I have no real problem with the killing of humans, as long as they are complete strangers who are supporting a cause which I find morally repugnant. The guys defending the beaches in Normandy on D-Day were more than capable of expressing affection - many of them had wives and children who they loved very much. But I don't have a strong objection to them being killed; I feel that it was necessary for the greater good of humanity, and in particular of my family and friends.
Had I been involved in some way in the planning, i would have had no qualms about inventing ways to kill those defenders more efficiently. I would like to think that I would prefer more humane options for killing them as quickly and painlessly as possible, so i probably would have advised against the use of poison gas, for example - but even that advice would be more based on not wanting to provoke the Nazis into using poison gas against my family and friends.
Animals? Same deal. Hurt my dog, and I will fucking hammer you. But some cow that I have never met? I have no problem with its being killed so that I can have a nice steak - as long as it is done as humanely as is practical.
There's a Blue-Tounged Skink living under a rock in my backyard. It has never shown the slightest affection towards me; But I would be sad if I saw it hurt or killed, and if it was under attack (perhaps by my dog) I would defend it. I kinda like having it around the place.
People's emotional ties to other animals (including, but certainly not limited to, other humans) are rarely rational or easily understood. We form bonds with those individuals we interact with, and extend our friendship to those who are similar to those we interact with. And we care little about the rest.
I care about the killing, even for food, of dogs I have never met; But not so much with cows. Probably because I don't know many cows.
Of course, it's also worth considering that those animals we humans farm are far more numerous in the world than similar species we do not farm. If people stopped eating beef, the world population of beef cattle would quickly plummet. If we stopped eating pork, pigs could become an endangered species. If we eschewed both eggs and chicken, poultry would be reduced to paltry numbers.
So even if you decide that you like pigs (in general, not one specific individual pig), deciding not to eat pork might be counterproductive.
It's a complicated situation; Simple answers (of any kind) are probably not going to lead to desirable outcomes.
Sorry I know you had a lot to say here but this argument always kinda bugs me. As if cattle and pigs were capable of even envisioning their species in a macro sense or capable of appreciating the psuedo-symbiotic relationship they share with humans. What's more, even if they were, I would think it'd be a cold comfort next to having your entire species, everyone you know or will ever know, being penned in and harvested for sustinence and goods made from your flesh.
it'd be like if aliens thought us people were delicious and decided to capture our entire race and then seed us across the galaxy so they could better harvest us. The fact that humans are now a pan-galactic species would be a pretty small consolation for knowing that you're predestined to die once you hit maturity (Potentially sooner, if they found baby/child meat to be particularly tasty!)
Sorry, I just think that one particular argument is really dumb. It was dumb when the AmazingAthiest made it and its dumb now.
Now would you agree that there is a distinct moral/ethical difference between murdering someone who's actions will directly harm or threaten others, some of whom you may know and love and murdering someone who had nothing to do with anything, but was just minding thier own business? Does an animal's ability to emote (Communicate) to or with you not in itself have any value to you whatsoever?