So did I, only to find out much later that they were not really Hungarian, most of them. They were Grimm and Anderson and translated from German - sort of pan-European fairy tales. The illustrator dressed Hansel and Gretel in a different national costume, but the witch a leftover from medieval Christian boogie-lore. They all bear the imprint of Imperial civilization: monarchy, the importance of power, wealth and glitz, with an overlay of the bootstap mythos. — Vera Mont

There was no "proposition". — Vera Mont

There was an argument, then, not a proposition.

This is why all peasant revolutions in the middle ages failed. They had the power, they had the numbers, but they had not the idea.
— god must be atheist

Or any weapons, supplies, fortifications, armour, horses, trained leaders or soldiers. I don't think an idea would have got them past the moat. — Vera Mont

At least two peasant uprising has had those: That of Dozsa Gyorgy and that of Geyer Florian. Maybe more had it, too.

I think I smell arrogance — Benj96

Yes, your sense of smell is right. I noticed that Vera was upset at anything, even facts, and definitely of opinions, that gave more weight to the then contemporary situation than to left wing truths that are known now. I am definitely a leftie, but I am able to put myself into the era's historical reality, I BELIEVE (but can't prove it) better than Vera. This is why I became arrogant: because she was unable to adjust her thinking mode that was necessary to assert the situation. She thought as a modern leftie, and she was unable to see that in that era the reality had no relevance to her sentiments now.

This was going to be a tiresome and ardorous, long strife, and I predicted a no-win situation that only had a chance to escalate opposing opinions (or rather, incongruent opinions) and had not a chance to meet in a convergent point at all.

I only know Vera Mont is a female because you referred to her as such. She may be a male, but you told me otherwise.

I apologize to Vera for my arrogance, regardless of her gender.

even facts — god must be atheist

Interesting. What's the difference between a fact and a belief in your views?

This is why I became arrogant: because she was unable to adjust her thinking mode that was necessary to assert the situation. — god must be atheist

Is that not just saying I became arrogant because she was unable to agree with my arrogance (the situation asserted/proposed by you).

And if your beliefs are truly better (more ethical and more reasonable) than hers wouldn't they be less likely to cause her harm/upset her.

Usually when we argue and the other person gets upset, regardless of whether you have a personal logic for your points/beliefs, something has obviously gone wrong - not considering the others beliefs as valid within context.

We can usually always resolve conflict through establishing the full context of both points of views and why they are valid to both people even if they conflict with one another without context.

no-win situation that only had a chance to escalate opposing opinions — god must be atheist

I think it does have a chance to escalate for sure. But never forget the second option is simply to "agree to disagree". Basically saying I respect your decision to continue your belief despite me not understanding it personally.and vice versa. That way you can part ways on an endless argument without either feeling particularly attacked.

I often see arguments in this forum get personal. And start to approach direct character degrading tactics rather than calm discussion based on how frustrated/how badly one wants to convince someone else on their views (how correct they think they are).

I haven't even escaped that dynamic myself on occasion, it's very easy to happen. That's why we have ethics for tolerances sake.

FTR - All assertions and assumptions regarding my state of mind are incorrect. I do not read other people's thoughts and emotions; I simply answer their written words to extent I see them as applicable to the topic. If I got "upset" at the opinions of anonymous strangers in cyberspace, I'd have imploded 2 decades ago. Nitpickery aside, I think I have already covered this topic to the best of my ability.

You sound like one of those "landing men on the moon" nay-sayers from 1950s, frank. :smirk: :point:

https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/17/health/fda-lab-meat-cells-scn-wellness/index.html

Since the early 90’s I have been of the opinion that if you are repulsed by the idea of killing and butchering an animal, not willing to kill butcher, then you should not eat meat.

I would happily pay extra to kill the animal I eat because I find it more upsetting not knowing how the animal I am eating died.

I do not think in many places around the world people are disconnected from the death of animals. In western societies this is likely more true given the extent to which supermarkets have taken over.

I would happily pay extra to kill the animal I eat because I find it more upsetting not knowing how the animal I am eating died. — I like sushi

That' too, can only happen in a country where some people are rich enough to buy that luxury. If 8 billion of us started hunting for our dinner, we wouldn't have many dinners before all the animals were gone.

Since the early 90’s I have been of the opinion that if you are repulsed by the idea of killing and butchering an animal, not willing to kill butcher, then you should not eat meat.

I would happily pay extra to kill the animal I eat because I find it more upsetting not knowing how the animal I am eating died. — I like sushi

I agree I think killing your own food is a sad but intimate and important moment between you and the animal and ideally would not be conveniently ignored for the sake of thoughtless consumption of neatly packed pre prepared meat that is totally disconnected from the animals life.

