To think bad of people that work in slaughterhouses??

[RiverMeadow]

I was reading something earlier and it got me thinking about the members of staff who actually work in slaughterhouses and who see these things first hand.

Regardless of whether you eat meat or not we're all still human and I'd assume it's a job that's a very hard one emotionally... or am I wrong?? Do the colleagues just look at it like a job and not physically killing animals? It would break my heart 😭

You always have a choice to become a defence lawyer. Working in a slaughter house isn't always a choice if it's the only job on offer. Of course some people go into it because they make the choice, but studying to be a lawyer is always a choice.

So do you think the world would be a better, more moral place if nobody ever trained to be a criminal defence barrister again? Bearing in mind that this means innocent people accused of crimes also don’t have legal representation.

Do you have an alternative to slaughtering animals for food yet, apart from converting the whole world to veganism (Animals are still slaughtered in the production of crops, incase you were unaware of that)

Why do I need an alternative? The entire process of raising animals for slaughter is completely immoral. The only alternative is veganism. I don’t have to find better ways of killing animals - my position is that animals simply shouldn’t be killed for their bodies.

And yes, I know animals are killed as a result of crop production. As I indicated further up the thread, animal agriculture requires 80% of The world’s agricultural land but provides only 20% of its calories. A worldwide switch to veganism could reduce agricultural land use by up to 76%, which would in turn massively reduce both the numbers of animals killed in crop production, and the animals killed because their habitats are destroyed (not to mention those currently at risk due to climate change). The best way to reduce the harm caused to animals by crop farming is, therefore, to go vegan.

Well I already explained the first difference you asked for, which was about my personal view on it changing (which it actually didnt, you just made that up)

You have repeatedly throughout this thread moved between talking about the fact that criminal defence law has an immoral side and then claiming that you don’t see it as immoral. There is absolutely no consistency in this position.

I don't suppose there is a difference between something being immoral, and just having an immoral element to it, because the immoral element will always be there, but that wasn't the question you previously asked. The answer to that one is above.

Your exact words, which I have copied and pasted, were:

And I will also say, at no point did I say "I think criminal defence lawyers are immoral", I said they have a side to their job which can be classed as immoral.

I go to the local farm every so often. They raise and supply beef, pigs and ducks. The livestock wanders around having a good life, they are slaughtered and butchered on-site and made into lots of lovely things.
Yes, it is expensive, but I am very content with this style of animal husbandry. When I can afford it, I buy it.

However I do also buy meat from supermarkets, particularly chicken, and I am afraid I don't worry too much about how it got in the packet. So I am very grateful that there are people who do this horrible job.

I know quite a few people who have raised their own pigs, and had them slaughtered on site. Seems to be quite a thing round here. Someone up-thread said small abattoirs are going out of business, this link is an interesting read, not least, because UK doesn't use EU derogations, rather preferring to have a higher standard than required by the legislation.

sustainablefoodtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Abattoir-briefing.pdf

It is also interesting in reading what is actually required in abattoirs, which seems quite stringent. I think we should focus more on supporting these smaller enterprises, pay more for our meat, and eat it less often.

Just because it isn’t likely doesn’t mean it isn’t right. It’s pretty unlikely that we will ever live in a world without murder, but we still recognise that murder is morally wrong.

Yet there are still people who train to defend those murders.

I used to work for a large meat production company that had abattoirs and I spent a lot of time in them. I can only speak for that company, but the scaremongering articles linked are complete bollocks compared to the standards we had.

Slaughter and boning are very skilled jobs. They are well paid (£15/hour) and take pride in their work. The jobs are also quite segregated so nobody goes round stabbing cows if they are having a bad day. There are really strict rules about the time limit of dispatching animals so nobody is beating them to death with pipes either.

There are vets and FSA reps at sites to enforce standards.

I was always hugely impressed by the welfare standards and skills.

So do you think the world would be a better, more moral place if nobody ever trained to be a criminal defence barrister again?

No, once again, I have said several times, a criminal justice system, complete with lawyers is necessary. You are being very repetitive.

Why do I need an alternative?

You demanded an alternative to lawyers from me, why shouldn't I ask for your alternative?

I hope you don't eat meat.

I feel sorry for people who have no choice. And yeah it's awful, one of the reasons I gave up meat.

One of my friends had another friend who grew up on a pig farm. She gave up meat pretty quickly! 😂

my position is that animals simply shouldn’t be killed for their bodies.

So my position could be that people simply shouldn't commit crimes.

Just read you dont eat meat.

A lot of people take.what they're given sadly. Also you get desensitized to things very quickly.

And yes, I know animals are killed as a result of crop production. As I indicated further up the thread, animal agriculture requires 80% of The world’s agricultural land but provides only 20% of its calories.

So really it's not just a case of disagreeing with animals being killed, but selecting which animals you deem it ok to kill, because it causes less harm over all.

You have repeatedly throughout this thread moved between talking about the fact that criminal defence law has an immoral side and then claiming that you don’t see it as immoral.

Again, repetitive as this is, I changed it for you to say, yes, it does have an immoral side, but it's necessary, so I don't disagree with it. There is no alternative.

*Your exact words, which I have copied and pasted, were:

And I will also say, at no point did I say "I think criminal defence lawyers are immoral", I said they have a side to their job which can be classed as immoral.*

I don't even know what your point to this is. That isn't proof that I said I believe it's immoral.

Yet there are still people who train to defend those murders.

