90% of all people I believe are good people though who have no interest in  harming others.  They may eat meat, but they eat meat with the idea that they animals they consumed didn't suffer before they died (even if it isn't true), they are just ignorent of the facts.  I have know a lot more good people in my life then bad, even if they ate meat.  I have had total strangers give me shelter when I totalled my car hitting a dear in their house while I waited for the tow truck.  I have had total strangers pull over to help me change my tire when it was flat.  I have had neighbors invite me in for hot cocoa and cookies.  I have met so many good good people who are made of gold.  Yes, I have met aweful people as well, have had things stolen, etc, but these people are few and far between. 

Don't give up on humanity, people are good, they really are.  And like the dog analogy, I believe the same goes for people, if people are treated bad by others they tend to become bad themselves, just like a dog.  It is the way of things.

What I bolded seems incredibly naive. However I would agree if you mean that there seems to be in general a lot more in the way of malicious intent in actions that cause unnecessary suffering.
I think humans on the whole due to most us being rational beings have a greater understanding of empathy on the whole as a concept.
That said I wouldn't say that that's clear in certain cases (like maternal instinct, or companion animals, and some of the social bonds, but where those bonds may not exist it seems a lot more clear cut).
Essentially I'd argue due to our ability to think in a critical matter we can view things in a way closer to objectivity.

Of course it may seem naive- I actually thought about that as I typed it. And sure I may be biased due to my own personal history, but I felt the same way before I lost most hope for humanity. Although humans may have a broader ability to think critically and objectively, ability doesn't mean it's going to be used. Just look at how much meat alternatives have progressed over the years- and although it's well known that meat isn't a necessary component in one's diet and there are so many other options, most people won't use them. Just because they can doesn't mean they will.

Again I agree mainly with you but I disagree over a minor point.
I think most do critically think, but they don't like what they find, and so they ignore things as best they can and go into denial.
This seems especially true of many adults I've spoken to.

I would love to agree with you that most people think critically about their choices and then enter a state of denial, but I have to say that where I live now does not fall into this category. I'm surrounded by some of the dumbest, most backwoods people on the planet who cannot form coherent sentences or actually finish high school. I cannot muster enough naivety to pretend that these people have even considered the consequences of any of their choices, let alone even thought about where their meat comes from or how they should treat their animals. There's a lot of work to do in the world.

Indiana, and this place is really conservative, quite racist/sexist/bigoted, really Republican, and really in love with their guns and large trucks.

Not everywhere in Indiana is like this, but I guess I just got the luck of the draw.

Indiana, and this place is really conservative, quite racist/sexist/bigoted, really Republican, and really in love with their guns and large trucks.

Not everywhere in Indiana is like this, but I guess I just got the luck of the draw.

I don't understand how people can remain in a place which seems to be filled to the brim with other people holding the opposite opinions and ways of thinking.

Kudos to you and all in your position who stand up with such bravery.

http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?p=24001710#post24001710

http://www.veganfitness.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=20679

These threads will be of interest to you.
I can understand the sentiment but I think there isn't a good way to apply it.

I don't think those threads relate to my point at all.

I'm not saying I think it's ok. I'm saying I think it's a step in the right direction, for omnis to at least start thinking about exactly where their food comes from, and what was done to get it onto the plate. If someone is going to eat a chicken -- which I would certainly encourage them not to do -- I'd much rather they get it from a small-scale local individual farmer, who treated it respectfully while it was alive, rather than as a nonliving thing...  still sucks; still wish I could change it; but I do think it's better than complete apathy from the omnis, about the animals they're eating. It's at least a starting point: by conceding that animal treatment is a factor worthy of attention, I think for a lot of folks it could be kind of a 'first step on the path' of moving away from eating them as much (or, ideally, at all).

The 'humane slaughter/ organic/ grass-fed' whatever may still be messed up; but at least (for those who won't give up animal foods), the creatures tend to suffer less, and the environmental impact is less... And I think it represents an important growing awareness among omnis that what we've BEEN doing, with animal food production, is a BAD idea. And on THAT, I can totally agree! Maybe further revelations will follow, the more they explore & consider the issues involved.

So my point is that, even if I don't agree with the conclusions they reach, I think it's a positive thing for omnis to think about what they're eating, in terms of ethics/ health/ eco-impact... I think almost anything is better than the blind apathy that has been the omni-norm up until now.

