Not everyone agrees with you that raising a farm animal and killing it is in and of itself a form of violence. Certainly many forms of factory farming are absolutely abhorrent and should be eliminated, but saying that what many farmers who raise cattle, chicken, pork and a variety of animals, and do so with respect and care are engaging in a form of cruelty and violence is not an opinion everyone shares.
An animal lives a life that's part of a cycle, it's born, it grows, it has experiences and serves various purposes/functions over the course of its life, and then it dies. The fact of that animal's eventual death is not in and of itself violent, every animal eventually dies.
So how do animals die? They either die from predation, disease, or in this case from a farmer putting it to death; virtually no mammals ever die from reaching their maximum life span out in the wild and the idea that in the absence of farming you'd have cattle and pigs living free and full lives in the wild is simply not a reflection of any real-world environment.
I think it's incorrect to focus on one single aspect of raising a farm animal, its death at the hands of a farmer, and using that as sole characteristic of what it takes and what it means to raise a farm animal and judge the entire system based on that one act.
I can respect your point of view and I think we'd agree that alternatives that are more environmentally friendly and sustainable are a win, but I can't agree with you that as a matter of principle, raising a farm animal and then killing it is intrinsically violent.
Do you still think that if it applies to someone nurturing a dog to adulthood, and then stunning it, slitting its throat, and drowning it in hot blood water? Would you still accept that as the Way Things Are?
I think bringing up dogs is very interesting. Certainly in much of the Western world there is a cultural association between dogs and humans so that presenting that scenario suggests that the dog was likely killed for some kind of senseless or sadistic purpose, after all why would someone just decide to randomly kill a dog?
But plenty of Asian cultures do exactly that, they raise dogs to adulthood, and then kill it and eat that food, and while it may seem repulsive to our culture that's most likely due to different customs rather than due to logical arguments that differentiate between dogs and pigs.
So to answer your question, in principle it absolutely applies to dogs and the Asian cultures that raise dogs and then kill them and consume them is not really any different from Western cultures that raise cows and kill them and consume them.
Maybe to turn the question back to you on the subject of dogs. If I owned a dog as a pet and fed my dog food I purchased from the pet store (as opposed to letting it hunt for food around my neighborhood), am I doing something violent and potentially unethical because dogs eat meat and I purchased meat for my dog that was farmed? I agree this is an absurd scenario, but if your position is that a human killing an animal is intrinsically violent always and in and of itself, then you must conclude that anyone who owns a pet that consumes meat is also supporting a violent and immoral practice, and yet I doubt most people would be willing to stretch their definition of violence to that degree.
In my opinion your scenario is evidence that many of our perceptions on this issue are influenced not by an objective sense of morality and an extensive consideration of ethics, but an emotional and cultural feeling that we are predisposed towards, and then moral justifications are derived after the fact. Furthermore there is emerging evidence that vegetarianism is often not an ethical choice, but a matter of food preference that like many other food preferences, has genetic roots. Some people are just predisposed genetically to favor a vegetarian diet, and it's not like someone would consciously know that their food predisposition is genetic, as if some kind of message would indicate it to them, so I wouldn't be surprised if many vegetarians rationalize their choice by saying it's an ethical decision, when it's mostly a genetic decision.
That said, that doesn't invalidate arguments against killing animals anymore than my predisposition to enjoy eating meat justifies killing animals, but it does shed light on the nature of this argument and that our choices on this issue are not based on reason, however much we may wish they were.
> Furthermore there is emerging evidence that vegetarianism is often not an ethical choice
What is this evidence?
And, you didn’t really answer the question. Would you be fine with my stunning a dog, slitting it’s throat, and boiling it alive? I’m well aware of how culturally acceptable it is in other places, but i’m not asking that. Im asking if you’re cool if I do that to a dog.
I absolutely answered your question fully and honestly and I am disappointed you won't recognize that because it suggests you're not discussing this in good faith. You asked if my position applies equally to dogs and my exact answer was, and I quote:
"So to answer your question, in principle it absolutely applies to dogs..."
If I misunderstood your question then you can rephrase it. If your question wasn't about rational and ethical arguments about meat consumption, but instead personal feelings and emotions, then sure I can fully admit I am personally not cool with you going out and killing a dog because the scenario you present comes with a cultural and emotional context that I am predisposed against having been raised in the Western world.
If the purpose of your argument was that you're against killing animals for emotional reasons, then I actually respect that and have nothing against you feeling that way and encouraging others who feel the way you do to consume a vegan diet.
I think there are numerous benefits to a vegan diet, I just don't think the argument you made that we should choose it primarily on the basis that killing an animal is intrinsically violent in and of itself is a rational argument. It's a perfectly fine emotional and cultural reason to do it, and those are good reasons, but it's not a strong rational reason in so far as the arguments you've presented have not been rational.
Finally to answer your question about genetics, here is some further reading:
I believe the phrase you're thinking of is "so open-minded that your brain falls out." It's still just a way to put someone down for caring about others, but at least the metaphor works.