And do you think that’s wrong? And if you don’t think it’s wrong, why do you keep bringing it up? Talk about being repetitive!

You demanded an alternative to lawyers from me, why shouldn't I ask for your alternative?

I gave you an alternative - veganism. What you want is yet another alternative - presumably one that’s a bit less inconvenient. Sadly, it doesn’t exist. The only alternative to the brutality of killing animals for their bodies is veganism.

So my position could be that people simply shouldn't commit crimes.

Ideally, yes. But you seem to be confused. The purpose of defence lawyers isn’t to prevent people from committing crimes. That’s the job of the police (and various other agencies such as schools and social workers).

The purpose of defence lawyers is to make sure innocent people aren’t convicted of crimes they didn’t commit. They play no role at all in preventing crime; that has nothing to do with them.

No, once again, I have said several times, a criminal justice system, complete with lawyers is necessary. You are being very repetitive

I’m assuming, therefore, that you now accept that it was wrong and illogical to try to use defence law as an example of an immoral profession.

I don't even know what your point to this is. That isn't proof that I said I believe it's immoral.

I was pointing out that you seemed to be drawing a distinction between criminal defence lawyers being immoral, and criminal defence law being an immoral profession. That is not a distinction which makes any logical sense to me.

So really it's not just a case of disagreeing with animals being killed, but selecting which animals you deem it ok to kill, because it causes less harm over all.

Firstly, the definition of veganism is: a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose.

The ‘possible and practicable’ part of the definition recognises that it isn’t possible to completely mitigate the impact of our lives on those of animals. It is not possible or practicable for the vast majority of people to live in such a way as to exclude absolutely all harm caused to animals. But we believe we have a moral duty to do what we can to minimise that impact as much as we possibly can.

Secondly, do you not believe that it is worth doing something, even if we cannot do it perfectly? I believe that perfect is the enemy of good; it would be very easy and convenient and comfortable for me to say ‘I can’t stop all animal death in the world so I might as well pay for farm animals to be slaughtered for my benefit’, but it wouldn’t be right, would it?

And do you think that’s wrong? And if you don’t think it’s wrong, why do you keep bringing it up? Talk about being repetitive!

That's me again, answering one of the points you keep making. AGAIN, no I don't think it's wrong.

I gave you an alternative - veganism. What you want is yet another alternative - presumably one that’s a bit less inconvenient.

Not less inconvenient, just maybe a bit more realistic.

And the purpose of people hired to slaughter animals, is to do the job that ends the life of an animal for the purpose it was reared for. They are just a tiny part of a large system, yet so much hate for those individuals on this thread.

I’m assuming, therefore, that you now accept that it was wrong and illogical to try to use defence law as an example of an immoral profession.

Absolutely not, why would you assume that?

'Slaughter and boning are very skilled jobs. They are well paid (£15/hour) and take pride in their work. The jobs are also quite segregated so nobody goes round stabbing cows if they are having a bad day. There are really strict rules about the time limit of dispatching animals so nobody is beating them to death with pipes either.There are vets and FSA reps at sites to enforce standards.'

They take pride in their work? How noble. Doing a job because it is the only job you can find is one thing, 'taking pride' in animal slaughter is another.

Vets and fsa reps may allegedly enforce standards yet still we frequently see leaked footage of the cruel maltreatment of animals awaiting slaughter.

Firstly, the definition of veganism is: a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose.

You could cut that back even more by growing all your own crops. Do you do that?

Do you grow your own cotton and make your own clothes?

why would you assume that?

I don’t know, something to do with you failing to provide a single justification for your reasoning, backtracking wildly, and posting completely contradictory views on the matter.

I don’t know, something to do with you failing to provide a single justification for your reasoning, backtracking wildly, and posting completely contradictory views on the matter.

I haven't once done that. I get the feeling you enjoy making things up to convince yourself you have won.

I was pointing out that you seemed to be drawing a distinction between criminal defence lawyers being immoral, and criminal defence law being an immoral profession. That is not a distinction which makes any logical sense to me.

I think you are the one confusing yourself now.

You could cut that back even more by growing all your own crops. Do you do that?

As said - as far as is possible and practicable. It’s not possible or practicable for me to grow my own cotton (and would it even lead to a reduction in animal deaths if I did? Presumably I would still have to harvest is somehow).

That doesn’t mean I am justified in actively seeking the deaths of animals so I can use their bodies.

Do you think that the fact that some animals are unavoidably killed in crop production means we are justified in killing over 150 billion animals each year for the sole purpose of our using their bodies?

I haven't once done that. I get the feeling you enjoy making things up to convince yourself you have won.

You’ve moved from your initial post of Well do you think badly of people who are, say.... lawyers? and Why, lawyers knowingly help people they know are guilty of awful crimes go free.
Surely someone who knowingly helps a rapist or child abuser walk free is worse than someone who shoots a bolt of electricity through the head of a cow.

To saying that you don’t believe criminal defence lawyers are immoral, you recognise that they’re essential for our justice system, and that you would be grateful for them if you were ever accused of committing a crime.

But no, no back tracking or inconsistency to see here...

You can do whatever you like to ease your conscience, of that means being vegan then I'm all for it. I however don't see it as immoral to kill animals for their products. Obviously, I would much rather it was done as painlessly and quickly as possible, and the animals have a good life, which is why I source a lot of our meat and dairy products from local farm shops. Infact most of our red meat comes from my friends dad's farm. I don't drive passed the fields of beef cattle, that I know I will potentially be eating at some point, and feel sentimental towards the cows.