Please don't take HN threads further into flamewar. Instead, take this guideline to heart:

"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Oh, you see, that's easy — a serial killer kills people. Is it maybe more moral not to think about where your meat comes from? If you are eating meat, but you can't contemplate the death of the animal that provided it, maybe you're not as morally elevated as you think.

Note that I said nothing about morals or being morally elevated. Just that what you said could have been a line from Silence of the Lambs.

I think it's our automatic defensiveness about having our morals questioned that leads to all these strange, weak arguments (e.g. "powerful psychological effect to eating meat").

Instead of doubling down on our position to mentally justify our possible transgressions, one alternate possibility is to recognize the real negative impacts of our actions and work towards limiting our meat consumption and promoting substitutes.

As an aside, based off of what you said about falafels and shiitake mushrooms, it sounds like you maybe haven't tried a lot of common meat substitutes that are already difficult to distinguish from processed meats (things like Morning Star Grillers Original that I've gotten from a bunch of grocery stores).

That's an interesting response, and one that would make sense from a vegetarian. But you ignore the main point of my reply: I eat meat with the ramifications of my actions in full view, and you eat meat even though you find the thought of the animals previous life and death comparable to the musings of a serial killer. Then, having made that comparison, you suggest that you weren't discussing morals.

What, pray tell, was the point of comparing my motivations to those of a serial killer, if not to make a suggestion as to the morality of my reasoning? I welcome a discussion of morality; I'd hold that it's key to the matter of eating animals.

(As to your aside, I've tried a number of those products, and they are just fine. So is homemade seitan. But they provide a different experience from meat, for the "strange, weak" reason I related above.)

There are a lot of things we do out of convenience that we don't delight in, like walking over ants. There's a distinct difference between welcoming an easy alternative to walking over ants and delighting in squishing them under your feet (regardless of how brazenly you celebrate your actions).

Are you suggesting that you eat meat because paying $10/pound for a mediocre steak that gives you the moral willies is honestly more convenient than buying a can of beans and taking a vitamin supplement? I'm saying I delight in eating the flesh of an animal, and that knowing I gave it a comfortable, healthy life and a merciful death contributes to that pleasure.

Your reasoning is pretty waffly and evasive to serve as a basis for comparing someone to a serial killer — which, as you may have noticed, I resent, as I consider almost anyone would.

> Are you suggesting that eating meat because paying $10/pound for a mediocre steak that gives you the moral willies is honestly more convenient than buying a can of beans and taking a vitamin supplement?

Humans naturally enjoy meat. As such, we have to go out of our way and sacrifice a little enjoyment if we want to be vegetarians (which I believe is the true reason you argue for meat). I don't really follow your argument that it would be more convenient to avoid all meat in our society in exchange for a can of beans and a vitamin. The crux of what PG was saying is that making it more convenient to avoid meat will lead to less meat consumption, which is hard to argue with.

> I'm saying I delight in eating the flesh of an animal, and that knowing I gave it a comfortable, healthy life and a merciful death contributes to that pleasure. Your reasoning is pretty waffly and evasive to serve as a basis for comparing someone to a serial killer — which, as you may have noticed, I resent, as I consider almost anyone would.

That resentment is what I previously referred to defensiveness of having your morals questioned. Of course you resent comparisons to your actions to things society has already deemed inappropriate. Whether those comparisons are justified or not is up to you (and society), but you don't make it easy on yourself with your particular brand of justifications (which sound deranged). Imagine if you raised a child or pet dog, cut them open and ate them with the justification "that knowing I gave it a comfortable, healthy life and a merciful death contributes to that pleasure". The difference between murdering your pet dog and a pet pig are very slim in our society already, so I wonder how you'd imagine you sound if you just drew the line a little bit differently.

> That resentment is what I previously referred to defensiveness of having your morals questioned.

You mean when you compared my thinking to that of a serial killer, and called them hard to distinguish? Which, as I've expressed, is a conversational gambit unlikely to arouse sympathy? Yes, I found that put me on the defensive a bit. Did you notice that it didn't make me suddenly see your point in a blinding Damascus flash of light?

Here in is what triggered the negative reaction to your most-parent comment.

> There's no substitute for the flesh of an animal — especially one I raised, where I know its diet, its experiences, and how it was slaughtered and butchered

> I'm saying I delight in eating the flesh of an animal, and that knowing I gave it a comfortable, healthy life and a merciful death contributes to that pleasure.

The former comment can be misconstrued to mean that 1) you revel in the power you have over animals you raise or 2) you enjoy the process of slaughtering an animal, in of itself.

The latter comment makes it clear that your intent is to give animals the best life possible (given your decision to eat meat).

On the contrary, contemplating the death of the animal that provided it is the primary reason I am compelled to eat less meat. I find it difficult to imagine that contemplating the death of an animal might have any other effect.

It sounds like you're attacking the parent commenter's morality as a way of defending your own actions' morality.

However, it's entirely possible that both parent commenter's actions AND your actions are immoral. In other words, the claim that "ignorant meat eating" is immoral doesn't make "aware meat eating" moral.

I think one argument you could make is that animals are somehow not worthy of the same just actions we deem humans to worthy of. But, if we value animals to the same degree we value humans, most ppl would deem your actions to be immoral.

I'm sorry anyone brought out a serial killer comparison. Our dominant culture for decades has provided the belief that eating animals is natural, normal and necessary.

Some plant-based advocates suffer from amnesia where they forget they ever ate meat, along with the beliefs they held at the time to justify it.

People are sentient beings. Animals we kill and eat are sentient beings.