Images shot during, and text inspired by, the recent Fitzwilliam College (University of Cambridge) Meat is Murder debate, involving prominent vegan advocate Joey Carbstrong.
Is meat murder? No. Meat is meat, and murder is murder. Meat is merely the flesh - the “chief part” - of a thing, be it a pineapple, mango, or animal. In the case of the latter, however, it is routinely the product of deliberate killing against the will of the subject. This forms the basis of the real question.
The real question pertains to Animal Agriculture, and the systematic forced killings of animals for food products. This involves, and follows, the forced breeding of animals to be reared until economic to be killed for their meat to be profitably extracted – a most wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary activity that is cruel, harmful to the environment, and detrimental to human health.
 |
| Joey Carbstrong speaking for the motion |
Syntactic and semantic pedantry is one thing, but it can hinder discussion on this most serious topic. Some 100-billion (non-human) animals are sent to slaughter each and every year for the meat trade. This is an urgent situation requiring a practical approach in order to ameliorate, so perhaps one should not obsess over the precise meanings of terms – it is often the way of those that seek to blinker themselves, and others, from truth to maintain the status quo.
 |
| Immediately prior to the start of the debate. "The guy in the pink shirt" hails from a University society that campaigns against Meat Free Mondays. Why anyone would oppose the reduction of meat consumption in such a way beggars belief. As to why members of one of the best universities on the planet would not advocate for veganism defies logic. Intelligence without wisdom, or intelligence that goes no further than that required for academic conformity? Perhaps just a lack of intelligence altogether |
 |
| Vote on the motion prior to the debate. "The guy in the pink shirt" opposing the motion realises he is outnumbered |
What is perhaps commonly accepted as a definition of “murder” is an unlawful killing. Commonly, that which is regarded as unlawful is considered the exclusive realm of Government policy to determine. What gives Government the authority for this? Morally, nothing. Government is nothing more than a body that enslaves an entire population. The word Government literally means mind control. Government exists to enslave, and for no other purpose. It is controlled by a satanic Mafia-like cabal that wields power, not moral authority. To trust Government is the foolish way of enslaved non-thinkers consumed by naiveté.
 |
| "If we don't farm and kill them they will take our jobs," or something like that |
Examples of what are now considered iniquities but that were once stated as lawful by Government are beyond numerous and well documented. Animal Agriculture should be added to the shameful list, yet it persists as a lawful activity under current Government policy, and is well supported as such.
 |
| "The guy in the pink shirt" won the vote for smartest haircut, or would have had there been one |
Law is the preserve of God/the Universe/Nature. Law is determined by scientific enquiry. Law is absolute – inviolable, and irrevocable. That which Government fraudulently decrees as Law is nothing more than the words of men inscribed onto paper, and until recently onto material derived from forcibly killed goats. These words cannot be Law; they are but the rules of a club, of a society. Society requires voluntary membership, especially where democracy is observed. Consent is requisite else tyranny prevails.
 |
| "We must assert our dominance over the animals or they'll take over," or something very similar |
There can be only cause and effect. Anything else is a human construct. Morality is a human construct, albeit one with a foundation in the subjective innate emotional response of an individual. Regardless, if the unnecessary forced killing of a man is tolerated within a group then such a group would likely be far removed from anything resembling harmony. Or at least this is the common belief.
 |
| In favour of the motion |
 |
| Opposed to the motion while also being in favour of it. Ethical "lab meat is not murder" |
What is a good reason to kill? This is surely the preserve of an individual to ascertain. Does anything really matter? After all, an atom is but 0.00001 % matter, ergo if matter is comprised of a thing that is mostly incorporeal then perhaps the world as we (subjectively) perceive it can only be illusory. Literally, nothing matters! However, prudence surely dictates that one's innate empathic compassion should not be ignored. Maybe the very reason for this reality is to participate in a game.
 |
| Audience participation |
If one feels a thing to be inherently right or wrong then the questions must be posed: right or wrong with respect to what, and as determined by what? If by God, then for what reason, self-preservation? Perhaps good enough, yet can selfish reasoning be the only reason one acts compassionately? Besides, why should God be obeyed? Is God anything more than a psychopath, as determined by God's Kingdom being so beset by suffering and pain? Why should such a beast as God be obeyed? Bullies and tyrants should be defied, not encouraged, unless we want to perpetuate their evil. This world and its ecology could only ever have been the result of an evil consciousness that thrives on the suffering of others, unless everything did evolve spontaneously from nothing.
 |
| For the motion |
But is not God supposed to be all-forgiving and beneficent? We, therefore, should not concern ourselves with the constant appeasement of such a loving entity. Maybe we should focus more on God's opposite – on Satan! Is not Satan the entity whose wrath we will face in the absence of adequate service? Perhaps slaughterhouse workers will be well-rewarded by Satan, and those of us that seek to end their most harmful activity will be punished. But whether or not murder is a good or bad thing was not the topic to be debated.
Back to that topic: etymologically, the word murder, at least in part, comes from the ancient Norse word morð, which means “secret slaughter.” How apt! The killing of animals for meat is, at least in the Western World, done out of sight, out of mind, and behind closed doors. It is literally slaughter done in secret. Secrecy is of primary importance to the Meat Industry as most humans that inhabit the West would be appalled by the industrial practises of the Meat Industry, and Animal Agriculture; they would speak-out in opposition, and they would revise their consumerist decisions in the event of learning the horrible truth. Further consideration would result in agreement - in consensus - with the use of the word murder.
To appease common men, the Meat Industry routinely lies through a potent bulwark of dishonest propaganda. It makes use of the, as opponents label oxymoronic, term humane slaughter. “How can the killing of an animal be humane where the animal does not want to die?” This is a question commonly posed by opponents. In practise, the economically viable (profitable) methods of slaughter currently in common use by industry are certainly anything but humane. In theory, they sound good to unthinking and unquestioning meat consumers that only have ears for that which appeases their otherwise guilty consciences. That is all the industry cares about – maintaining happy customers and their fluffy false beliefs in unicorns and rainbows.
However, in theory, surely the killing of an animal, be the animal human or non-human, can be humane if it is done without the knowledge of the subject, and without causing the subject any pain or suffering. To that end, is euthanasia not humane as practised by competent veterinary surgeons; is infanticide not humane, as described by Peter Singer? In the case of the latter, perhaps not only would it be humane as a direct act but also in that it would serve to prevent the subject from experiencing a prolonged lifetime of torment, suffering, and pain, which is almost invariably inherent otherwise. It would certainly be good for the environment, as Gaia would be saved from yet another useless eating consumer reaching maturity and leaving a wake of destruction, and causing untold harm to other sentient creatures.
But in bringing death, how can one be so arrogant as to assume anything? Is death really the end, as many scientists would have us believe? Perhaps it is the route to a new state in the path of consciousness, thus causing death can have a negative and lasting impact on a subject in ways commonly unconsidered.
This is a topic that can be discussed ad infinitum, as perhaps all topics can. Therein lies the frustration of such a debate: they are invariably fleeting, and afford no real time to delve into related issues, while their participants seek conclusion after an all too brief period. How deep does the rabbit hole go? Deeper than an evening's debate will permit one to investigate. At least debate can serve as a stimulant for intellectual exploration, and as a cerebral exercise. However, such debates do serve to perpetuate the dominance of those gifted in public rhetoric, and this is perhaps one of the most harmful of practises as empirically demonstrated constantly by the nefarious manipulators that form the puppets of Government. It is substance that counts, not the oratory performance of one that seeks to exploit, or at least it should be if we value a peaceable world.