One must reckon with themselves as a taker of life if they are to be actually grateful for the food. We have been hunter's for far longer than we have been supermarket consumers.

You're less likely to over indulge if you have to hunt the animal yourself.

If 8 billion of us started hunting for our dinner, we wouldn't have many dinners before all the animals were gone. — Vera Mont

But do we not kill more animals through the easily justified demand of conveniently buying a pack of burgers say, in the supermarket. We would not eat as many animals if we had to get down and dirty about it I would imagine.

I never said anything about hunting.

But do we not kill more animals through the easily justified demand of conveniently buying a pack of burgers say, in the supermarket. — Benj96

Those are manufactured animals, designed and produced for the meat market, treated as commodities their. They won't go extinct unless humans stop breeding them.

Many meat-eaters,
[Not including I like sushi, who must have been talking about farm animals, which was unclear to me at the time]
claim that hunting for our food is natural and noble and all that guff. So they buy a hunting license, binoculars, devices that make a sound like the animal's call, skinning knives and high-powered rifles with infra red scopes, dress up in padded camo gear and water-proof boots, drive their SUV's out on the well-paved highway to some remnant of forest and shoot an animal or bird that's got no defense and no place to hide. Hunting is a luxury for privileged citizens of the rich countries and a daily chore for a few natives in remote jungles that haven't been bulldozed yet. It's not an option available to the vast majority of humans.

Meanwhile, many rural citizens of both rich and poor countries do kill their own livestock - which has been specially bred for that purpose over hundreds of generations. The animal in question is tame, docile and captive; requires no stamina or courage or skill to dispatch. The prosperous farmer or his wife routinely choose a victim for supper and chop off its (not his or her: these animals are objects) head. Prosperous independent farmers grow scarcer as land grows more expensive and mortgage rates shoot up. The poor farmer only kills his non-saleable livestock for special occasions and in exceptional circumstances. (Like Tevye says in Fiddler on the Roof, "When a poor man eats a chicken, one of them is sick”)

Yes, there are different ways and reasons to kill one's own food. Even a homeless man in the park may treat himself to the odd pigeon, squirrel or lost cat. Is it better than eating mass-produced meat? I don't know. It's more direct, more efficient, to eliminate middle-men, packaging and transport. It's probably less wasteful and may be less cruel. I know that when I had to choose between killing chickens and not eating chicken, I chose the latter. I know it's less messy.

I am not at all convinced that many meat-eaters care to hunt?

I think you may have assumed this because it was correctly pointed out that humans have a long history of hunting and gathering and that we are omnivores. Even the OP asked about people going directly to the slaughterhouse rather than prancing about in a forest with a rifle.

Hunting is for the romantic and is a necessary part of managing wildlife in some situations.

Hunting is a luxury for privileged citizens of the rich countries and a daily chore for a few natives in remote jungles that haven't been bulldozed yet. It's not an option available to the vast majority of humans. — Vera Mont

You're right it isn't available to the majority. But what if at a butcher you had a holding pen. And had to kill the animal yourself. The butcher would then prepare the meat for you to take home.
That way one takes person responsibility for eating meat and all that ought to be recognised when doing so. The animals life namely. And it is accesible and doesn't require all the hunting gear and travel to remote locations.

It's basically making the abbatoire accesible to the public and insisting that "look... If you want to eat it, reckon with your taste for it and do the deed. Otherwise here's some delicious vegetables and nuts etc if that seems more appetising."

This would be sure to reduce the sheer volume of meat we consume and the pressure we place on the environment to feed 8 billion apex predators whilst not denying people the right to eat what they want.

I'm not suggesting hunting in the typical sense. But doing what a hunter does. Kill their food.

I am not at all convinced that many meat-eaters care to hunt? — I like sushi

Neither am I. And that's the kernel that vegans hang their argument on. That we treat animals as objects and don't care for the fact that they're living things in need of empathy.

We avoid/deny as much as possible the fact that they have to be killed by letting it be done out of sight out of mind on a mass production scale. And then collect our pretty little meat parcels at the shop.

We don't have to see the fear in their eyes when we slaughter them, we just enjoy the spoils thoughtlessly and that luxury is putting incredible strain on the sustainability of the ecosystem and global climate.

I'm not sure if that is a very balanced approach to what food means to us.

Speaking for myself I do not avoid such thoughts at all. Maybe a good number of people do? I have no data to suggest most do or do not.

From personal experience, asking people, I have in the UK women are not willing to kill to eat but men never seem as fussed … maybe that is simply due to me having asked people I know rather than strangers, but I have no male friends I can think of, past or present, that would shy away from it.

but I have no male friends I can think of, past or present, that would shy away from it. — I like sushi

Interesting. I wonder why that is.