I'm in AR: outside the central metro areas, most places are REALLY REALLY REALLY conservative and meat-centric, with bacon treated as a mandatory ingredient in practically every course of every meal... and most folks I work with, or whatever, don't know and don't care where their food comes from... I think anything but THIS situation is a step up!

Both threads are about the application of causing less pain to animals whilst still using them for food, I'm not sure how they wouldn't be able to relate to your point. It's just that they're negative points instead of positive points.
One thread is about the slaughter of animals raised in 'more humane farms' and the other is about taking away the ability to feel (as in physically feel) sensations like pain. Clearly if you don't feel that either are related in anyway...what do you even mean by 'humanely'?

Now I think of course one animal suffers x amount, another y amount, the x amount is less bad.
But the applications of both seemed ultimately doomed to fail without dire consequences for humans or instead embracing speciesism.

Both threads are about the application of causing less pain to animals whilst still using them for food, I'm not sure how they wouldn't be able to relate to your point. It's just that they're negative points instead of positive points.

No: it's that I'm not advocating the position that these threads make negative points *about*.

I'm saying, I agree with you that the application of 'humane slaughter' is not possible; but I'm glad people who DO eat meat are rethinking the current industrial-animal-ag system, which in my opinion does more harm than organic/ individual/ pasturing/ 'humane' farmers do... NOT that it's a good idea; but that it's good for omnis to start thinking about the ethics of meat production, towards the goal of a less-harm option.

Even if I don't agree with their conclusions, in my opinion it's better than them not thinking about it at all: a start in the right direction, perhaps, at least for some people. Change in small steps is better than no change at all. That's my point, to which the above threads are irrelevant.

I'm sorry but the genetical engineering should be especially important to you with regards to this topic.
Because that's an application of it that seems to lead to the opposite point. It's a very good way to not think about things.
On the other hand with the organic topic that merely shows that this right direction is still being applied very badly.
It's a much better way of pointing out the issues with the positions than the usual line of debates; "but you're still killing the animal". It takes it a step further and marks up the general attitude of the industry.

well hotcooknmama: i understand exactly what your trying to say and it makes sense to me and is very well spoken (or well... typed)... people in general need to be more conscience of what they're eating... they need to start thinking about the animals on their plate differently... people will probably always eat carcass, but if that animal being eaten at least had some descent kind of existence beforehand... like grassy fields and the sun... then that would be a step in the right direction... then at least farm animals would have had somewhat of an enjoyable existence before they were slaughtered for gluttony

I've also heard the opposite argument... that by people buying "free range" this and "humanely"-whatever that, they're reaffirming the myth that using animals this way can be ethical, and that therefore their slaughter is justified.

I think that's a very valid point... clearly we don't wanna send the message 'it's ok to do it if...' I guess for me there are some gray areas, when dealing with omnis; on the one hand I want to encourage people to think about what they eat, and try to make ethical food decisions (even if it's not what *I* see as ethical), rather than going by blind convenience... Maybe because long ago, that was me: early in the transformation to planteater, I looked into whether there was a way to be an ethical meat-eater (nope!), so 'organic free-range chicken' was kind of a 'gateway food' for me, on the path to tempeh! Seems like several omnis I know may be on this kind of path, and I want to encourage them to keep striving for more ethical food choices... On the other hand, I DO see the potential problems with appearing to 'condone' any kind of meat production...

Sometimes it's hard to see the best path. I tend to think that factory-farming (along with Monsanto!) is the devil, and anything that hurts it has at least some social value; and I tend to think that thoughtful consumerism is always better than apathy. But I definitely see your point.

I guess that's all a little sideways from the original question here (sorry! my fault!), which is whether WE would eat it. For any veg-head I know, it makes no difference whatsoever how the animal was raised or killed... I can't imagine saying, 'yeah, ok, that baby cow was killed really kindly, so I think I'll have the veal parmesan!'

Ew, ew, ew, ew, ew...

For me, the line in the sand is killing in the absence of need... HOW you arrange the killing really doesn't matter a bit. Hopefully, more and more consumers of 'humanely slaughtered' (?!) animals will eventually share that sort of conclusion.

I see your point and pretty much agree with you, Hotcooknmama.  I don't think it's ok to eat "free-range meat" or drink "happy cow" milk, but it's a step in the right direction.  Not only does it mean that people are more aware of what they're eating, but quite a few people I know have greatly decreased their meat consumption since eating "free-range."  They decided that they don't want factory farmed stuff, but free range meat is a lot more expensive, so they are eating less of it.

Awareness leads to progress.