares about being able to claim the moral high ground, and anybody who's willing to pay for that is frankly a moron.

    There is also a legality issue with whacking me round the head?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I love that laws, which can change very easily, plenty of countries would I'm sure legally have no issue with whacking many people round the head, are cited as your defense here. But logically coherent moral arguments? Nahhhh.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    It's not. Your conceptually contradicting yourself when you say they don't have interests but we can be cruel to them. Hence I figured that term had confused you.
    Wait, did I make a typo? Because I'm fairly certain that I didn't say we can be cruel to them. I'm fairly certain I said I would eat cruelty free meat, and that it would be better if we were not such a-holes about meat and towards animals.*

    Also, I didn't say they don't have interests, I said that it doesn't concern me as much.

    Their 'concern'- by which I assume you mean comfort, *being well fed (but not overfed) and a generally happy life, not to mention a quick and painless death- extends about that far. That's all we need to think about when it comes to those sort of creatures.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    How kind and constructive of you.

    1)Chicken has less flavour than other meats- inferior
    2)Artificial meats have less flavour than their natural equivalents- futhrt inferiority
    3)Artificial meats are relatively expensive to produce- paying more for inferiority

    Is it so hard to grasp the concept "paying more for less is stupid?"

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    1) Not debating chicken vs other meats, chicken is being used as an example. That's completely irrelevant.
    2) Premise remains not accepted.
    3) At the moment, of course, but within 5-10 years the opposite will very likely be true.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    I love that laws, which can change very easily, plenty of countries would I'm sure legally have no issue with whacking many people round the head, are cited as your defense here. But logically coherent moral arguments? Nahhhh.
    There is no such thing as a logically coherent moral argument because it relies on the assumption of an absolute morality, in other words for your argument to be coherent you require me to hold a certain moral standard, it also requires that moral standard to be self evidently, well, morally correct.

    In other words, for your argument to work you pretty much have to be preaching to the choir.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    There is no such thing as a logically coherent moral argument because it relies on the assumption of an absolute morality, in other words for your argument to be coherent you require me to hold a certain moral standard, it also requires that moral standard to be self evidently, well, morally correct.

    In other words, for your argument to work you pretty much have to be preaching to the choir.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I think a logically coherent moral argument only relies on the consistency of your own set of moral values.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thunder_chunky)
    Wait, did I make a typo? Because I'm fairly certain that I didn't say we can be cruel to them. I'm fairly certain I said I would eat cruelty free meat, and that it would be better if we were not such a-holes about meat and towards animals.*

    Also, I didn't say they don't have interests, I said that it doesn't concern me as much.

    Their 'concern'- by which I assume you mean comfort, *being well fed (but not overfed) and a generally happy life, not to mention a quick and painless death- extends about that far. That's all we need to think about when it comes to those sort of creatures.
    If you're going to eat cruelty free meat (at the moment, also self contradictory unless you happen to find a dead animal) then you're giving way to the premise that we ought not be cruel to animals and that it's possible to be cruel to them. It is obviously in their interests not to be treated cruelly from an a priori perspective. Not sure why that's hard to grasp.

    If their interests don't concern you then you don't care about being cruel to them.

    And happy life is very open. For example, most 'free range' birds are subject to yarding, where they're unable to access the space they're given outside, which is fields. Most birds aren't even stimulated by that, and instead need forestry and a range of environments.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by h3rmit)
    I think a logically coherent moral argument only relies on the consistency of your own set of moral values.
    Int his context, yes, though in terms of moral relativism this is why moral relativism falls apart.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    no i wouldn't. i'm a vegetarian and now the thought of eating any kind of meat grosses me out
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by h3rmit)
    I think a logically coherent moral argument only relies on the consistency of your own set of moral values.
    To convince anybody else requires them to hold a similar enough set of moral values, and that supposition is exactly where the argument collapses

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    To convince anybody else requires them to hold a similar enough set of moral values, and that supposition is exactly where the argument collapses

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    If you convince them that your moral set of values is beneficial, then you can change their set of moral values to be more similar to yours so the argument will work.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by celloel)
    no i wouldn't. i'm a vegetarian and now the thought of eating any kind of meat grosses me out
    I know exactly what you mean. If milk and eggs could be done in a similar way (I'm not sure if that would ever be possible) would you be interested in that, given that that would then potentially be cruelty free?

    And morally speaking what do you think about it?
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: July 20, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources
    AtCTs

    Ask the Community Team

    Got a question about the site content or our moderation? Ask here.

    Welcome Lounge

    Welcome Lounge

    We're a friendly bunch. Post here if you're new to TSR.

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.