Probably because people with the same kind of views tend to gravitate towards each other. Point being it can be very dangerous to assume what everyone thinks and feels about a subject based on a very limited selection … in most circumstances that is (but in limited selections some rigour must be applied for there to be any reason to take it as meaningful).

I have no reason to believe most people would not wish to ignore that they are eating a dead animal. The world is currently full of brainwashed idiots and propaganda is likely at its highest point in human history too thanks to this ‘wonder’ we talk mass media.

All I know is we are all stupid and we will all die. I will continue to eat meat without an ounce of guilt and scoff at those who simply regurgitate swaddle they saw on some twitter/youtube/instagram horror show of manipulation misinformation born out of boredom and attention-seeking arm waving hysteria.

Interesting response eh? Or is it just more drivel in the ever widening cesspool of disconnected human interactions just before humans become other-than-human?

Probably because people with the same kind of views tend to gravitate towards each other — I like sushi

I agree.

All I know is we are all stupid and we will all die. — I like sushi

Not sure if everyone is equally as stupid as one another. I think some people are more clued in, and adaptable thus. Is intelligence not the ability to survive against the odds through recognising and adapting to life-threatening processes (climate change for example) that others persist in ignoring?

Interesting response eh? Or is it just more drivel in the ever widening cesspool of disconnected human interactions just before humans become other-than-human? — I like sushi

It is certainly interesting for sure. I'm not sure disconnected, uncooperative humans can create anything "other-than human". At most they can created a squabble about what it already is/means to be human.

I think we must overcome this tension between us in order to create things beyond ourselves.

Even the OP asked about people going directly to the slaughterhouse rather than prancing about in a forest with a rifle. — I like sushi

And I responded to that. I don't claim to know or understand the mind-set of people who kill; I can only go by what some of them write on forums.

Hunting is for the romantic and is a necessary part of managing wildlife in some situations. — I like sushi

In situations of humans' own making. Like protecting our livestock that's grazing on land we took from the forest, from predators we have deprived of hunting ground, by hunting the predators, and then protecting our crops and grazing land by hunting down the herbivores that would have been kept in check by the predators we killed. Man, the manager.

But what if at a butcher you had a holding pen. And had to kill the animal yourself. The butcher would then prepare the meat for you to take home. — Benj96

Just the fun and none of the work? Cool! How did the animal get into the pen? Where was it before, and in what conditions? Killing is the very least of what we do to animals - it's more a blessed release than a harm. I've lived on farms and been there for the whole process. On a small family farm, it's all intimate, from the hatching or farrowing, through daily feeding and mucking out, to the butchering and processing. I've rendered pig-fat and washed out intestines for sausage. (There's a fun job for the kids!) I didn't do the killing. After the first time we had a professional in for the pigs, my brother resolved, never again. The next year, he shot them himself: one bullet between the eyes, fall over like a log, no running around and screaming.

I did not like any of it, but it was a hellova lot nicer that the gathering up the 8,000 10-week-olf chickens our neighbour had raised in one big dark room of a barn, packed in so tight, the only way they could try to get away was climbing on top of each other, trampling to death a few at the bottom. Acceptable financial losses, to be cleaned and frozen by the farmer for his own use. This was a small, one-man operation; he hired local teenagers, on piece-work at crating time. Imagine that on industrial scale. Chicken-wranglers go a little mental.

And that's [that many meat-eaters care to hunt] the kernel that vegans hang their argument on. — Benj96

I don't think it is. It's not the killing they object to, it's the cruelty.

"We shouldn’t be cruel to animals, i.e. we shouldn’t harm animals unnecessarily.

This principle is common sense, and it’s also contained in our animal protection laws, which testifies to its being generally accepted."
They simply extend it from dogs and horses to include cattle, pigs and fowls.
"Animals often suffer terribly as a result of overbreeding, from dreadful conditions on farms, during transportation and in the slaughterhouse. Studies show that stunning fails regularly. The egg industry painfully gasses all male chicks right after they hatch."
It doesn't mention the cage size or de-beaking.

but I have no male friends I can think of, past or present, that would shy away from it. — I like sushi

Interesting. I wonder why that is. — Benj96

Probably because most of them have not actually done it and experienced the mess and the smell or had to skin and gut anything. But then, many have served in the armed forces - women too, now - and been inured to violent death.

I will continue to eat meat without an ounce of guilt and scoff at those who simply regurgitate swaddle they saw on some twitter/youtube/instagram horror show of manipulation misinformation born out of boredom and attention-seeking arm waving hysteria. — I like sushi

Well, good for you! No glib generalizing or stereotyping there!

I can see you are a moron now. Thanks :)

Thanks — I like sushi

Any time!